COMING SOON...

Panelists discussed climate justice as it relates to education and the labor sector. Dr. Megan Bang discussed the need for including nature-culture relations in learning. This learning includes humans as part of the natural ecosystem and learning as part of the socio-ecological world. Dr. Bang also touched on racial injustice and the limitations of using deficit models for learning, particularly in communities of color. Sara Espinoza discussed greening STEM using the environment as a way to increase youth engagement not only to increase interest in STEM jobs but also to increase skills in demand in every sector. Dennis Dougherty spoke on the formation of the Nation’s first office for a just transition in which labor unions joined with community groups, environmental groups, and faith-based groups to address climate change while creating and sustaining quality jobs. Ugbaad Kosar spoke about creating jobs in carbon management in an equitable and environmentally conscious way. One example was regenerative agriculture as a means of removing carbon from the atmosphere which requires increasing technical assistance and incentives for farmers. Another example was direct air capture to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which would create jobs but would require the training for these new industries as well.

The audience raised questions for discussion. First, someone asked about the impact of COVID-19 on environmental education, green technology, and labor, which led to a discussion on virtual learning and how to increase access to technology and connection for students while not entrenching a deficit model of learning that implies that children are not learning anything of value during this time. Complex systems, data displays, and civic response and engagement are in the public sphere in a way that has not happened before, and there is possibility in this moment for education. However, inequitable distribution of vaccines may put vulnerable students and adults at risk. From the labor sector COVID-19 has highlighted that America is vulnerable to the climate crisis and compounding crises, such as wildfires, while exposing deficiencies in the social safety net, which will need state and federal resources as well as innovative solutions. A question about what education and labor policies need to change brought up the need for a systemic decision to incorporate climate change education into K-12 settings. The disruption that COVID-19 has caused has provided an opportunity to radically shift the knowledge infrastructure towards place- and community-based education. Panelists emphasized that the people who are affected the most should be at the table while decision-makers implement policy, as well as ensure that frontline communities are centered in these policies.

Mae Stevens (Signal Group) began the discussion addressing the planning needs for water infrastructure. She discussed the disproportionate impacts of clean water access issues on low income and communities of color, as well as the fact that conditions will worsen with the impacts of climate change. Mae addressed the lack of government investment in water infrastructure with a stark comparison to transportation infrastructure investment from the Federal and state levels, showing only 3% of water infrastructure investment is Federal, versus 80% for transportation. She called out a need for Federal spending on the issue with a focus on addressing affordability challenges and the HEROES and CARES act water provisions. Next Dennis Cakert (NHA) further discussed crumbling water infrastructure with a focus on non-powered dams in the US. He clarified that dams that produce electricity are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and must pass safety and environmental standards. Conversely, non-power dams are not Federally regulated and can become unsafe leading to collapse and ensuing damages like the recent Edenville dam failure. Some non-powered dams are becoming targets for revitalization and removal, with potential downstream impacts on communities. Dave Steindorf (American Whitewater) concluded the panel by discussing the balance of competing water needs like power, habitat, and drinking. He discussed regulatory impacts on hydropower and the unique nature versus wind and solar. Dave described the changes we are seeing in daily energy supply due to increasing wind and solar penetration and the unique opportunities hydropower provides. He called for a more sophisticated approaching for energy prices to reflect the competing value stream for hydropower “fuel”, water.

The moderators and panelists then engaged in discussion and Q&A. All three panelists agreed on an area of concern: crumbling water infrastructure. Dave encouraged a mechanism for safe removal of what we don’t need and replacing with infrastructure to meet our future needs. Dennis expressed a need for further education of policy makers and the public about aging dams and safety, while Mae focused on the need to ensure that new investments address affordability issues. Mae also described working on the Flint Crisis. Panelists also encouraged involvement to ensure education on the issue and how to approach this seemly apolitical issue in a bipartisan way to encourage change from both sides of the aisle.

The panelists described various possible approaches to overcoming financial barriers that hinder climate mitigation and resilience for low- and moderate-income (LMI) communities and households. Ms. McFadden described the tailored disaster assistance approach taken by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which has allowed it to target a portion of its aid specifically to LMI communities, and she also described possible reforms to accelerate the delivery of HUD’s targeted aid. Dr. Etzkorn described the variety of ways in which both federal funding (i.e., direct aid) and financing (i.e., loan and capitalization assistance) can support climate mitigation and resilience for LMI communities, noting particular challenges with mainstreaming equity considerations in assistance programs and applying appropriate equity metrics to guide decision making. Dr. Richter described how a national carbon tax accompanied by a progressive dividend program would provide a simple but effective approach to mitigating climate change while providing assistance to the LMI communities who need it most. Ms. Salzman described the critical need for retrofits to decarbonize residential housing and the ways in which a Home Energy Score (HES) could drive critically-needed capital toward retrofitting renter- and owner-occupied housing for LMI families.

