Climate justice has become promi-nent in academia, policy circles, and among climate activists, but the notion of justice is highly subjective and climate justice is often invoked without a clear definition of the concept. To achieve climate justice, it is necessary to clarify what it means in specific contexts. The problem of climate (in) justice in the Global South arises from a broader story of social injustices. In this context, I argue that climate justice means social justice. Social justice is a situation in which (1) burdens and benefits in society are distributed according to a consensual allocation principle;(2) basic human rights and freedoms are upheld by political and decision-making structures; and (3) people are treated with respect and dignity by the authorities and their fellow citizens 1. Climate justice links climate change and social justice by highlighting the unequal burden placed on different groups by climate change and emphasizing the need to work towards fair and equitable solutions 2. Importantly, climate justice is a critical lens for evaluating mitigation and adaptation efforts. It can help us to identify and avoid climate solutions that exacerbate social inequalities or create new forms of disadvantage. Climate justice is most commonly used to describe the unequal distribution of the effects of climate change. However, Prakash Kashwan 3 outlined three dimensions of climate justice in the Global North using a framework informed by social justice theory. I will briefly describe these dimensions and provide examples of their manifestation in the Global South. The first dimension is the distributional inequality of the costs of climate change. It reflects the experience of simultaneously facing greater exposure to environmental risks while being systematically denied the means to mitigate and adapt to these risks. Owing to historical and ongoing exploitation and marginalization, the costs of climate change weigh disproportionately on countries in the Global South 4. For example, Mozambique is highly vulnerable to climate change and has suffered catastrophic effects of extreme weather events in recent years. Through illegal loans made to companies owned by the Mozambican state 5, the people of Mozambique were manipulated by European financial institutions into spending an inordinate proportion of their national wealth on servicing unjust foreign debts—further depleting funds that could have been invested in enhancing the country’s climate change resilience. The distributional inequalities of climate change contribute to widening the wealth gap between the Global North and South as vulnerable Global South countries are subjected to further disadvantage by the high relative costs of mitigation and adaptation. The second dimension relates to procedural rights. This refers to the opportunities afforded to the people who are most affected by climate change to participate meaningfully in the development and implementation of responses to the climate crisis. Global climate governance, policy and scientific activity typically feature a rhetoric of international cooperation and equal partnership, but, in practice, the interests of powerful actors situated in the Global North tend to dominate 6. This dynamic manifests in local contexts where, for example, white men have been shown to disproportionately dominate climate change decision-making processes in the United Kingdom, compared with women and people of colour 7. It also manifests in how colonial powers in the Global North continue to impose their hegemonic influence on Global South countries by posing as de facto climate leaders 4. Even the delivery of solutions such as climate financing reflects procedural …