Online consultation on the Climate Change Act: Participation, access to information and just transition

I do not think private individuals should be able to influence plans too much, scientists should on the other hand be the most influential ones. Private individuals should be listened to when implementation begins and strategies are made for implementation, but the main effect their feedback should have is to make the progress more easily adapted to their part of society and take into account accessibility, equality and socioeconomic - concerns. What should be avoided is following lobbying made by companies benefitting from businesses causing climate change.

uomi vois panostaa uraaniteollisuuteen sekä fuusio ydinvoimaan ps suomi vois tehä yhteistyötä yhdysvaltalaisten ja europpalaisten energia yritysten ja jättien

I do not think private individuals should be able to influence plans too much, scientists should on the other hand be the most influential ones. Private individuals should be listened to when implementation begins and strategies are made for implementation, but the main effect their feedback should have is to make the progress more easily adapted to their part of society and take into account accessibility, equality and socioeconomic - concerns. What should be avoided is following lobbying made by companies benefitting from businesses causing climate change.

It is important for the public to have the chance to share views. Some people may be more affected by changes than others (Sami, women, lower socio-economic groups). However, private individuals should and lobbying not be allowed to influence the legislation, especially if they deny science.

It is important for the public to have the chance to share views. Some people may be more affected by changes than others (Sami, women, lower socio-economic groups). Therefore, private individuals should be allowed to influence the legislation, but only if there are positive, equitable benefits that can be clearly seen from their contribution. Individuals linked to fossil fuel groups and the extractive industries should have a limited role especially if they have denied or manipulated scientific evidence. Policies should be made available, and there should be a good methodological platforms and forums for these ideas to be heard and developed.

Points of view about climate change from the general population should be considered before the elaboration and implementation of the climate policy plans. Clear goals have to be remarked to make sure that the opinions of private individuals is efficiently obtained.

I think it is good for the public to have access to this. It creates a sense of involvement and ownership which is useful for successfully implementing policies. The only problem may be that these would need to be presented to the public in everyday parlance and limited technical concepts to ensure understanding and relevant feedback.

Public hearings, stakeholder workshops etc. are very important to obtain the voice of the general public. Climate change is affecting everyone, and therefore, everyone should have the right to share his/her thoughts about what should be undertaken. Sometimes key information can be gathered from individuals that policy makers would have otherwise overseen / left out.

The individuals who stand to lose the most from climate change (i.e., indigenous peoples such as the Sami, young people and other who's livelihoods are at risk from climate change) should be given the most influence over climate policy plans. The knowledge and advice of scientists should be taken with utmost gravity and implemented into climate policy plans. Often the ones with the strongest voices are the companies who often profit from environmentally detrimental activities so every precaution should be made that they do not silence the voices of the stakeholders who are most vulnerable and likely to suffer the brunt of climate change.

I believe it is important that the process is transparent, and that corporations/private companies do not influence the process. I think that those whose lives are most affected by climate change and by the effects of the plans should be especially listened to.

During the drafting and implementation of plans, if the plans are made in a way that make the end result unaccessible or unequal the willingness and the possibility for the individual to participate will be at stake.

uomi vois panostaa uraaniteollisuuteen sekä fuusio ydinvoimaan ps suomi vois tehä yhteistyötä yhdysvaltalaisten ja europpalaisten energia yritysten ja jättien

During the drafting and implementation of plans, if the plans are made in a way that make the end result unaccessible or unequal the willingness and the possibility for the individual to participate will be at stake.

I do not think the public should be allowed to influence the targets which Finland sets - this should be for the scientists. But they should be involved in all the later steps, to ensure implementation is carried out in a way which enables individual participation.

I do not think the public should be allowed to influence the targets which Finland sets, as this would involved the complex machinery of the state trying to achieve a balance between economic stability and development. But during the preparation and drafting stages attempts should be made to be more inclusive.

The participation of private individuals should be during the whole process but to a degree accordingly to their abilities to influence in each step.

The public should be carried along at all stages.

The citizens should have access to the progress of the act. It should be a transparent activity.
Participation should be particularly encouraged during the end stages of the drafts of the plans, after consultation with scientists.

