Journal of Sustainable Tourism

ISSN: 0966-9582 (Print) 1747-7646 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20

Intergenerational rights to a sustainable future:

insights for climate justice and tourism

Dawn Jourdan & Jani Wertin

To cite this article: Dawn Jourdan & Jani Wertin (2020) Intergenerational rights to a sustainable
future: insights for climate justice and tourism, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28:8, 1245-1254,
DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2020.1732992

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1732992

Published online: 25 Feb 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1905

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 11 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsus20
JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
2020, VOL. 28, NO. 8, 1245–1254
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1732992

Intergenerational rights to a sustainable future: insights for

climate justice and tourism
Dawn Jourdan and Jani Wertin
Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Citizens of the world are calling for climate action at the national and Received 25 September 2019
international levels. In those places slow to respond, climate litigation Accepted 14 February 2020
has emerged as a method that activists are using to force action. Of the
KEYWORDS
700 or so pending cases, the climate litigation presently garnering the
Climate action; litigation; US
most attention is Juliana v. United States where 21 youth have chal- v. Juliana; climate justice;
lenged the actions of the federal government for knowingly creating sustainable tourism;
and exacerbating climate change. Others have taken to the streets to youth activism
challenge government inaction on climate change. In both instances,
courts are often left as de facto policy makers. This paper seeks to docu-
ment the precedent-setting Juliana v. United States case and under-
stand the implication of the actions of young climate advocates as they
seek to defend their rights to a sustainable future. The paper also
explores such youth and civic activism and inaction in relation to
“sustainable” tourism. It calls for better consideration of the needs of
children and young people in discussions of climate justice and tourism,
particularly the future generations of children and youth who stand to
bear the brunt of climate change impacts in the Global North
and South.

Introduction
The response to climate change has varied across the globe, despite a steady stream of mount-
ing scientific evidence and widespread consensus among climate scientists about anthropogenic
global warming caused by human activity (see, for example: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-
consensus/). In most regions of the world, policymakers have been slow to act. The basis for
their reluctance to take action varies widely, from climate change denial to simply not knowing
the best course of action. As the recent wildfires at the start of the New Year in 2020 demon-
strate, severe losses to wildlife, ecosystems, natural and built habitats, are becoming “new nor-
mals” and the losses will continue to mount ecologically and socially, with severe impacts on
tourism destinations as well. Blame is distributed widely; for instance, just a few days before the
fires, Prime Minister Scott Morrison told a mining group that new laws were needed to crack
down on climate activists and progressives who “want to tell you where to live, what job you
can have, what you can say and what you can think” (Lane, 2020). Concerted global action so
desperately needed to tackle this global climate “crisis” continues to lag.

CONTACT Dawn Jourdan dawnjourdan@tamu.edu Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas A&M
University, College Station, TX, USA.
This article was incorrectly published in issue 28(8) and should have been published in issue 29(2-3), Special Issue on Justice
and Tourism. Please see Correction (http://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1845464).
ß 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
1246 D. JOURDAN AND J. WERTIN

