In a recent Perspective¹, Zimm et al. argued that “there is no consistent approach to comprehensively incorporate and examine justice considerations” in climate research. While we welcome the attention of the authors and the journal to climate justice, we find that Zimm et al. replicate a number of forms and practices of injustice and fail to recognize and include the history and breadth of environmental and climate justice scholarship. In other words, the paradox of the paper by Zimm et al. is that it unwittingly contributes to the very problem it wants to address.

Zimm et al. suggest that the “absence of a broad shared understanding of justice” stems from a lack of clarity and consistency, requiring cross-disciplinary translation and a novel framework. In reality, existing scholarship on environmental justice² and climate justice³ has examined the intersection of climate change and social inequality for many decades. This literature emerged from both social and scholarly movements producing a wealth of cross-disciplinary frameworks, principles and concepts that are clear and consistent. By failing to engage with the existing work on climate justice, Zimm et al. miss important historical and contemporary insights on the intersecting crises of climate change and social injustice, and how to study it.

在最近的 Perspective¹ 中，Zimm 等人认为，在气候研究中“没有一致的方法来全面纳入和审查正义考虑”。虽然我们欢迎作者和期刊对气候正义的关注，但我们发现 Zimm 等人复制了许多不公正的形式和做法，未能认识到和包括环境和气候正义学术的历史和广度。换句话说，Zimm 等人的论文的悖论在于，它无意中促成了它想要解决的问题。

Zimm 等人认为，“缺乏对正义的广泛共识”源于缺乏明确性和一致性，需要跨学科翻译和新颖的框架。实际上，几十年来，关于环境正义² （environmental justice） 和气候正义³ （climate justice） 的现有学术研究一直在研究气候变化和社会不平等的交叉点。这些文献来自社会和学术运动，产生了大量清晰一致的跨学科框架、原则和概念。由于未能参与现有的气候正义工作，Zimm 等人错过了关于气候变化和社会不公正的交叉危机以及如何研究它的重要历史和当代见解。