Participation should be enabled at all stages. The ministry of environment should ensure that the voices of all stakeholders are sought and taken into consideration. Implementation of plans should also include the right of proceedings of individuals and citizen groups to challenge plans which are insufficient.

I do not think the public should be allowed to influence the targets which Finland sets - this should be for the scientists. But they should be involved in all the later steps, to ensure implementation is carried out in a way which enables individual participation.

For everyone to have a genuine opportunity to participate, the project needs to be accessible. My first thought was to somehow connect the planning/feedback process to a pre-existing, government provided service, such as libraries. There could of course be a online format for those who are able to use that, but for the people who don't have internet/computers/ lacking knowledge of how to participate, the ability to access could be guaranteed through providing feedback stations and guidance at libraries. The book-busses could even tour schools/elderly homes/ service living homes (as they do) and offer the attendants/residents the opportunity to participate. Other government run facilities, such as prisons, schools, universities... could also provide on site information about the online alternative for those who are able to use those resources.

uomi vois panostaa uraaniteollisuuteen sekä fuusio ydinvoimaan ps suomi vois tehä yhteistyötä yhdysvaltalaisten ja europpalaisten energia yritysten ja jättien voisko suomi tehä ydinvoima yhteistyötä yhdysvaltain ydinvoima jättien kanssa sekä europpalaisten ydinvoimajättien kanssa sekä yhdysvaltain hallituksen kanssa kouluissa vois tukea europpalaisa tuotteita sekä yhdysvaltaliasia ja myös kotimaisia tuotteita kouluissa pitäisi tukea europpalaisia ja yhdysvaltalaisia tuotteita sekä kotimaisia tuotteita nuoria pitäs innostaa tukemaan euruoppalaisia tuotteita ja yhdysvaltalaisia tuotteita sekä kotimaisia tuotteita

For everyone to have a genuine opportunity to participate, the project needs to be accessible. My first thought was to somehow connect the planning/feedback process to a pre-existing, government provided service, such as libraries. There could of course be a online format for those who are able to use that, but for the people who don't have internet/computers/ lacking knowledge of how to participate, the ability to access could be guaranteed through providing feedback stations and guidance at libraries. The book-busses could even tour schools/elderly homes/ service living homes (as they do) and offer the attendants/residents the opportunity to participate. Other government run facilities, such as prisons, schools, universities... could also provide on site information about the online alternative for those who are able to use those resources.

As with this survey, ensure easy access is provided online, in different languages. Also provide information about the consultation in non-digital spaces with other options for reaching out (prepaid letters/forms to post) etc. Schools should be advised and students provided the opportunity to comment, given that it will impact the youth the most.

Information and educations is key, such as a main website/ or a central hub where information concerning climate change and the relationship with the law can be accessed by all individuals and clearly explained in easy to manage terminology. Furthermore, it is key that the information and documentation for participation is available in all languages spoken in the Finnish state - including minority languages.

Further, utilising social media is a good way to reach a wide number of the young generation, but perhaps more traditional methods of information gathering can be used for older generations.

The main way for everybody to be able to participate is by expressing their own opinions through voice, vote, writing, answering questionnaires, or similar options.

The project should be accessible. This is pretty easy with digitalization and the exploding use of online platforms. Other already existing media are libraries, public buses, radio and TV stations. Anything that goes viral draws interest. If this is successfully used for negative purposes, then there is need to harness the potential also for an important policy. Using multiple platforms reduces the chance of exclusion or unequal participation.

Through COVID-19, I believe, we have learnt a lot on how to effectively utilize technology for all different types of workshops, conferences, lectures. I believe this could be a useful strategy to include people who are physically unable to attend meetings. Otherwise, I believe meetings held in municipalities are good to encourage people to join in their region. The groups should not be too big so that everyone feels comfortable to communicate. As for youth, this could be undertaken in school and a youth representative from each school could join larger gatherings.

This forum of collecting feedback via questionnaires is very accessible and I think that it should be used throughout the stages of planning climate policy plans. However, in order for the public at large to participate in such questionnaires, there should be cooperation with schools, workplaces, etc.