In addition to ecological and environmental justice, climate justice arises here as a critical
issue in relation to those who are most vulnerable and least able to take care of themselves as
the severity of climate change impacts grow. This includes the poor and low-income, diverse
populations (including communities of color, minority and oppressed ethnic groups), and other
disadvantaged groups, including the elderly, people with disabilities, and young children, as well
as groups facing discrimination or marginalization due to gender, religion, or other cultural ori-
entations). Philip Alston, UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, warned
that lack of action on climate change will not only undermine basic rights to sustenance for hun-
dreds of millions of people, it will also threaten democracy and the rule of law (Alston, 2019).
Among the populations who stand to lose culture, community, and livelihoods as a result of
such displacements, are another highly vulnerable group: young children and youth, not just the
current generations but also future generations of children and youth. Barak Obama stated, “No
challenge places a greater threat to our future generations than a change in climate” (State of
the Union Address, 2014). The rights of children to participate in the decision-making that affects
them was a conclusion drawn as a part of the Children’s Rights and Habitat Declaration (UNICEF
and Habitat, 1997). However, while youth participation is becoming a more recognized activity
worldwide, the law generally does not provide real teeth for youth to pursue their interests
through voting or legal challenges.
Given the complexity and gravity of the actions required, it is no wonder that policymakers
have been slow to answer the call. While the current U.S. administration walked away from the
Paris Accord, the general apprehension by lawmakers across the planet to take swift action has
resulted in activism by a wide array of stakeholders. Climate litigation is becoming common-
place. In a new survey prepared by the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of
Economics and Political Science, researchers chronicle 1,328 legal actions between 1990 and May
2019 across the globe (Setzer & Byrnes, 2019). Most notably, young persons have taken to the
streets, staged walk-outs and even filed suit against their governments for their failure
to respond to the climate crisis in a meaningful way. Their activism stems from a real fear
that inaction will irreparably damage the planet, making it incapable of supporting the life and
livelihood of current and future generations. And they recognize that widespread formalized
actions by global policymakers and major greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting nations like the U.S.,
China, and India to ensure that the next generation will not perish is highly limited. It is the lack
of concerted governmental action that the young people are protesting or litigating worldwide.
This paper seeks to chronicle these activities in order to establish a baseline for the year
2020. These activities are separated by type: litigation or protest. The Juliana v. United States
case is documented in detail here, as it is a precedent-setting case of the rise of youth activism
against the U.S. government, holding it responsible for violating their rights to a clean environ-
ment and a sustainable future. The paper aims to also offer a lens that appreciates the connec-
tion between climate change, youth activism, and climate justice in relation to tourism. “Climate
justice” as used in this paper refers not only to the social inequalities related to climate change,
but also to “principles of democratic accountability and participation, ecological sustainability
and social justice and their combined ability to provide solutions to climate change” (Chatterton,
Featherstone, & Routledge, 2013, p. 606, cited in Grant, 2019, p. 47). Addressing the needs of
young children and youth (who cannot vote until they are of legal age) is a crucial issue for cli-
mate justice, not only with respect to the at-risk populations worldwide who stand to lose their
culture, community, and livelihoods due to climate change, but also with respect to the rights
and needs of future generations. Sustainable development, after all, is “development that meets
the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs (United Nations World Commission on Environment & Development [UNWCED], 1987,
p. 8). However, the rights of current and future generations of youth in a world facing a “climate
crisis” should surely have greater visibility here and in the context of “sustainable” tourism
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 1247

development. The United Nations World Tourism Organization’s (UNWTO, 1994, p. 30) definition
of sustainable tourism development draws on the Brundtland Commission’s Report:
Sustainable tourism development meets the needs of present tourists and host regions while protecting and
enhancing opportunity for the future. It is envisaged as leading to management of all resources in such a way
that economic, social, and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential
ecological processes, biological diversity, and life” support systems

As the landmark case study Juliana v. United States and related discussion below illustrate, re-
envisioning sustainable tourism in the context of climate justice, children, and youth requires
close attention to actions and reactions occurring through social movements that are arising to
protest and bring attention to the need for inclusive democracy that takes into consideration
the voices of civic society and the needs of children and young people, particularly the future
generations of children and youth who stand to bear the brunt of climate change impacts.

Civic disobedience and the youth protesters

Nobel Prize nominee in 2019 and Time Magazine’s Person of the Year in 2019, Greta Thunberg
has become the voice of climate change for young people across the globe. In August 2018, the
15-year-old Swedish youth began her solo peaceful protests before the Swedish parliament. Her
weekly Friday Strike for Climate has become a global phenomenon and her skolstrejk fo €r klima-
tet (school strike for climate) banner has been translated into a wide range of languages. As she
expressed (Watts, 2019):
“It’s amazing,” she says. “It’s more than 71 countries and more than 700 places, and counting. It’s increasing
very much now, and that’s very, very fun.”

Young people across Europe and Australia have indeed followed suit. Youth now routinely
protest on Fridays, calling for governments to take action to reduce carbon emissions. They call
for governments around the world to take action to reduce the production of fossil fuels in
hopes of slowing down or gradually reversing global warming. They ask for these changes in an
effort to secure a future for themselves and future generations, as well their beliefs that the
environment should be preserved for the sake of itself. For example, on Friday, March 15, 2019,
more than a million youth protests took place in over 120 countries (see https://www.vox.com/
energy-and-environment/2019/3/15/18267156/youth-climate-strike-march-15-photos). Other
climate-related strikes have also sprouted up. A climate strike led by 14-year-old Uma Krieger in
the UK has led to the Brighton and Hove City Council’s decision to embrace the Green initiative
which includes tenets such as: lowering the voting age to 16 and developing a national curricu-
lum that stresses the importance of responding to the climate crises (Booker-Lewis, 2019). As
Uma Krieger said: “If we want any chance of my generation or the next to have a planet that is
habitable and remotely safe to live on then we have to act right now” (Booker-Lewis, 2019).
Such small victories demonstrate that some decisionmakers understand and are willing to grap-
ple with the complexities of responding to the climate crisis.
These victories have been occurring at the local level, however. Change at national levels is
much more difficult to inspire, but recent IPPC reports stressing the urgency to reduce carbon
emissions by 2030 have spurred additional activism, such as by Extinction Rebellion (XR) (https://
rebellion.earth/). In these protests, younger and older people marched through streets, glued
themselves to trains and buildings and staged “die ins” (Busby, 2019). In April 2019, XR protests
in London (a major tourist destination!) blocked traffic and caused major disruptions, resulting in
more than 1,000 arrests; XR protests around major landmarks have impacted both residents and
visitors not only in London, but also destinations like New York, Sydney, Berlin, and Paris
(Reuters, 2019). “Like the youth climate strikes, XR is an international movement representing a
wide array of people who, in the face of political and social apathy surrounding climate change,
1248 D. JOURDAN AND J. WERTIN

