A Just Transition for All: A Q&A with J. Mijin Cha

Any realistic solution to our climate crisis demands a dramatic move away from fossil fuels to less greenhouse gas-intensive energy sources. A transition of this scale would require dramatic — but essential — changes to our economic structure and social order.

How can we ensure that a fossil fuel phase-out doesn’t leave anyone behind? That’s the question climate policy expert J. Mijin Cha has been seeking to answer in her research for years, compiled and refined in her new book A Just Transition For All: Workers and Communities for a Carbon-Free Future.

The term “just transition” has become a catch-all for discussions about how to safeguard workers and communities dependent on the fossil fuel economy after dismantling its industries. In this book, Cha breaks down what it’ll take to achieve an energy transition that can be rightfully considered “just.”

A transition requires a transition. Bear with the tautology: No real decarbonization project has yet been undertaken to completion. While renewable production has increased in recent years, that growth has been additive  — oil and gas consumption are up as well. 

For a transition to be just, Cha argues, it must grapple with the underlying structures driving inequities. Reducing fossil fuel consumption would not by itself, for example, address Black and Hispanic communities’ disproportionate exposure to air pollution. Justice is also contextual, and depends on the discrete needs of each community on the ground.

Cha encourages readers to think of a just transition as a process rather than a prescriptive policy solution that can address every possible future scenario. Along with a team of researchers, she developed four pillars to evaluate transition policies: 1) substantial governmental support; 2) dedicated funding streams for transition programs, including job training; 3) diversifying economic opportunities; and 4) strong and diverse coalitions. This book adds an additional pillar: non-reformist reforms, changes within existing systems that do not perpetuate them.

Inequality.org spoke with Cha, an assistant professor of Environmental Studies at the University of California, Santa Cruz, earlier this month about her new book and how we can bring everyone along to say goodbye to the fossil fuel economy.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Chris Mills Rodrigo: There are several different definitions of what a just transition means from organized labor, environmental justice movements, academia. This book does a great job of grappling with how that uncertainty manifests itself on the ground. From your experience dealing with frontline communities, is there a way that we should be describing what a just transition is, and what lessons are there to be learned from how it has been perceived so far?

J. Mijin Cha: I do think it’s helpful to have something like just transition to understand broadly that we’re talking about ending fossil fuel use and what happens to workers and communities as we go through this process.

What the book shows is that it can’t just end there. We can’t go around talking about just transition and expect that a) people know what it means and b) that we all mean the same thing. I’m a little bit hesitant to say “just transition is X,” but there are elements that are required. One is certainly there has to be a transition away from fossil fuels. And when you use that metric, a lot of just transition policies really don’t pass, and a lot of climate policy as well. And then the second part about justice, you can’t really think about what makes things just without talking to the people who are experiencing the injustice. 

There are principles that we can think about — one of them is this idea of non reformist reforms, making sure that we are building a new system that moves away from extractivism — but to say “justice is X” is counter to the whole idea of just transition. It’s contextual. 

CMR: I found the four pillars framework a very useful way to evaluate whether transitions can be considered just. Could you talk about an example of a transition that met at least the first four pillars and how that transition managed to accomplish that?

JMC: One of the challenges of just transition is that we really are not moving away from fossil fuels, so we have maybe case-by-case examples of what might be a just transition, but there’s nothing that we can really look at to say “this region has completely ended fossil fuel use.” 

But I think a lot of people do, including myself, point to the Ruhr, which is this region in Germany that started to move away from steel manufacturing and coal mining in the 1970s due to globalization. It really did show a lot of things that were helpful in that transition period. Some of the research post-transition shows that unemployment rates are still higher in that region than other regions of Germany. But I think it is helpful for us in the US context. Because even though that is true, people who are unemployed in Germany just don’t fall into the same level of despair that people in the US fall into because they just have a much stronger safety net. When you have a much stronger safety net, it’s easier to transition away without causing devastation. The Ruhr had strong governmental support, they have a strong state there in general, that allowed for long-term planning. The Ruhr seeded new training infrastructure to try to diversify the region away from a mono-dependent industry, they invested in solar, and did some arts and culture investments. Then they funded those programs over the years so that they could become industries that were self-sufficient. 

One of the challenges we have in the US is the dedicated funding pillar. Even something like the Black Lung fund — which should be totally non-controversial — struggles to get funding every appropriation cycle. That instability really prevents us from investing in new industries that take like ten years to mature, even though that’s what they will need. 

