Reducing
emissions is an important thing to do, but arguments that we can address the
problems of local communities anywhere by
driving a Prius or purchasing offsets every time we get on an airplane are are
simply wrong. The success of such arguments introduces inequities into the
climate debate. We need to counter those arguments, not by fighting against
climate policies, but by taking ownership of the way social and environmental
problems are framed. An equitable approach balances climate change with the
many other kinds of global change that currently inhibit social justice in so
many places.
1. The Climate Impulse: not everything is a climate problem.
Climate
change is just one of many important social and environmental issues. But it has
become fashionable to turn everything into a climate change problem, even if
this totally misconstrues the nature of the problem and its potential solution.
The
impulse to frame everything as a climate change problem comes from climate
activists looking to improve their case for global action, and from experts
taking advantage of increased resources available to anyone who can claim to be
working on climate issues. However well-intentioned, these efforts are not
helpful to communities facing a variety of local social, economic, and
environmental challenges.
For
example, heat waves are a major problem for big cities, with disproportionate
impacts on the elderly in low income neighborhoods. The proximate cause of
deaths in heat waves is high temperatures. But the ultimate cause is a lack of
social cohesion, ineffective social services, and inadequate emergency
management systems.
Framing
heat waves as a climate change problem does a disservice to the issue. Even if
climate change causes an increase in heat waves, stopping climate change will
not stop heat wave related deaths. Furthermore, thinking about the problem in
terms of climate change is far less likely to reveal effective solutions.
2. Climate Science: whose voice will be heard?
Climate
science is funded with tax-payer money based on a promise that the enterprise
will provide useful information for those dealing with climate change. For
decades it has failed to deliver on this promise. Science funding institutions
are generally set up to support science and the interests of scientists, rather
than the interests of governments and other stakeholders.
However,
this is beginning to change. Science funders are slowly recognizing that
stakeholder needs must inform research priorities. Climate science as a whole
has begun to shift its focus from the global level to the local and regional
levels. This is a positive shift. But as these institutions re-orient
themselves to recognize other voices, the question is: who will be heard?
There is
a risk that the most powerful and persistent voices will begin to drive the
agenda at the expense of those without adequate or effective representation.
This kind of dynamic may become a problem in Australia, where the two major
government investments in adaptation research have focused much of their
efforts on coastal cities and major industries, where you find a concentration
of money, power, and valuable infrastructure. Who's advocating for the most
vulnerable?
3. Winners and Losers: the impacts of climate policies.
Any effective
climate policy will obviously have direct economic impacts on most people in
society. As many have pointed out, it is important that those policies include
measures to lessen hardships on low income and other disadvantaged groups.
Less
recognized, but of equal concern, are the potential indirect impacts of
policies such as cap and trade. For example, under cap and trade carbon offsets
will go to the lowest bidder. This incentivizes investment in companies that
are best able to exploit loop holes, escape effective evaluation and
accounting, and take advantage of communities that cannot stand up for
themselves. Cap and trade amounts to a tacit acceptance and endorsement of
those negative local impacts in the service of an abstract global good.
I believe the more subtle perspectives described above deserve more attention than they currently receive. Communities need to be out in front of these issues to avoid being misunderstood, exploited, or forgotten.
About
the Author: Ryan Meyer is a CSPO graduate research associate and a doctoral
candidate in ASU's School of Life Sciences.