have felt morally compelled to act” and “their actions have ultimately led the British government
to formally declare a climate emergency, which was one of the group’s key demands” (Miles,
2019). The issue of climate change is reaching the courts through the actions of youth protesters
and activism by movements such as XR. However, in these cases, these courts are not being dir-
ectly asked to rule on the issue of the culpability of governments in sanctioning activities that
increase carbon emissions. They are simply arbitrating the disruptive actions of the protestors. By
contrast, in court battles such as Juliana v. United States, youth protesters have taken to the
courtroom, rather than the streets, to instigate changes in the law to litigate actions or inaction
by governments that ultimately contribute to climate change. The next section details this case,
drawing on legal documents and other secondary materials cited below. Juliana v. United States
is important to document for it offers new precedent in giving youth of non-voting age a say in
civic democracy on their rights to a sustainable future. Given that the U.S. is of course both an
international and domestic tourism destination, and tourism is responsible for about 8% of glo-
bal emissions (Lenzen et al., 2018), little concerted effort is evident by the tourism industry to
undertake the challenge and influence the national or global policy level change that is needed
(see, for instance, Becken, 2019), it can be argued that the youth have little recourse but to
resort to civil disobedience (a constitutional right in the U.S.) and exercise their moral right to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, a right that is currently threatened by the climate crisis.
Small local-level actions are good but insufficient at this critical stage of the Anthropocene,
where global policy and national policies must change in order to meet the IPCC recommenda-
tion of 50% reduction in global emissions by 2030, compatible with a temperature rise of no
more than1.5 degreesCelsius above pre-industrial levels. As noted in the 2018 IPCC report, “lack
of global cooperation, lack of governance of the required energy and land transformation, and
increases in resource-intensive consumption are key impediments to achieving 1.5  C pathways”
(Rojelk et al, 2018: 95; see also https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/).

Juliana v. United States

In the United States, legal cases and controversies challenging federal laws or the U.S.
Constitution are typically brought in one of the federal district courts. For example, a plaintiff
may petition a federal district court to hear their grievance if they can demonstrate that their
rights have been negatively affected by an action of a federal agency. Juliana v. United States
was originally filed in the Federal District Court of Oregon on August 12, 2015. The lawsuit was
filed by a group of young people, ages 8-19, against the Executive Branch of the United States
government (including the President and cabinet officials who have responsibility for policy that
may have impacted global greenhouse emissions). In their claim, the Juliana plaintiffs contend
that the United States of America continued its extensive utilization of fossil fuels, fully knowing
the negative consequences the CO2 released would have on the climate system, such as global
warming and climate change (Hansen, 2015). The plaintiffs cite the White House Report of 1965,
“Restoring the Quality of the Environment”, to emphasize the importance of protecting the envir-
onment for the benefit of current and future generations (Hansen, 2015). In addition to this
report, the plaintiffs refer to various environmental protection plans that both identify the immi-
nent dangers associated with rising levels of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere, as well as present
strategies to be implemented that could reduce CO2 emissions to a level that could stabilize the
climate system and stop global warming (Hansen, 2015). These plans include the “Policy Options
for Stabilizing Global Climate” submitted to Congress by the Environmental Protection Agency in
1990 and the “Changing By Degrees: Steps to Reduce Greenhouse Gases” submitted to Congress
by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment in 1991, though neither plan was imple-
mented (Hansen, 2015). The plaintiffs argue that numerous studies have been published since
1965 (including the two aforementioned plans) that have repeatedly informed the defendants of
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 1249