For everyone to have a genuine opportunity to participate, the project needs to be accessible. My first thought was to somehow connect the planning/feedback process to a pre-existing, government provided service, such as libraries. There could of course be a online format for those who are able to use that, but for the people who don't have internet/computers/ lacking knowledge of how to participate, the ability to access could be guaranteed through providing feedback stations and guidance at libraries. The book-busses could even tour schools/elderly homes/ service living homes (as they do) and offer the attendants/residents the opportunity to participate. Other government run facilities, such as prisons, schools, universities... could also provide on site information about the online alternative for those who are able to use those resources.

Through first making the process accessible and then providing the possible participants with information about why their participation is important. Which would also mean making the information accessible for all. We cannot assume that everyone has the same level of literacy and hence the material needs to be made understandable for all possible participants. Having a motivational driver is of course going to make participation easier, but I cannot personally identify what such other motivation could be, other than avoiding extreme climate catastrophes and mass extinction. For me a competition probably wouldn't work as a motivator, but on the other hand I already see the issue as important enough that I would participate anyway, so I am clearly not the targeted group right now.

kouluissa vois tukea europpalaisa tuotteita sekä yhdysvaltaliasia ja myös kotimaisia tuotteita kouluissa pitäisi tukea europpalaisia ja yhdysvaltalaisia tuotteita sekä kotimaisia tuotteita nuoria pitäs innostaa tukemaan euruoppalaisia tuotteita ja yhdysvaltalaisia tuotteita sekä kotimaisia tuotteita

Through first making the process accessible and then providing the possible participants with information about why their participation is important. Which would also mean making the information accessible for all. We cannot assume that everyone has the same level of literacy and hence the material needs to be made understandable for all possible participants. Having a motivational driver is of course going to make participation easier, but I cannot personally identify what such other motivation could be, other than avoiding extreme climate catastrophes and mass extinction. For me a competition probably wouldn't work as a motivator, but on the other hand I already see the issue as important enough that I would participate anyway, so I am clearly not the targeted group right now.

Children should be easily contactable through schools. Given the importance of this issue, schools should be made to collaborate with the participation process. As local authorities often provide disability services, they could be contacted and asked to hang visible posters inviting submissions of interest from people with disabilities and their families. Once interest is gauged, submissions could be obtained through processes fitting the particular needs (i.e. verbal discussions with someone supporting and taking notes, written submissions, etc). It is my understanding that many of Finland's elderly population live at home. It would be difficult to reach out to all by post etc, so may be worth instead using targeted posters about this process in public services used frequently by the elderly (libraries, post, even supermarkets etc).

Matters such as this should be included in the school curriculum, so education about the environment, and climate change can be learned from an early age. Further, informative programme can help children formulate appropriate ideals to contribute to the development and reform of the act. Access to libraries and the internet and forums can help special groups access the information required, especially those in care homes - forums could be established to meet and discuss the plans for reform, highlighting how it would affect them, thus they could contribute accordingly. Questionnaires are a good way of gathering empirical data - electronic and paper, which would guarantee participation and a good set of data to draw from to make decisions at the government level.

Every group has to be approached a bit differently according to their levels of education, age, or others. But, at the end their feedback should be obtained through vote, voice, writing, or any other media.

This can be handled in the same way other issues are handled for these special groups. First by informing about why their participation is important.

Have a spokesperson represent these groups.

Schools as well as facilities for the care of older people and\or related services should cooperate with the ministry of the environment to seek out the opinions of children and older people regarding the issue of climate change and how to best combat it, including climate change policy.

Matters such as this should be included in the school curriculum, so education about the environment, and climate change can be learned from an early age. Further, informative programme can help children formulate appropriate ideals to contribute to the development and reform of the act. Access to libraries and the internet and forums can help special groups access the information required, especially those in care homes - forums could be established to meet and discuss the plans for reform, highlighting how it would affect them, thus they could contribute accordingly.

