In Pari Island, a tiny community a two-hour ferry ride away in the Indonesian capital Jakarta, no longer is the sea represented only as a source of life, but as a means of existential threat. Fishermen used to be able to rely on large catches now their boats are destroyed by floods (Christian, 2019). Owners of guesthouses look helplessly as sea water devours their beachfront driving away tourists. Families that used to rely on wells as sources of fresh water have taken to buying expensive bottled water since the saltwater has polluted their water. Homes and businesses in Pari Island were flooded twice in 2021 alone leaving the community in shock. Already, eleven per cent of the island is under water (Marganingrum et al., 2022). This is not a one-time tragedy. Rising seas are the most noticeable and disastrous impact of climate change to many small islands and low lying coastal areas (Pernetta, 1992). However, as bad as all this has been even on the frontlines, their contribution to the climate crisis is minimal. Blame should instead be directed to developed countries, and multinational corporations whose decades-long emissions are causing this planetary crisis (Priambodo, 2023). That is why the struggle of Pari Island is not only about climate change, but rather about climate justice. It poses an ultimate question of who is to be accountable for the damage done by the rising seas. The question is directed directly to big polluting business enterprises which must be legally and morally accountable.

Rising Seas: The Human Face of Climate Change

The science behind the rise in sea level is unquestionable. Part of the reason is that world temperatures have risen, resulting in the melting of the polar ice sheets and glaciers, as well as warmer oceans swelling. The resultant has been a gradual invasion of seawater on shores all over the world. Indonesia is very vulnerable to beach erosion since it has 81,000 kilometers of coastline (Farida, 2025). Four million or more Indonesians are affected by the annual flooding which is likely to rise exponentially in the next few decades (Budiyono et al., 2016). Pari Island offers a graphic example of how increases in sea level destroy lives. The main source of income fishing is interfered as storms and floods destroy fishing boats, lower fish supplies and make the fishermen unable to go to sea. Tourism which was initially boosted by the proposed plans of building Pari into one of the 10 new Balis, has also failed as businesses were left without revenue generation projects during flood situations (Anindita, 2017). Even the necessary services are undermined: freshwater wells are poisoned with saltwater, which results in the economic distress of people as they purchase drinking water. Women who are often in charge of household requirements also encounter a double burden-their earning capacity reduces and responsibility burden increases.

Climate Injustice: Unequal Burdens and Corporate Responsibility

The inhabitants of Pari Island are not the only people fighting. Whenever and wherever, the climate crisis acutely impacts the marginalized population, which has a low carbon footprint. The 10 percent richest of the world generates approximately half of the total emissions of greenhouse gases and the poorest half of the population only generates around 10 percent (Satterthwaite, 2008).  This difference highlights the necessity to discuss climate change as not only the environmental problem, but as the justice issue (Schlosberg & Collins, 2014). Corporate actors are at the center of this injustice. Take Holcim, the Swiss cement maker. Since 1950, Holcim has released over seven billion tons of carbon dioxide, which is more than two-fold of the total quantity by Switzerland within the same timeframe. Cement production is one of the heaviest carbon-intensive businesses around the globe and yet the firms, including Holcim, have been extending their activities, and have been covering themselves under the terms of the laws of net-zero and sustainability. Their assertions of manufacturing carbon-free concrete through afforestation actions are not other than rainbow washing: they enable further pollution under the pretext of compensation, rather than dealing with the problem of excess emissions. The folks of the island of Pari know this hypocrisy.

Legal and Moral Accountability

Four locals of the island of Pari- Bobby, Arif, Edi, and Asmania have filed a lawsuit against Holcim in Switzerland- an unprecedented move (Mockel & Wendland, 2024). Their allegation is straightforward and bold: Holcim, being among the largest polluters in the world, is responsible to pay for the harm they are now experiencing (Mayaputri et al., 2024). This case is backed up by international organizations like Swiss Church Aid, WALHI in Indonesia and the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (Wartini). The case is not only a local matter; it is a part of the worldwide wave of climate litigation which aims to re-evaluate who should assume responsibility under the Anthropocene conditions. States are traditionally held accountable by international climate agreements. Corporations control the greatest emitters of the world yet the examples cannot afford to retreat behind national barriers. They do not only have transnational actions that have transnational effects they are also transnational actors and therefore they must be answered with transnational justice. Moral argument is also firm. Climate change is not something that is far and abstract, it is something that is experienced on the ground due to vulnerable people.

Climate Justice as a Path Forward

Technological ingenuity is not enough to tackle the issue of the climate crisis; a reexamination of notions of fairness and responsibility is needed (Gardiner, 2011). The example with Pari Island demonstrates several ways/avenues to go. On the one hand, there should be more severe modes of corporate responsibility. This contains not just litigation but also international rules that regulate emissions and give companies the impetus to invest in loss-and-damage funds to enable affected communities. Second, climate finance should focus on adaptation in the risky areas (El-Batran & Aboulnaga, 2014). Small islands require funds in the area of sea walls, sustainable fisheries and fresh water infrastructure (Bell et al., 2018). However, financing on a global scale tends to focus on those mitigation technologies that benefit those nations that are wealthier. A justice based approach would redress this imbalance. Third, local communities should be enabled. And lastly, there has been the need to bring about a cultural change on how we perceive development. Since the current demands for fossil fuel consumption to exceed the climate overdraft of the planet are coupled with uncontrolled corporate expansionism that leads to disregarding any planetary limits, the search for unlimited economic growth is incompatible with the climate overdraft (Irwin 2024). A sustainable future has to be oriented towards human well-being, equity and ecological balance instead.