the hazard associated with continued reliance on fossil fuels and that by permitting the use of
fossil fuels and subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, the defendants have knowingly allowed con-
centrations of atmospheric CO2 to rise to dangerous levels (Hansen, 2015). Approximately three
months after the original lawsuit was filed (November 17, 2015), the defendants made a motion
to dismiss the case from further review of the court. Among other challenges, the defendants
argued that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to file suit as minors and on behalf of future gen-
erations who have not yet been born.
What is special about the Juliana case, at least at this point in litigation, is that the case has
not been dismissed for lack of standing. On April 8, 2016, Judge Coffin denied the government’s
motion to dismiss the case, stating that at the pleading stage of a case, “general factual
allegations” are adequate so long as they are “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent”
(Coffin, 2016, p. 4). As the Juliana plaintiffs claimed injuries that are concrete and personal in
nature, despite stemming from broader harms also claimed in this case and these injuries being
shared by many, Judge Coffin ruled that these injuries could not be discounted and that gives
the Juliana plaintiffs legal standing to sue on their own behalves and on behalf of future genera-
tions (Coffin, 2016). As Judge Coffin opined, the court must “accept the allegations of concrete
particularized harm or imminent threat of such harm as true,” making this more of a matter of
whether the defendants’ actions can be traced back to the injury caused and if the court can
redress these injuries (Coffin, 2016). This motion was further denied by District Judge Anne Aiken
(2016) who adopted Judge Coffin’s findings.
After losing its preliminary motion to dismiss the case from consideration based on standing,
the government next filed a summary judgement motion where it explained why none of the
Juliana defendants’ arguments merited further review by the District Court. The District Court
both agreed and disagreed with the government’s arguments, dismissing sitting President
Trump as a defendant because he was not the acting U.S. President when the acts occurred
(Aiken, 2018a). At the request of the Juliana plaintiffs, the District Court certified the issues in
controversy for immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the appellate court
responsible for hearing cases pertaining to federal issues in that region of the U.S. The Ninth
Circuit rejected the federal government’s argument for dismissal and sent the case back to the
District Court for further review and proceedings. The defendants appealed the Ninth Circuit
decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiter of legal disputes in the U.S. This body,
siding with the Juliana plaintiffs, sent the decision back to the lower courts for a trial.
The Juliana case is still being reviewed by the U.S. court system. A trial has not yet occurred
and it is stuck in a procedural morass. It is different from cases challenging the behavior of pro-
testors like XR (described earlier), as the Juliana plaintiffs are challenging the actions of the
executive branch of the U.S. government for their actions (or inactions as the case may be) on
climate change and resource use. In both instances, the courts must look to the laws in place to
determine the legal requirements which govern both behaviors. It is relatively straightforward to
determine if a protestor has stepped over the proverbial legal line, i.e., if they have conducted
protest in an unpermitted area, at a decibel level that is higher than the legal limit, or incited
violence. Judges typically have wide discretion in the sanctions they apply to protestors. This
means that punishments may vary and be influenced by the perceptions of individual judges. By
contrast, judges in Juliana v. United States are being asked to review the actions of decision-
makers (i.e., agencies of the federal government), and to consider both the language of the law
and implementing regulations according to the spirit of the law. Some judges consider them-
selves strict textualists. This means that when reviewing a case before them, they will only con-
sider the plain language and meaning of the documents or laws they are reviewing. If a term is
undefined in the document, they rely on the standard dictionary definition to garner meaning.
They do not consider the context in which a law was drafted or the spirit of the law, i.e., the
intent of the lawmakers who drafted it.
1250 D. JOURDAN AND J. WERTIN

The judges who are being asked to consider the legality of the action or inaction of decision-
makers also have considerable discretion. They are, of course, bound by precedent from previous
decisions made in their courts or others within their jurisdictions of review, but even here they
have considerable discretion. These judges are being asked to make decisions about whether
governments are doing enough to respond to climate change or, alternatively, if their inaction is
contributing to the legal neglect of duties. In many cases, especially in the U.S. context, the judi-
ciary is the only political body really engaging in decision-making related to climate change. As
any student of basic civics might quickly point out, judges are not supposed to make the law.
Rather, they should be interpreting it. However, judicial activism has sometimes served as a very
important substitute for policymaking. Judges, through their rulings, have inspired those with
executive and legislative functions to take necessary actions. Such was the case in the evolution
of the civil rights movement in the U.S. This, too, was the case in the development of affordable
housing policy following the infamous Mt. Laurel decision in New Jersey. The courts created a
body to review immediate appeals of local decisions that negatively impacted affordable housing
in New Jersey, until the State government stepped in to create an agency to take over this func-
tion (see http://fairsharehousing.org/mount-laurel-doctrine/). This may be where many countries
across the world are headed in dealing with climate change. Such an approach, however, is
piecemeal and may not lead to government action at a pace necessary for mitigating or adapt-
ing to the harmful effects of climate change.