The moderators and panelists then engaged in discussion and Q&A. Regarding the perceived conflict between climate action and economic growth, the panelists noted that many policies can be climate and economic win-wins, especially if they are designed appropriately to empower LMI communities. Regarding the complexity of solutions to the climate problem, the panelists described the need for a combination of systemic change and nuanced solutions to specific problems. Regarding the challenges of federal-state-local engagement revealed by the COVID-19 pandemic, Ms. McFadden noted the importance of public participation in the policy process to ensure locally-driven decision making, even when funds are distributed at the federal level. Regarding how a HES could address the needs of renters, Ms. Salzman described how the HES would provide transparency about the true cost of housing that would incentivize retrofits by landlords and better-informed housing choices by tenants. Regarding the need for equitable valuations, the panelists described the need for greater political engagement and program metrics that address not only economic but also social concerns.

Panelists from academia, the private sector, government, and nonprofits discussed climate justice solutions in support of equitable health outcomes in frontline communities. The panel focused on the intersection of health and climate change, which continues to be a pressing and underemphasized topic. The conversation revolved around climate change, air pollution, and other environmental hazards that have historically disproportionately affected marginalized communities and exacerbated poor health outcomes. Catalyzed by current events, both the panelists and the organizers felt a shared interest in acknowledging the deficiencies of the scientific community and using this panel to highlight how environmental and climate justice issues reverberate across the larger conversations around systemic racism.

The discussion centered around four key themes:

1. Eliminate Environmental Slavery - Comprehensive climate policies that transform industries and economies, as well as, proactively address the long-standing and future health impacts in Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) and frontline communities must be developed and implemented. These communities have historically been treated as environmental sinks, where pollution, waste, and other undesirable products of the economy are disposed of.

2. Decolonization of Science - Research and scientific discovery should be done with the community. Present day research is known for using these frontline communities to further career aspirations and academic outputs without engaging in the community or making earnest efforts to use the science for improving outcomes. Science that solves problems and provides multiple benefits to the community is needed. To achieve this, scientists and researchers must build relationships with the community and build capacity within the community to support and further the research. There is a need for frontline communities to define the research agenda and assist with components of the discovery process.

3. Combine Science With Other Tools - Science is a tool, but it’s just one tool in the toolbox. Science can be used in support of political change and racial justice, but it is guided by the agendas and principles of the people doing the research (including the public and private donors and academic institutions supporting the research). Scientific research can help identify risks and vulnerabilities, generate evidence, and develop solutions in support of meaningful change to improve unequal environmental-health outcomes.

4. Make Equity Central to Sustainability and Resilience - Without equity, you cannot have sustainable or resilient communities. We need to address questions such as, who is at the table when climate solutions are developed, so that we can assess for whom climate solutions are developed and which communities will see improved health and well-being outcomes.

The panelists described the importance of improving access to renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies for low income communities. Mr. Shahyd described the large energy burden faced by low impact communities due to living in disproportionately energy inefficient housing, often driven by the prevalence of renting compared to higher home ownership rates in higher income communities. Dr. Ulrich described some of the benefits of solar energy, which include lowering carbon emissions as well as reducing energy costs and air/water pollution, and how the Department of Energy (DOE) is working to expand access to solar energy for a larger portion of the population. A major initiative of the DOE Solar Energy Technologies Office is the National Community Solar Partnership, which will fund technical assistance to community solar companies across the country in order to increase solar energy access, especially for low-income and renting/multi-family housing communities. Finally, she described ongoing efforts to redesign and rebuild the Puerto Rico grid, largely with solar energy. Mr. Wynn described the benefits of electric cooperatives in giving a voice and bargaining power to individuals, noting that 92% of counties that experience persistent poverty are represented by these coops. These can increase access to community-scale energy options such as community solar.

The moderators and panelists then engaged in discussion and Q&A. They discussed the costs and benefits of distributed energy and renewable energy technologies. These technologies can have big benefits in terms of providing redundancy to support resilience; however, this is an increased cost that requires justification in terms of resilience issues facing the community. They also noted the key benefits that renewable energy adoption for clean energy goals can have for the community in terms of employment. They discussed ways that the Department of Energy can improve access to transportation for minority and lower income communities, including increasing access to charging and integrating requirements for vehicle charging into electrical grids, to ensure that anyone who wants a home charging station can get one. Finally, they discussed key policy actions that could help reduce the energy burden for low income people, noting that approaches such as those taken by DOE’s Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs Office are most effective but should be expanded.