Personally I don't think this is that great of an idea, we truly need to listen to scientists now, we cannot afford making decisions based on personal bias and lack of knowledge.
Rather than making a citizen's jury and base decisions on that, that could be a functional idea for gathering information from groups that might, not naturally, be inclined to participate in giving feedback individually. Eg. Children and people living at service homes.

good

Personally I don't think this is that great of an idea, we truly need to listen to scientists now, we cannot afford making decisions based on personal bias and lack of knowledge.
Rather than making a citizen's jury and base decisions on that, that could be a functional idea for gathering information from groups that might, not naturally, be inclined to participate in giving feedback individually. Eg. Children and people living at service homes.

A citizen's jury could be considered for implementation measures, to gauge public perceptions on different mechanisms. If an idea is very unpopular, it will be beneficial for policymakers to know this and consider if adjustments could be made to the proposal. However, the citizen's jury should be for informative purposes only - not decision making. The basis for decisions in this field should be the science.

This would be a constructive idea, but only if scientists and professionals were also included. Such jury's could have the confirmation bias present which could negatively affect the outcomes from these meetings. If this is one of the ways going forward, it needs to be effectively moderated and objective as this is a subject (because of the economic connotations and misinformation) that can be polarising

I do not agree with the citizens' jury since these only represent a part of the whole population and do not usually include for example, disabled persons, senior persons, disabled persons, etc. A citizens' jury although it may seem to be an easier way to reach results, it is a very vulnerable group to be corrupted.

A citizen's jury may not be yield expert results and could be biased.

I think it is a good idea, as long as scientist are still involved and can take the voices of the citizens into account.

This could be very useful, assuming that it would be comprised of a diverse group of people from different backgrounds. However, it should be clear that the use of such jury would require from participants to objectively communicate and refer to facts when addressing the strengths and weaknesses of plans, without employing emotional rhetoric or political slogans. There could be a problem if participants are not familiar with the climate science and facts, prior to voicing opinions regarding climate plans. It might be better to compose groups of experts that can advise regarding the implications of potential climate plans on specific sectors of the population (i.e., teachers, economists, unions, etc.).

A citizen's jury may not be yield expert results and could be biased.

Smaller feedback/ discussion opportunities with either representatives for the ministry, or other,s who could gather the points discussed and get an overview of the worries/feedback people have and the return that to the ministry.

kouluissa vois tukea europpalaisa tuotteita sekä yhdysvaltaliasia ja myös kotimaisia tuotteita kouluissa pitäisi tukea europpalaisia ja yhdysvaltalaisia tuotteita sekä kotimaisia tuotteita nuoria pitäs innostaa tukemaan euruoppalaisia tuotteita ja yhdysvaltalaisia tuotteita sekä kotimaisia tuotteita ps kansalaisaloitteen vois tehä sähköpostilla

Give the voice to scientists.

I believe the options listed here are sufficient.

Information from the relevant ministries, the use of social media and the internet. The options given here reflect a careful, pragmatic and multifaceted approach that should be effective and provide ample opportunity for engagement.

I think nowadays most of the people have access to online sources, therefore an on-line questionnaire or survey answered via computer or personal phone should be enough to integrate the opinions of the whole population. I totally disagree with any other type of way that requires the close contact of people or the use of easily corruptible social media.

Small focus groups with the ministry's representatives in person or online.

Live or remote events, online surveys and groups of experts that can advise regarding the implications of potential climate plans on specific sectors of the population (i.e., teachers, economists, unions, etc.) would, in my opinion, be the best ways to participate in the implementation of the Climate Change Act.

Give the voice to scientists.

I haven't personally asked for or received information, but I have been following the discussion in media.

As a scientist the emergency is real, as a citizen I need to keep informed so I follow the discussion.

I have not asked for information under the Climate Change Act, as I didn't know this was an option. I might do so in the future, though I suspect much of it is in Finnish which I would not be able to understand (yet).

No information has found its way to my desk, but I am keeping abreast of developments by following the relevant figures and information

I have not received any information about these plans.

I have never requested information regarding the plans under the Climate Change Act but I would be interested in receiving such information. This information should be readily available online rather than requiring that someone individually request to receive this information.

I have not asked for information under the Climate Change Act, as I didn't know this was an option. I might do so in the future, though I suspect much of it is in Finnish which I would not be able to understand (yet).