Global action and global justice

Citizens around the world are continuing to protest while climate change continues to severely
impact destinations and inhabitants and new groups of climate refugees are being created every
day. In many cases, due to government inaction, they are being left to their own ingenuity and
resources—to mitigate, adapt, or relocate. The rapidity of the changing climate is a particular
threat to vulnerable populations, especially those with subsistence existences or economies built
on the integrity of the natural environment. This issue of climate justice will continue to grow in
significance for vulnerable groups both in the Global North and the Global South where the sub-
tropics house large populations that stand to bear the brunt of extreme weather, droughts, sea
level rise, ecosystem damage and species loss, along with other impacts of climate change.
Many coastal destinations, including ones along the Arctic and in Small Island Developing States
(SIDS), are already being severely impacted from sea level rise and extreme weather. Many are
strongly dependent on tourism, and low-lying destination islands like Maldives, Marshall Islands,
Vanuatu and Caribbean islands like the Bahamas are gravely at risk (see, for example, Moore,
2019). Climate refugees are on the move and many more will need to be moved from their pre-
ferred or territorial homes if carbon emissions do not comply with the Paris Accord’s mandate to
limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels (see American
Geophysical Union, 2019; Rojelj et al., 2018; United Nations, 2020).
Issues of sea level rise and extreme weather challenges such as the SIDS are facing are exacer-
bated where governmental capacity is insufficient to deal with disaster events, let alone tackle
the international community;the affected parties generally do not have time to protest nor the
economic means to launch sustained actions to garner resources and redress from the Global
North (Nalau, Handmer, & Dalesa, 2017). Among various actions to increase resiliency of all kinds,
ecological and social as well cultural resilience that can help address climate injustice (Grant,
2019), it may mean calling on others to litigate or take actions to on their behalf. Better consid-
eration of the needs of children and young people in discussions of climate justice and tourism
is also needed, particularly the future generations of children and youth who stand to bear the
brunt of climate change impacts in both the Global North and the Global South. Far too little
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 1251

has been studied in the context of sustainable tourism and climate action of this group whose
democratic rights to influence policy are restricted until they are of voting age.
It is not that actions are not being taken, of course. Many destinations worldwide are reacting
by reducing carbon emissions and striving to be sustainable, carbon neutral destinations
(for example, see https://sustainabletravel.org/). The European Commission recently announced
a European Green Deal, (https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-
deal_en), popular destination countries like Ireland have initiated national tree replanting
programs, and the UK has passed laws and initiated programs and strategies to limit carbon
emission to net zero by 2050 (O’Reilly & O’Brien, 2008; https://www.gov.uk/government/news/
uk-becomes-first-major-economy-to-pass-net-zero-emissions-law). Island nations like Kiribati (pop.
100,000) have preemptively signed treaties with other nations to ensure that their people will be
welcomed when the time for migration ultimately arises (see the excellent documentary film,
Anote’s Ark: www.anotesark.com).
Actions are also being undertaken to invest in “green” transportation and curb air travel plus
other environmentally unsustainable forms of transportation. A Swedish movement has arisen on
flyskam or “flight shaming” those who rely on air travel for business or pleasure (see Timperley,
2019). Some governments, supported by organizations like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and
the New Economics Foundation, are considering a tax levy on those who seek to travel by air
more than once per year (Helm, 2015). Destinations that cater to the wealthy would be less
impacted by such levies than lesser developed places that serve travelers with smaller budgets.
If flight shaming or taxing becomes more commonplace, long-haul tourist destinations could be
hard hit and so, too, would residents who rely on tourism for their livelihoods. Expanding public
transit, mass rail, train, and boat transport are important considerations for ‘sustainable transpor-
tation,’ but significant infrastructure investment will be needed. As noted earlier, many develop-
ing destinations are already struggling to manage the impacts of climate change, so how will
they secure significant additional resources, technologies and capacities to turn into “green”
destinations?
The economic and equity issues raised above also extend to climate justice for vulnerable
populations in tourism destinations experiencing the brunt of climate change (destinations in
the sub-tropics, coastal, and polar regions being among these). International tourism growth and
“overtourism” add a far greater burden on poorer populations, as the environmental costs and
impacts of travel are generally externalized and inequitably distributed. Referring to tourism
which is the flagship of the Bahamas, Moore (2019) notes the paradox of Anthropocene tourism:
“anthropogenically vulnerable ecosystems and organisms are protected and promoted as valu-
able so that their tourism potential can be realized by attracting more tourists to the destination,
sustaining the industry while perpetuating its anthropogenic effects” (p. 21). Carbon emissions
by the wealthier Global North travelers not only disproportionately affect destinations in the
Global South (see Lenzen et al., 2018), tourism’s economic benefits tend to be inequitably distrib-
uted (Britton, 1982), and mobilities and the right to travel freely across border are not fairly
apportioned either–consider the burden of proof laid on climate refugees versus the jet-setting,
globetrotter tourist (Bianchi & Stephenson, 2014).
At-risk destinations like the SIDS are already suffering from climate-related injustices and find-
ing it very difficult to obtain justice and garner necessary resources to build resilience for the
future that awaits. Effective governance and regulatory bodies are lacking to address climate
injustices in a global tourism system that is highly complex and fragmented in terms of stake-
holders and control over tourism-decision making from the local to the regional, national, and
international levels (Jamal, 2019). Organizations like the United Nations offer a range of guidance
on tourism and climate change (see, for instance, Goal 13 in the Sustainable Development Goals:
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/climate-action/), but have little regulatory force.
Effective institutional and governance structures to render global justice and a sustainable
future for present and future generations are lacking overall. The gap is partially being filled by
1252 D. JOURDAN AND J. WERTIN

