Choose a claim you can defend
A strong justice case is narrow. Not 'climate change is unfair', but 'my LGA's drainage budget has not grown while flood days have'. Narrow claims can be checked, and checkable claims survive hostile rooms.
Pick the claim, then list what evidence would prove it and what would disprove it. If you cannot imagine evidence against your claim, you have a slogan, not a case.
Build it from two datasets
The strongest structure you have seen in this course is two numbers side by side: under 1 percent of emissions next to top-tier vulnerability. Contribution versus consequence. Budget versus damage. Promise versus delivery.
Use the CY-102 checklist on your own evidence before anyone else can. Source, axes, window, alternative causes. Your case should survive the exact scrutiny you were trained to apply to others.
Deliver it to a real audience
A case has a listener. Pick one: your principal, an LGA officer, your feed, a workshop classroom. Write the four-sentence version first: the injustice, the two numbers, the specific ask, the source. Then expand only if the room allows.
This is the capstone: a four-sentence climate justice case, with sources, aimed at a named audience. Bring it to the assessment. Ambassadors deliver theirs in real classrooms.
Hold on to these
- Narrow, checkable claims beat broad, unfalsifiable ones.
- Two well-sourced numbers side by side are the strongest rhetorical structure you own.
- A case is not finished until it has a named audience and a specific ask.
Check yourself
No grades here. If you can answer these out loud, you own the lesson.
- 1.Write a narrow, checkable climate justice claim about your own area.
- 2.Which two numbers would you put side by side to support it, and where do they live?
- 3.Write the four-sentence version: injustice, numbers, ask, source.