Another example in the book is the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant shutting down, which has since been delayed. I think that’s a really good example of why you need a strong and diverse coalition. They had this coalition that was workers at the plant, electrical workers, environmentalists, and community advocates. The original transition plan they got from the Public Utilities Commission was much smaller than what they wanted and was not going to be adequate. So rather than accept it, because their coalition was strong, they were able to go to the legislature and introduce a bill that forced the PUC to accept the original transition plan that they had put forward, and then they had a much better outcome in the end because they had this strong coalition. 

I think the Ruhr is a really good example of why you need strong governmental support, why you need to diversify an economy, and why you need dedicated funding. And I think Diablo is a really good example of what you can accomplish with strong coalitions.

CMR: You also expand the initial framework to include this plus, non-reformist reforms. What does that look like in practice? 

JMC: The idea of non-reformist reforms is that you work within your existing system to build something new, while also winding down the extractive system. Abolitionists for example think of it as if you take money from the police budget and invest in supportive housing and other community accountability measures, then you’re both reducing the carceral state and also building something new that is much more community based, much more regenerative than this extractive incarceration system.

An example of what it would look like for fossil fuels is public ownership. That would allow us to send the money that is made from fossil fuels back to the public while we still have a fossil fuel system, and then have control of these resources so we could actually plan for a managed decline, which would then make a just transition much, much more likely. Obviously this is not blind support for the state — especially considering the current regime that we have — but the idea is that in the choice between private and public, a public approach is just much more likely to succeed in advancing a just transition. Explicit fossil fuel drawdown is another example of a non-reformist reform. Basically: you’re trying to wind down these extractive systems while you’re building up something new.

CMR: How would you analyze the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) through this framework? What can we learn from the efforts of the last administration?

JMC: The IRA was quite contentious, which I think has now been kind of memory-holed as people continually call it the greatest climate bill in history. It is definitely true that it is the largest investment in climate action to date. But I think whether it’s the amount that we need is a different question, it’s only because we have done so little on climate that it is the biggest investment in climate action. 

The IRA also totally puts its faith in the private sector: it’s all tax incentives and tax credits and grants. States have been able to pass mandatory labor standards for renewable energy projects over a certain size, whereas the IRA just incentivizes businesses, you’ll get more tax incentive if you use union labor or if you have a project labor agreement. But it doesn’t mandate it, right? I find this to be something that is so prevalent in climate policy. It doesn’t necessarily have to be that way, because it is public money. We can put whatever restrictions we want on it, and we don’t. That’s such low hanging fruit for us. 

It also doesn’t use the power of the state. The federal government could build large-scale electricity generation, we could have a big public works program, or a climate corps, that is really well funded, that goes and does energy efficiency in low-income communities. There’s just so much that could be done through the public sector. Rather than shying away from it, given our current condition, we should make the public sector stronger. If you think that the private sector is going to be able to replicate NOAA, good luck to you. If we have such faith in these other agencies and other government services, why don’t we consider them when it comes to climate policy?

CMR: How would you contrast that with New York’s Build Public Renewables Act?

JMC: Instead of incentivizing the private sector to do renewable energy build out — which New York does through other bills — it actually enables their public utility, the New York Power Authority, to build renewable energy itself. In and of itself it is necessary, but not sufficient. We have to be really vigilant that it works well, that it works for communities, and that it works for workers. This example of a public utility building renewable energy is an example of public power. And there are a lot of campaigns around public power.

For instance, in California, where I live, my utility is the much-hated PG&E. They passed six rate increases just last year, including one specifically for their shareholders. You just don’t have that with a public utility. The whole reason for being for private utilities is making profit on something that is a basic good and a basic service. We have to disrupt these systems. If the energy transition only runs on profit, we will actually never transition off of fossil fuels, because it will take a very long time for fossil fuels not to be profitable.

CMR: There has been a lot of conversation about a transition being “inevitable.” What do you make of that?

JMC: I mean, I think it’s just not true. People keep saying that renewable energy is the cheapest that it’s ever been. And I think there has been more installed than ever before. All of that is great. But we’re also producing more oil and gas than we ever have before. This is an energy addition, we’re just generating more energy. We’re not actually displacing fossil fuels. 