social movements addressing climate change and youth litigation efforts to hold their countries
responsible for a sustainable future. They fill a vacuum of responsibility for climate justice in
tourism and tourism destinations as well. Tourism is a global phenomenon that is interlinked
with places of habitation and is implicated in terms of the GHGs that continue to warm the
planet that the youth and children of present and futures generations will inherit. The burden
being placed on them is far from equitable, but success in cases like Juliana v. United States will
help advance governmental and corporate responsibility for climate justice and the challenging
future that await current and future generations of children and young people in the destina-
tions of the Anthropocene.

Conclusion
As we write this article, entering a new decade in the 21st century, our civilization stands on the
brink of a climate crisis that will severely affect future generations and is already wreaking devas-
tation in many areas worldwide. The extensive wildfires that heralded the New Year in 2020 is
one of many “new normals” being set globally and were a late wake-up call for Australian citi-
zens who are demanding action from their policymakers for mitigation and adaptation to build
resiliency to future crises (Cave, 2020). The cost and burden on future generations will be
immense. New paradigms are needed and new understandings of civic responsibility for planet-
ary sustainability and resilience are needed. Immediate and aggressive action must be taken to
curtail global warming, putting a halt to continuous market expansion and the “growth” para-
digm entrenched with industrialization and globalization. Among other actions, citizens in the
highest carbon-emitting countries (which are also global destinations, e.g., U.S., China, and India),
must exercise their democratic rights and voice to secure climate actions from their govern-
ments. Meanwhile, unfair burden continues to be placed on those who stand to be most at risk
to be impacted by climate change–vulnerable populations, including the low-income and poor
(particularly in communities of color where environmental justice has long been an issue), and
young children. Global youth movements, Friday Strikes for Future and court actions like Juliana
v. United States are playing a vital role in advancing the cause for global climate action, filling a
vacuum of government inactions on the Paris Accord, especially from dominant carbon-emitters,
and too slow action on climate justice by an international tourism industry that contributes at
least 8% of global GHG emissions (UN IPBES Report, 2019). Sustainable tourism development, if
it is to truly address the needs of current and future generations in the Anthropocene, must take
into better account climate justice and the rights of children and youth to a sustainable planet.
This article is written with the assumption that the current generation has a duty to future
generations to act (e.g., Hubin, 1976). There are those that believe there is no duty either
because we cannot predict the impact of climate change on future generations nor are we
bound by law to protect their rights (Mank, 1996). And while the scope of environmental legal
rights for children and future generations varies across political systems, this has not precluded
policymakers from calling for climate action in the name of those very same stakeholders.
During the Obama administration, the EPA proclaimed a moral obligation to “leave the planet
healthy for future generations. How to accomplish this necessary action remains the question de
jure. One thing is clear, failure to take actions to mitigate and adapt will have catastrophic
effects for all global citizens from now into the distant future. It will affect our ability to enjoy
those places to which we love to travel, the locations where the global food supply is grown,
and even the very places where we domicile. Young people including youth not yet of voting
age are rightfully challenging the inaction of policymakers and using the means available to
them to nudge them into action. Other youth actions challenging their governments in court
have arisen since Juliana v. United States. On October 9, 2019, the Alaska Supreme Court
addressed Sinnok v. State of Alaska, a constitutional climate lawsuit brought by 16 young Alaska
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 1253