Using gathered data about how to make things most easily readable, eg. right amounts of contrasts, colour differences, font size, sizes for virtual buttons, offer different versions for online versions (eg. simplified/further information, larger visuals...) Verbal opportunities, sign translators, trigger warnings ..

Using gathered data about how to make things most easily readable, eg. right amounts of contrasts, colour differences, font size, sizes for virtual buttons, offer different versions for online versions (eg. simplified/further information, larger visuals...) Verbal opportunities, sign translators, trigger warnings ..

Having the information available in different languages, having summaries and overviews to give context to any large or complicated documents and having clear, visual timelines setting out major milestones/deadlines

Infographics are always useful in the dissemination of information. Further, making the information easy to digest is key - as often the economics of climate change and development of the state can be a complex matter that is not so easy for the layman to understand.

The use of clear to understand language should be used, aided with tables, figures and resource addresses that would make the information easy to digest and remember.

Having the information available in different languages and on different platforms.

Information regarding climate plans, all types (short, medium and long term) should be available online, perhaps on the website of the ministry of the environment. If the information is all in one place, citizens would be able to review and provide feedback on such plans.

Simple enough without being reductive, keeping things concise and focused, making sure its available in multiple languages and formats with best practices for accessibility taken in to account. Don't assume that everyone knows how things work. Point out very clearly what rights people have to be heard and the reasoning behind the decisions. Have more in depth and complex information attached to or easily accessible from the most basic communication.

Having the information available in different languages, having summaries and overviews to give context to any large or complicated documents and having clear, visual timelines setting out major milestones/deadlines

Personally I'd be able and would use an online format of some sort.

Personally I'd be able and would use an online format of some sort.

I would prefer to access information online and with an option for English versions of documents (and other languages)

Digital and online formats would be the easiest in languages.

A message with a link should be sent to my personal e-mail to have access to this information, either as a pdf format or an on-line site.

In any format, preferably online.

I would like materials to be online but also accessible in other forms which would allow such information to be fully accessible to the public, including digital and physical copies of these materials, in several languages.

It would also be nice to receive by physical mail.

Personally I'd be able and would use an online format of some sort.

Through providing feedback opportunities for people there will already be a way to effect the result which I think is just. Needs change so there should always be a running gathering of feedback so that changes can be made once problems appear or are realized.
I know enough to know that the sooner we do more the better, but I also know that it is easy for me to say, people do not change their habits as easily as any progress might require. Hence I do think it is unfair to create a law that takes so much into consideration individuals, when they aren't maybe informed enough or just aren't willing at that point to give away some comforts they have had, especially when it is industries that create most of the issues. It is great that we can have people give feedback, but letting industries control their own "goals" for climate change is just hurtfull and ignorant, hence I don't think it is just to put so much on the individuals from the start. Clearly individuals are trying to make better choices (just by regarding how industries view being "green" as a trend) but as long as industries are the ones who ar allowed to dictate how fast they can change (and not meet consequences for not reaching their own goals) we have a problem of accountability, which never will be resolved by forcing individuals to change their habits and still only rely on the "pimped up" strategies that industries have available.

Through providing feedback opportunities for people there will already be a way to effect the result which I think is just. Needs change so there should always be a running gathering of feedback so that changes can be made once problems appear or are realized.
I know enough to know that the sooner we do more the better, but I also know that it is easy for me to say, people do not change their habits as easily as any progress might require. Hence I do think it is unfair to create a law that takes so much into consideration individuals, when they aren't maybe informed enough or just aren't willing at that point to give away some comforts they have had, especially when it is industries that create most of the issues. It is great that we can have people give feedback, but letting industries control their own "goals" for climate change is just hurtfull and ignorant, hence I don't think it is just to put so much on the individuals from the start. Clearly individuals are trying to make better choices (just by regarding how industries view being "green" as a trend) but as long as industries are the ones who ar allowed to dictate how fast they can change (and not meet consequences for not reaching their own goals) we have a problem of accountability, which never will be resolved by forcing individuals to change their habits and still only rely on the "pimped up" strategies that industries have available.

