Global Journal of Science Frontier Research, H: Environment & Earth Science, Volume 23 Issue 5

It is therefore crucial to take into account the needs of varying groups, minorities, and those that are very vulnerable to climate change impacts when planning the distribution of climate finance. Additionally, in the planning process, the needs and future requirements of the younger generations is to be accounted for. vi. Inter-Sectoral Equity: Diversity From the foregoing, it goes without saying that there is a need for recognition of different social groups as a precursor to maldistribution (Honneth, 1996, Taylor, 1994, Young, 1990). A justice perspective poses key questions related to who those groups are to adapt to and under what circumstances. In other words, to what extent are the adaption process and mechanisms fair to the bigger society and respective groups and communities? Is there a commitment to demonstrate fairness, or it is underpinned by a rule of thumb that only corroborates the existing structural, economic, and political order where resources flow to the rich and those connected? Fraser (1995) contends that recognition should be considered alongside distribution, exploring who is included and excluded in decision-making processes. This framework argues for the need to account for the various identity groups and spatial locations as well as minorities who are affected by climate risks to ensure equity in the process. vii. Power Dynamics and Relationships Fraser highlights the prominence of power in influencing justice (Fraser, 2014). The need to allow various groups and individuals to participate in decision- making processes. The ability to influence decisions and resource flow depends on the extent to which people are made to participate in the process. This point has been observed Fraser (2007) that ‘’the capacity to influence public debate and authoritative decision- making depends not just on rational decision structures but also on power relations engrained in the economic order and social standing” (p.31). viii. Commitment of Pledges and Ndcs Caney (2010) contends that social justice approaches to mitigation generally put a premium on the ‘polluter pays’ approach as well as the ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ norm. These principles reckon the remarkable responsibility as well as the distinct ability of states to honour some payments using their positioning in the global economic order. Climate justice research views climate change impacts vis-a-vis those countries, sectors, communities, or individuals that are responsible for the greatest CO 2 and greenhouse gas emissions (Schlosberg & Collins, 2014; Hayward, 2006). Climate justice considers three forms of equity whose violation would constitute injustice that limits the capabilities of an individual or group to maintain a high quality of life in the face of climate change (Agyeman et al., 2016). A major rationale put forward to explain why advanced countries make available or ought to arrange for climate finance to developing countries involve arguments such as addressing moral imperatives to atone for historical responsibility or culpability in global emissions (Meyer, 2013). V. C onclusions and P olicy I mplications From the framework and discussion, the study makes the following key conclusions and proffers the following policy implications. Firstly, the study concludes that climate financing has not been adequately used as a tool or mechanism to demonstrate justice and fairness in the global distribution of climate resources. The extant literature could not provide uniform evidence to demonstrate a positive relationship between vulnerability, poor coping mechanisms, and receipt of climate finance. More worrisome is more recent literature even points to negative relationships as sub- Saharan Africa and South Asia which are more vulnerable have been called out due to poor relative receipts. The study concludes that other factors other than vulnerability underpin the distribution of global climate finance because more vulnerable spatial locations and groups have not been the greatest recipients. This study argues for the need to disaggregate spatial entities to unpack those regions and sub-regions as well as groups that are greatly susceptible to climate impacts to receiving greater flows of climate finance. There is a need to conceptualize vulnerability more effectively. This study agrees with the extant literature that ‘‘how vulnerability is defined and measured is key to climate justice as it subsequently affects the types of actions taken to respond to climate change and determines who will benefit and how from these actions (see Burnham et al. 2013 p. 242). This position has been given support by O’Brien et al. (2007) that a localized operationalization of vulnerability emerged as a moral response to observed social inequities in the impacts of social and environmental change’’ (Eakin et al., 2009: 214). Secondly, the study concludes that the inability of most groups and entities to access global climate finance has been inadequate technical details and lapses in the application process as well as capacity challenges of the recipient entities. Additionally, this study concludes that promoting justice in climate financing requires a systems approach that entails a need to focus on both the social and ecological aspects of climate actions and interventions. We put forward that in as much as targeting individuals to be able to adapt and mitigate © 2023 Global Journals 1 Year 2023 25 Global Journal of Science Frontier Research Volume XXIII Issue ersion I VV ( H ) Climate Vulnerability, Justice, and Financing Nexus: A Case for Optimizing Climate Interventions