Natives and Alaskans against the State of Alaska (https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/alaska). Like

the global climate strikes, youth climate lawsuits are arising globally, including in Canada,
Colombia, Norway, Pakistan, and Uganda (West Coast Environmental Law, 2020). Whether they
call for action through the courts or from the streets, these young future citizens may be crucial
important agents of change necessary to change our climate future to a fairer and more
sustainable world.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References
Aiken, A. (2016). United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Juliana v. United States: Opinion and order,
No. 6:15-cv-01517-TC, Document 83. Retrieved from http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-
content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2016/20161110_docket-615-cv-1517_opinion-and-order.pdf.
Aiken, A. (2018a). United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Juliana v. United States: Opinion and Order,
No. 6:15-cv-01517-AA, Document 369. Retrieved from http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-
content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2018/20181015_docket-615-cv-1517_opinion-and-order-1.pdf
Aiken, A. (2018c). United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Juliana v. United States: Order, No. 6:15-cv-
01517-AA, Document 444. Retrieved from http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/
uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2018/20181121_docket-615-cv-1517_order-1.pdf
Alston, P. (2019). “Climate change and poverty: Report of the special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human
rights,” Report presented to the UN Human Rights Council Forty-first session, 24 June–12 July, A/HRC/41/39.
Retrieved from www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24735&LangID=E
American Geophysical Union. (2019, April 23). New studies highlight challenge of meeting Paris Agreement climate
goals. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190423114029.htm
Becken, S. (2019). Decarbonising tourism: Mission impossible? Tourism Recreation Research, 44 (4), 419–433. doi:10.
1080/02508281.2019.1598042
Bianchi, R. B., & Stephenson, M. L. (2014). Tourism and citizenship: Rights, freedoms and responsibilities in the global
order. New York, NY: Routledge.
Booker-Lewis, S. (2019). Brighton climate youth strikes win councillors’ backing. Brighton & Hove Independent.
Retrieved from https://www.brightonandhoveindependent.co.uk/news/brighton-climate-youth-strikes-win-council-
lors-backing-1-9015013
Britton, S. G. (1982). The political economy of tourism in the third world. Annals of Tourism Research, 9(3), 331–358.
doi:10.1016/0160-7383(82)90018-4
Busby, M. (2019, April 7). Extinction Rebellion activists stage die-in protests across globe. The Guardian. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/27/extinction-rebellion-activists-stage-die-in-protests-across-globe
Cave, D. (2020, January 2). As Australia burns, its leaders trade insults. New York Times, published Nov. 13, 2019,
Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/13/world/australia/fires-climate-change-pragmatism.html
Chatterton, P., Featherstone, D., & Routledge, P. (2013). Articulating climate justice in copenhagen: Antagonism, the
commons, and solidarity. Antipode, 45 (3), 602–620. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.2012.01025.x
Coffin, T. M. (2016). United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Juliana v. United States: Order and findings
& recommendation, No. 6:15-cv-01517-TC, Document 68. Retrieved from http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-
change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2016/20160408_docket-615-cv-1517_order.pdf
Grant. (2019). Climate justice and cultural sustainability: The case of Ete€tung (Vanuatu Women’s Water Music. The
Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology, 20(1), 42–56. doi:10.1080/14442213.2018.1529194
Hansen, J. (2015). Exhibit A: Declaration of Dr. James E. Hansen in support of plaintiffs’ complaint for declaratory
and injunctive relief; In the matter Juliana v. United States, No. 6:15-cv-01517-TC, Document 1-1. Retrieved from
http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2015/
20150812_docket-615-cv-1517_complaint.pdf
Helm, T. (2015). Levy on frequent leisure flyers proposed to make airport expansion unnecessary. The Guardian.
Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/20/frequent-flyer-tax-leisure-airfares
Hubin, D. C. (1976). Justice and future generations. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 6(1), 70–83.
Jamal, T. (2019). Tourism ethics: A perspective article. Tourism Review. 10.1108/TR-05-2019-0184.
Juliana v. United States. (2015). Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana, Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh M. Et Al. v. United States, Barack
Obama et al., No. 6:15-cv-01517-TC (D. Or. Aug. 12, 2015).
1254 D. JOURDAN AND J. WERTIN