A just transition means a holistic approach to approaching the climate crisis which considers matters beyond the removal of carbon from the atmosphere. This means taking into account the needs of all society, including financial means, gender impacts, impacts on indigenous people and all other vulnerable populations. It also means considering the impacts on the climate transition on those involved in fossil fuel production and retraining them for work in other fields. Climate change presents many obstacles, but it can be used as an opportunity to create a society which is more equitable and takes care of its people and its environment.

A just transition is one that at its heart, has intergenerational equity as a key focus. That the quality of life for the future cannot be compromised by the present - but then we must ensure that during the present, we are reducing inequalities and improving the overall quality of life. Within this concept, the transition should be equitable for all in Finland - even minority groups and indigenous peoples.

It means that every person gets to vote and express their opinions on how the process from now to a carbon pollution free way of life should be for everybody, considering their education level, social level, economic level, gender, age, etc. In order to avoid not only global warming and pollution but also the negative impact on people from vulnerable groups. An organized change has to be implemented in the years to come and people will have the knowledge of the whole process and goals.

A just transition means that every resident is involved and their well being and livelihood is considered in all stages.

Transitioning to carbon neutrality will require us to use resources more responsibly and transition to more sustainable habits in many aspects of daily life (for example, travel & transportation, food, etc.). A just transition is one that leads to every citizen paying an equal price for his/her non-sustainable, "carbon-positive" actions; or, vice versa, gain equal benefit from carbon-negative actions. In a free-market society, that transition will require some way of internalizing the total costs of the carbon footprint of a product for its full lifecycle, irrespective of where the product is created and eventually disposed of. To make this transition towards internalized costs socially just, each citizen must equally obtain some increase in spending power that is strictly related to that increase in costs that is due to internalizing carbon footprints.
Schemes/tools for practically implementing such just internalization of costs already exist: e.g., carbon taxes with equal redistribution of their revenues to all citizens, or the equal distribution of tradable "carbon rights" among citizens (cap and trade).

Just transition means that the affects of any future policies on the population, especially employees, has been taken into consideration and accounted for in the climate plans and policies. Populations which are the most at-risk and vulnerable due to inequality and current system failures should not be put at a disadvantage when climate plans are implemented.

I think that there should be more focus on large corporations as well as, for instance, government controlled mining and forestry actors, rather than on individual actions. These industries that contribute the most to climate change, and benefit the most from not changing, are the ones who need to have much stricter regulations and control, especially when their actions perpetuate environmental violence against indigenous people. For those who are not in power but are affected by stricter regulations or changes to these industries, such as employees, the government must protect and support those employees not by propping up the big businesses or industries but by moving employment to 'green' businesses and providing other support.

Through providing feedback opportunities for people there will already be a way to effect the result which I think is just. Needs change so there should always be a running gathering of feedback so that changes can be made once problems appear or are realized.
I know enough to know that the sooner we do more the better, but I also know that it is easy for me to say, people do not change their habits as easily as any progress might require. Hence I do think it is unfair to create a law that takes so much into consideration individuals, when they aren't maybe informed enough or just aren't willing at that point to give away some comforts they have had, especially when it is industries that create most of the issues. It is great that we can have people give feedback, but letting industries control their own "goals" for climate change is just hurtfull and ignorant, hence I don't think it is just to put so much on the individuals from the start. Clearly individuals are trying to make better choices (just by regarding how industries view being "green" as a trend) but as long as industries are the ones who ar allowed to dictate how fast they can change (and not meet consequences for not reaching their own goals) we have a problem of accountability, which never will be resolved by forcing individuals to change their habits and still only rely on the "pimped up" strategies that industries have available.

Social justice, for me, means that people know that they have basic rights and that they are cared for when they need help (health care, education, basic income, affordable housing, accountable government representatives, functioning justice system and easily access protection and help through the justice system). Accountability truly goes hand in hand with everything in a society that is socially just, people need to know that they aren't alone in their struggles and that those who use their power for harm do meet consequences. Eg. the current loops rape victims need to go through to get justice is horrendous, no one should ever have to go through that to get justice and that truly shows that our society isn't socially just (even though it might be "better" than others...) same goes for mental health patients, the homeless and the unemployed, we can do better.

