Cities, Climate and Inequalities

Reference to vulnerability in Quebec’s 2013-2020 climate change policy initiatives: Supporting resource extraction at the expense of environmental justice

March 2024

Laurie Gagnon-Bouchard, Ph.D. student in political thought, University of Ottawa

Introduction

Today, the concept of vulnerability is central to policies for combating and adapting to climate change. However, it is important to recognize that the concept has only recently gained traction in policy circles. Furthermore, the exact meaning of “vulnerability” remains unclear, as stakeholders continue to debate its definition (Fuchs, Kuhlicke, & Meyer, 2011, p. 609; Kuhlicke et al., 2023, p. 2). Consider the relevant entry in the Université de Moncton’s climate change glossary. On the one hand, it identifies vulnerability as a useful concept for prioritizing adaptation needs. On the other hand, it notes how vulnerability can be difficult to measure (UMoncton, 2020). Based on my master’s thesis, the following discussion looks at references to the concept of vulnerability in Quebec’s 2013–2020 climate change policy initiatives. Whereas vulnerability is mentioned only once in the 2000–2004 climate change plan, the 2013–2020 plan applies the concept on more than 40 occasions. At a time when the impacts of climate change, including extreme weather events, are exposing the heightened vulnerability of certain regions and populations in Quebec, I was in interested what the concept’s growing importance for climate change policy initiatives had produced in terms of policy commitments.

Vulnerability: A Contentious Concept

The multiple meanings of “vulnerability” have given rise to theoretical debates not only in climate change studies, but also political thought. Indeed, the fact that natural disasters are studied by researchers in a wide range of disciplines has produced an array of definitions (Fuchs, Kuhlicke, & Meyer, 2011, p. 609; Kuhlicke et al., 2023, p. 2). The ambiguity surrounding the concept also stems from its intangibility. To measure vulnerability, you need to analyze the susceptibility of individuals, regions, communities, or groups to a range of interrelated external risks (Adger, 2006). In their attempts to define the concept, researchers in my own field of political thought have emphasized its impact on political discourse and action (Ferrarese, 2016, p. 150). Vulnerability has a normative dimension: it involves an assessment, the outcome of which demands a response; it calls for political action.

Political philosophers have defined vulnerability in two main ways. One definition focuses on identifying social groups, individuals, and regions in need of government protection. For instance, in Protecting the Vulnerable, Robert E. Goodin (1986) has argued that designating certain people or areas as vulnerable motivates politicians to intervene. In other words, recognition serves as a catalyst for action. Likewise, Frédérick Armstrong (2017) has spoken in terms of “flagging” issues of vulnerability. Such approaches are based on a commonsense understanding of the concept.

Feminist scholars like Judith Butler, Joan Tronto, Sandra Laugier, and Naïma Hamrouni have insisted on the need for an alternative approach. Specifically, they have taken issue with the commonsense definition’s emphasis on social groups perceived as “weaker” (the elderly, young children, etc.). For instance, Butler has argued for the need to challenge the (often politically motivated) labelling of social groups as vulnerable in the absence of any political will to reshape the power relations that sustain the underlying vulnerabilities. This is especially true when it comes to the most vulnerable groups in society, such as Indigenous communities, women, and irregular migrants. Although political officials often designate them as vulnerable, those same officials are rarely willing to tackle the underlying issues in any serious way. In contrast to Goodin, Butler has therefore questioned whether the recognition of groups as vulnerable necessarily leads to their political empowerment. In fact, such groups regularly find themselves left out in the cold (Butler, 2006, 2015; Laugier, 2015). At the same time, associating vulnerability with weakness draws attention away from government resources allocated to less vulnerable and supposedly more self-reliant groups. Accordingly, Naïma Hamrouni has described the perceived invulnerability or independence of certain groups in terms of a one-sided power relationship. Such groups benefit from care given by others “while rejecting the idea that they have received services and denying any responsibility for providing some in return, all within a social and institutional context that validates such a refusal” (Hamrouni, 2015, p. 82).

Feminist scholars have argued for an ontological or ordinary definition of vulnerability. From this perspective, vulnerability is part of the human condition. It is not a weakness associated with specific life stages or certain difficult situations. Instead, it reflects how human relationships require “a basic kind of openness to being affected and affecting in both positive and negative ways” (Gilson, 2011, p. 310). It arises from our social nature and our need to interact with others and the world in order to survive. This approach to vulnerability is not intended to dismiss the needs of people who live in precarious circumstances or require special care. Instead, it seeks to highlight how social and political resources are allocated unevenly based on different forms of vulnerability (Laugier, 2015). This makes it possible to understand the extent to which we are all dependent, for better or worse, on social and environmental structures. Consider Hamrouni’s point about those supposedly self-reliant members of society who tend to be seen as invulnerable. They are often the ones who benefit most from existing social and political structures. In fact, these structures are designed to support their success and protect their interests. In this way, the feminist understanding of vulnerability reveals the interdependent relationship that all human beings maintain with society, and our collective responsibility for addressing the vulnerability faced by others. At the same time, it exposes how not all social groups, individuals, regions, or communities shoulder this responsibility equally.