People who talk about markets really don’t talk about sunk cost. Think about new fossil fuel infrastructure, which is continuing to be built. If you build something new like that, you’re expecting ten to 20 more years of fossil fuel use to recoup those capital costs. You can’t just look at the price per megawatt of generation, you have to think about the whole system. I don’t agree that transition is inevitable, and certainly a just transition is not inevitable. Maybe at some point we’ll have such horrible extreme weather events that all fossil fuel infrastructure will be disrupted. But I have no faith that that means that we’ll have a just transition.

CMR: In this book you take the framework and apply it to transitions away from other kinds of production. Could talk a little bit about the transition away from tobacco, and what we can learn from that?

JMC: One really big example is there were these lawsuits brought by state attorneys general about the hazards of tobacco to hold the tobacco industry liable. It didn’t go as far as we wanted it to go, but it is an instructive example. Tobacco was extremely powerful and extremely wealthy, and the states still won. Maybe this will start to happen as we see these youth lawsuits against the fossil fuel industry, or at least states trying to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable. As a result of the lawsuits, states were able to give some settlement money to tobacco farmers. There was a real mix in terms of how well some farmers were supported. And while of course the tobacco industry largely shifted to exports, it still declined. The states were still able to reduce the amount of tobacco consumption, at least in the US. 

I think that also points to the global nature of our world, that we can’t really just think about fossil fuels in the US. We have to think about fossil fuels globally, which I think is really important at this moment where we’re building these new LNG terminals which some people are claiming don’t really count against our emissions, because we’re exporting that gas. It’s gonna be burned somewhere. So I think it’s important to think about the global nature of the tobacco industry and also the fossil fuel industry, but it’s a lesson to take away that we were able to win against a really powerful industry.

CMR: How do you think that Trump’s presidency, and his embrace of the fossil fuel industry, changes the application or the context of the four+ pillar framework?

JMC: I think the non-reformist reform parts are even more important than when I wrote it, because I think we’re in a moment now where we have to think about what we want to ask for and what we want to fight for. We need a different paradigm. Continuing on the same path won’t work: you don’t fight fascism with fascism light, which is what a lot of these moderates and centrists want.

I think what the four+ pillars framework shows is that the public sector should work and be for the public. That is even more true in this moment. They are pillaging the public sector for private profit, I just don’t see how we counter that with “we should deregulate everything and give private companies a bunch of tax credits.” That’s what they already have. At least the four+ pillars framework gives us a different vision of a world that we could build that is markedly different from fascism. Those are the kind of things that we need to really think about and be championing instead of “we just need to go back to how it was in 2024.” That’s how we got here, right? Everything is not fine, and so rather than pretending that it is, we really need transformative change. And I think that’s what the four+ pillars is really looking for: transformative change.

CMR: It also sort of amplifies the need for solutions at the sub-federal level, right?

JMC: Totally, I think there’s a lot that can be done in the states. I have never had much respect for Gavin Newsom, and now he just went totally to the right after Trump won. In 2016 there was this idea that the states will protect us from the Trump administration, and now we have people like Newsom who are saying, well, maybe we should just align with them a little bit. We have to both fight at the federal and the state level, we have to be clear about who the target is and what the goal is.

CMR: What do you make of Brazil’s COP 30 presidency and their focus on a just transition?

JMC: I struggle a little bit between understanding the true importance of international cooperation and how horribly co-opted COP has become. We have to remember, it may be in Brazil but it was in Azerbaijan, and then it was in Egypt — these are petro states. I still think the COP is an important place for the Global South to have their voice heard. The more we can try to amplify calls for reparations and for technology transfers, the better. I just don’t know how much we can expect from COP.

CMR: Is there anything else that people should be watching with regards to just transitions, especially related to economic inequality?

JMC: This is a real moment for the climate movement to think about what is important. Right after the election you saw a lot of pretty prominent climate people saying, “we can work with Elon, we can save the IRA.” That was extremely offensive, because how many migrants are worth a tax credit? 

But also people are really struggling economically. This is not to excuse voting behaviors, but if you don’t understand and acknowledge that fact, that they don’t care about the climate because they’re trying to figure out how to feed their families, then you won’t get anywhere. For a long time the mainstream climate movement has been really blind to this. This is really a moment for the climate movement to become a social justice movement. There have been chances before, but if not now, then when? This is the time for us to build a strong, broad-based coalition, which means not talking at people about million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, but really understanding what their needs are and communicating that everybody is a climate advocate. It’s just a question of how we get them to see that and how we ensure that their needs and their concerns are also at the forefront of our movements.

“A Just Transition for All” is available now from MIT Press.