Social justice, for me, means that people know that they have basic rights and that they are cared for when they need help (health care, education, basic income, affordable housing, accountable government representatives, functioning justice system and easily access protection and help through the justice system). Accountability truly goes hand in hand with everything in a society that is socially just, people need to know that they aren't alone in their struggles and that those who use their power for harm do meet consequences.

Social justice for me means an equitable society, where all can receive justice, protection and basic needs such as shelter, sustenance and safety. People have the same opportunities as each other. It means a participatory governing system, where rich or powerful individuals are reined in (or preferably are taxed heavily so they are not so wealthy) and not able to influence government decisions.

Social Justice refers to the distribution of wealth and opportunity within a society. Ensuring that there is a clear, equal system that provides opportunity for all is the best way forward. The northern latitudes and the Sami are going to particularly affected by the changes coming, therefore, special measures must be ensure to protect their way of life (at least their traditional cultural activities). Thus, in developing the state - the Sami should be giving a stronger political voice.

It means that the rights of the people have to be respected and if any change in society should arise, the groups that could be affected by these changes should be properly recognized by compensation.

Social justice means that people know what are their rights and obligations and have uninterrupted access to the services that are as a result of these rights. Each individual should feel that they are part of the society and their rights are respected.

Social justice means that each citizen is afforded equal opportunities, at least at birth (and arguably better yet, even at reaching adulthood). Related to carbon neutrality and a sustainable society, the logical extension of that morality is that every citizen is offered equal rights to the use of limited resources -- be it fundamentally limited resources, e.g. land, or resources capped by political decisions, such as the carbon emissions that are the topic here.
Eventually, this social justice should probably be extended to future generations as well. However, that would diminish current citizens' right to limited and non-renewable resources to zero. Or in market terms, those resources would become infinitely expensive (as for each bid on a non-renewable item, there will be some future citizen who will bid higher). A way out of that conundrum could be a transition towards circular economies.

Social justice means looking out for the well-being of people rather than companies and special interest groups. Human well being should be the first priority of society, rather than an inaccurate and vague indicator, such as GDP, which only indicates whether companies and investors are doing well or not.

social justice means looking at things at a structural level and fighting to fundamentally alter systems that are set up to concentrate power and wealth and inflict marginalization or many forms of violence on others. climate actions at a surface level may not address the deeper problematics that contribute to the system that has created climate change in the first place, although addressing that is a much more difficult proposition.

Social justice for me means an equitable society, where all can receive justice, protection and basic needs such as shelter, sustenance and safety. People have the same opportunities as each other. It means a participatory governing system, where rich or powerful individuals are reined in (or preferably are taxed heavily so they are not so wealthy) and not able to influence government decisions.

I think we need to start by making accountability and accessibility more important. As long as people feel like they aren't listened to or are unimportant we are never going to see people feel like they truly are part of a community. Once people feel like they are part of a community they have more of a drive to take care of that community and that's how people can accept changes to their lifestyle they might not have initiated themselves.
So for me what would be most logical is to keep the companies and industries accountable, set laws and increase control, if they know they aren't survailled they'll take short-cuts, we have seen that over and over again. Improve social structures, improve health care access, improve accessibility to society and communities.

I think we need to start by making accountability and accessibility more important. As long as people feel like they aren't listened to or are unimportant we are never going to see people feel like they truly are part of a community. Once people feel like they are part of a community they have more of a drive to take care of that community and that's how people can accept changes to their lifestyle they might not have initiated themselves.
So for me what would be most logical is to keep the companies and industries accountable, set laws and increase control, if they know they aren't survailled they'll take short-cuts, we have seen that over and over again. Improve social structures, improve health care access, improve accessibility to society and communities.