Uneven Vulnerability Management: Environmental Injustice, Symptom-Focused Risk Management, and Ecological Blind Spots

The results of the analysis point to three concrete ways in which the concept of vulnerability was used to shape climate change policy initiatives: (1) an emphasis on the vulnerability of economic sectors directly involved in Quebec’s Northern Plan, (2) a tendency to reinforce environmental injustice through uneven government support for individuals and groups impacted by climate change, and (3) a symptom-focused approach to risk management that creates ecological blind spots.

Most strikingly, both documents introduce the concept of vulnerability in a way that focuses attention on economic sectors directly involved in Quebec’s Northern Plan (often referred to by its French name, the Plan Nord). These sectors account for 29% of references to vulnerability, more than for any other asset type. In other words, the concept of vulnerability is used to shape climate change policy initiatives in a way that emphasizes the risks facing of sectors dependent on natural resources—chief among them being forestry, agriculture, hydroelectricity, mining, and tourism. Presented in this way, vulnerability can be used to justify different forms of government support for these sectors, including through funding for research on the risks they face (Bussière et al., 2017, p. 1; MELCC, 2012, p. 55).

At the time the CCAP and the GSCCA were adopted, the Northern Plan—which focuses on mining, forestry, hydroelectricity, and tourism—was the Liberal government’s flagship economic program. In the course of my research, I found close connections between the Northern Plan and the policy initiatives put forward in both documents, which together contain six direct references to this particular economic development strategy. It is important to note that at the time the CCAP and the GSCCA were released, the Northern Plan had yet to be adopted by the National Assembly. And yet, both policy documents refer to the Nord-du-Québec administrative region as “the area covered by the Northern Plan,” thereby making the Northern Plan into a key focus of the government’s climate change policy and adaptation strategy. Meanwhile, numerous ecologists, including some affiliated with Greenpeace, have determined that carrying out the Northern Plan would cause major environmental problems. In particular, it would produce significant greenhouse gas emissions, cause extensive deforestation, and involve numerous mining projects.

Furthermore, the results of my analysis reveal just how little effort government policy-makers put into determining which segments of the population would be most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. To a great extent, the CCAP and the GSCCA simply identify at-risk groups (the homeless, young children, and the elderly) based on the commonsense definition of vulnerability discussed above. And yet, various studies have determined that Indigenous populations, women, persons with disabilities, and others living in economically or socially precarious situations are most vulnerable to climate change impacts (FAQ, 2019; Rochette et al., 2013; Zack, 2009). By failing to closely assess the risk factors facing these populations and to assign resources for mitigating the associated risks, the CCAP and the GSCCA risked undermining environmental justice and exacerbating climate inequality.

Even in the case of groups they identify as vulnerable (young children, the elderly, and the homeless), the policy documents do not provide for any direct support—in stark contrast to the benefits allocated to multiple economic sectors. These conclusions are in line with sociologist Ulrich Beck’s argument in The Risk Society (1986), according to which inequality in modern society largely stems from highly unequal exposure to risk. More vulnerable social groups face a multitude of risks, whereas wealthier classes enjoy protection not only because they have superior economic and social resources at their disposal, but also because they receive more government support.

Ultimately, the CCAP and the GSCCA mainly use the concept of vulnerability to assess risks that could threaten economic growth. For instance, I found that they acknowledge collective vulnerability primarily in terms of oil dependency and rising fuel prices. Meanwhile, the more profound vulnerability of individuals and society to climate change, and the political imperative to address this situation, are almost never discussed. Such an approach to vulnerability could perhaps best be described as symptom-focused risk management. In other words, society has begun managing the impacts of climate change without tackling the root of the problem. Doing so would require a radical transformation of our society, our economy, our modes of production, and our relationship with nature. According to Beck (1986), society will be exposed to ever-greater risks unless we abandon the never-ending quest for economic growth. Modern societies have taken on the role of managing the harmful effects of a capitalist economy, which continues to deplete resources and increase the pace of climate change.

The transformation of societies into risk managers has created a pressing demand for new technical knowledge and expertise capable of alleviating the environmental crisis. Once seen as unfathomably complex, nature has come to be treated as a technical problem. And by denying their fundamental vulnerability to nature, individuals and societies have developed significant ecological blind spots. These inlcude how little we know about natural conditions, the limited ability of technical devices to mitigate their impact, and a broader denial of our vulnerability to nature (Kuhlicke, 2009).

Conclusion

Addressing vulnerability in the context of developing climate change policy initiatives could have been treated as an opportunity to recognize the extent to which we depend on each other. In turn, this knowledge could have served as the basis for transitioning away from an unsustainable capitalist economy. In addition, the exercise could have involved a serious assessment of the environmental inequalities faced by Indigenous communities, women, and people living in precarious social and economic conditions. But unfortunately, my findings suggest that making vulnerability a central consideration in Quebec’s efforts for combating and adapting to climate change actually served to promote an economic and political agenda focused on resource extraction (the Northern Plan), while undermining environmental justice.

To cite this article

Gagnon-Bouchard, L. (2024). Reference to vulnerability in Quebec’s 2013-2020 climate change policy initiatives: Supporting resource extraction at the expense of environmental justice. In Cities, Climate and Inequalities Collection. VRM – Villes Régions Monde. https://www.vrm.ca/references-to-vulnerability-in-quebecs-2013-2020-climate-change-policy-initiatives-supportinf-resource-extraction-at-the-expense-of-environmental-justice/