Lane, L. (2020). Australia’s deadly, devastating wildfires: Affecting tourism, short and long term. Forbes. Retrieved
from https://www.forbes.com/sites/lealane/2020/01/02/australias-deadly-devastating-wildfires-affecting-tourism-
short-and-long-term/#2cc7f46c28bf
Lenzen, M., Sun, Y.-Y., Faturay, F., Ting, Y.-P., Geschke, A., & Malik, A. (2018). The carbon footprint of global tourism.
Nature Climate Change, 8(6), 522–528. doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0141-x
Mank, B. C. (1996). Protecting the environment for future generations: A proposal for a Republican “superagency.
NYU Environmental Law Journal, 5, 444–516.
Miles, M. (2019). Extinction Rebellion’s First Big Act of Civil Disobedience in US Shuts Down Rush Hour Traffic in
DC. Earth Island Journal. Retrieved from https://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/articles/entry/extinction-
rebellions-first-big-act-of-civil-disobedience-in-us-shuts-down-rush-hour-traffic-in-dc?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIq6WgoJ_
x5gIVSZyzCh1Qrg7XEAAYASAAEgJ-UvD_BwE.
Moore, A. (2019). Destination anthropocene: Science and tourism in the Bahamas. Oakland: CA. University of
California Press.
Nalau, J., Handmer, J., & Dalesa, M. (2017). The role and capacity of government in a climate crisis: Cyclone pam in
Vanuatu. In W. Leal Filho (Eds), Climate change adaptation in pacific countries. Climate change management.
Cham: Springer.
O’Reilly, G., & O’Brien, P. (2008). Achieving a Greenhouse Gas Neutral Ireland,” for the EPA CCRP Programme 2007-
2013 (07-CCRP-3.1). Retrieved from https://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/research/climate/GHG%20Neutral%20Ireland.
pdf
Reuters. (2019, October 7). Extinction Rebellion holds protests around the world. New York Times. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/europe/100000006755732/extinction-rebellion-climate-protests.html
~o, M. V. (2018). Mitigation pathways
Rogelj, J., Shindell, D., Jiang, K., Fifita, S., Forster, P., Ginzburg, V., … Vilarin
compatible with 1.5  C in the context of sustainable development. In Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Po €rtner,
D. Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. P ean, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews,
Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (Eds.), Global Warming of
1.5  C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5  C above pre-industrial levels and related
global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of
climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/site/
assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SR15_Chapter2_Low_Res.pdf
Setzer, J., & Byrnes, R. (2019). Global trends in climate change litigation: 2019 snapshot. London: Grantham Research
Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy.
Retrieved from http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/GRI_Global-trends-in-cli-
mate-change-litigation-2019-snapshot-2.pdf
State of the Union Address. (2014). Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/
28/president-barack-obamas-state-union-address
Thomas, Berzon, & Friedland. (2018). United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Juliana v. United States:
Order, No. 18-80176, D.C. No. 6:15-cv-01517-AA. Retrieved from http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-
litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2018/20181226_docket-18-80176_order.pdf
Timperley, J. (2019, September 9). Why flight shame is making people swap plans for trains. Future. Retrieved from
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190909-why-flight-shame-is-making-people-swap-planes-for-trains
UN IPBES. (2019). Nature’s dangerous decline ‘unprecedented’; Species extinction rates ‘accelerating.’ Global
Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
(IPBES). Retrieved from https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline-unprece-
dented-report/
UNICEF & Habitatat (UN Centre for Human Habitats). (1997). Children’s rights and habitat: Working towards child-
friendly cities. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/233327?ln=en
United Nations. (2020). The paris agreement. UN Climate Change, Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/process-and-
meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement
UNWCED (United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development). (1987). Our common future.
Brundtland Commission’s Report. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
UNWTO (United Nations World Tourism Organization). (1994). Agenda 21 for Travel and Tourism: Towards
Environmentally Sustainable Tourism. London, UK: WTO, WTTC and the Earth Council.
Watts, J. (2019). Greta Thunberg, school girl climate change warrior: ‘Some people can let go of things. I can’t,’.
Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/11/greta-thunberg-schoolgirl-climate-change-war-
rior-some-people-can-let-things-go-i-cant
West Coast Environmental Law. (2020). Youth are leading the climate movement–in court and on the streets
Environmental Law Blog. West Coast Environmental Law. Retrieved from https://www.wcel.org/blog/youth-are-
leading-climate-movement-in-court-and-streets