Decisions should be made with a inclusive and broad understanding of climate change, the science and its impacts on vulnerable populations. Historically, the standard of what is acceptable in terms of climate change has been set by wealthy individuals and by countries who are not at the forefront of climate change impacts. For example, pacific island nations and Bangladesh (and many other areas of Asia and Africa) are already suffering due to the warming - but these losses are seen as acceptable/inevitable in the current international standards because the impacts are generally not impacting the white and wealthy. A just transition should challenge these views and consider all losses of life, land and property to be equally tragic and unacceptable. Efforts must be made to drastically reduce carbon emissions in a manner which will not exacerbate the burden already carried by the most vulnerable populations. Also, wealthy individuals involved in the fossil fuel industry (or related industries) and fossil fuels companies should be kept away from the decision-making process, except insofar as necessary based on participations rights.

Sami are particularly impacted by climate change, while projects have been planned (and cancelled in the northern latitudes) one does question how, if any of the FPIC was respected. The Sami rely on traditional activities as part of their local economies and should now be made to abandon this in the name of overall development - the green transition cannot come at any cost.

Manifestation of this is going to happen from the people, groups of people are going to express in a positive or negative way during the transition process. I believe that a way to predict the outcome is to know as much as possible the thoughts of the population towards a carbon neutral way of life. The population should be informed about the changes that will occur, the process, the goals, the challenges, ... But, above all the population should participate during the whole process of the change.

Where the voice and perspective of the people is apparently ignored or not sufficiently considered.

Inclusivity, especially of the minority groups.

I expect that in practice the transition to a carbon neutral society will require some way of "holistically" pricing carbon emissions: a product's carbon footprint accrued in its full lifecycle will need to be part of the its costs on the market.
Using the example of realizing that via carbon taxes, I think it is likely that lower-income households would need to lay out a larger fraction of their income on such taxes. That issue would effectively be countered by a equal redistribution of carbon tax revenue to citizens, which for lower incomes corresponds again to larger fractions, thereby making those taxes "socially just".
In any case, the speed of the transition also needs to be well judged: fast enough to have meaningful environmental impact, but also slow enough to allow citizens, communities, companies, etc. to adjust and adapt as the economy is in transition.

The transition towards a carbon neutral society is lagging, and any concept of a just transition is not fully developed or discussed in Finland. Social and environmental issues are often separated, which hinders the development of a just transition plan. The loudest voices controlling the discussion on carbon neutrality are often companies which have their own financial interests, rather than social justice interests, at heart. The Finnish labor market is obsessed with increasing the national GDP and competing globally with competitors so they constantly fight to lower wages and disenfranchise employees, both in Finland and outside of Finland. These same companies often employ morally dubious standards in achieving low employee and production costs, most often at the expense of employees and the environment. Finnish agencies such as Business Finland will fund almost any company's activities, as long as such company anticipates strong profit making capacity and ability to export their product or services abroad. Even if the ministry of the environment puts out a plan of just transition, all government agencies and policies must be aligned in order to achieve this. The government must first establish carbon budgets for certain timelines, then enforce these carbon budgets within the private sector. There has been a reluctance to force strict legislation on companies, instead waiting for companies to volunteer to lower carbon emissions as a function of the "free market". However, unless the government sets a goal and enforces it, this will not happen. Once the private sector is aware of the goal set by the government, and any accompanying legislation enforcing it, they will be able to align and plan accordingly - but the government must take the lead and set the example. Pollution must be costly to companies according to the principle that "the polluter pays" - rather than being an "externality" suffered and paid for by individuals.

Decisions should be made with a inclusive and broad understanding of climate change, the science and its impacts on vulnerable populations. Historically, the standard of what is acceptable in terms of climate change has been set by wealthy individuals and by countries who are not at the forefront of climate change impacts. For example, pacific island nations and Bangladesh (and many other areas of Asia and Africa) are already suffering due to the warming - but these losses are seen as acceptable/inevitable in the current international standards because the impacts are generally not impacting the white and wealthy. A just transition should challenge these views and consider all losses of life, land and property to be equally tragic and unacceptable. Efforts must be made to drastically reduce carbon emissions in a manner which will not exacerbate the burden already carried by the most vulnerable populations. Also, wealthy individuals involved in the fossil fuel industry (or related industries) and fossil fuels companies should be kept away from the decision-making process, except insofar as necessary based on participations rights.