WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:01.980 align:middle line:90% [SQUEAKING] 00:00:01.980 --> 00:00:03.960 align:middle line:90% [RUSTLING] 00:00:03.960 --> 00:00:07.920 align:middle line:90% [CLICKING] 00:00:07.920 --> 00:00:10.283 align:middle line:90% 00:00:10.283 --> 00:00:12.200 align:middle line:84% DAVID HSU: This is another lecture installment 00:00:12.200 --> 00:00:16.170 align:middle line:84% in the Urban Energy Systems and Policy class at MIT. 00:00:16.170 --> 00:00:17.480 align:middle line:90% My name is David Hsu. 00:00:17.480 --> 00:00:20.120 align:middle line:84% I'm a Professor of Urban studies and Planning. 00:00:20.120 --> 00:00:23.180 align:middle line:84% And today, we're going to talk about cities and a just energy 00:00:23.180 --> 00:00:24.840 align:middle line:90% transition. 00:00:24.840 --> 00:00:28.320 align:middle line:84% What is a just energy transition going to look like? 00:00:28.320 --> 00:00:31.490 align:middle line:84% What does it mean for us to try to achieve a just 00:00:31.490 --> 00:00:35.300 align:middle line:90% or equitable energy transition? 00:00:35.300 --> 00:00:37.940 align:middle line:84% The readings for today are listed on the slide. 00:00:37.940 --> 00:00:40.430 align:middle line:84% A lot of this lecture will be setting up our discussion 00:00:40.430 --> 00:00:42.063 align:middle line:90% in class of these readings. 00:00:42.063 --> 00:00:43.730 align:middle line:84% It will be a fairly short lecture today. 00:00:43.730 --> 00:00:46.550 align:middle line:84% I think that's going to be the best way to set up discussion. 00:00:46.550 --> 00:00:50.450 align:middle line:84% And, hopefully, we have a lively discussion in class. 00:00:50.450 --> 00:00:52.000 align:middle line:84% Let me just start with a few stories 00:00:52.000 --> 00:00:54.040 align:middle line:90% to supplement the reading. 00:00:54.040 --> 00:00:58.870 align:middle line:84% I want to start with this rather hale-looking fellow, President 00:00:58.870 --> 00:01:02.240 align:middle line:84% Theodore Roosevelt. He's the 26th president of the United 00:01:02.240 --> 00:01:03.430 align:middle line:90% States. 00:01:03.430 --> 00:01:07.420 align:middle line:84% He is known in his lifetime as a soldier; a naturalist; 00:01:07.420 --> 00:01:11.710 align:middle line:84% a writer; a politician, reformer, and imperialist. 00:01:11.710 --> 00:01:14.500 align:middle line:84% He does all this despite being a Harvard graduate. 00:01:14.500 --> 00:01:17.050 align:middle line:84% But I would think what's most relevant about his political 00:01:17.050 --> 00:01:19.600 align:middle line:84% career is that also he's known as a progressive, 00:01:19.600 --> 00:01:21.280 align:middle line:84% a turn-of-the-century progressive, 00:01:21.280 --> 00:01:25.630 align:middle line:84% suspicious of big corporations, a trust-buster, reform-minded, 00:01:25.630 --> 00:01:29.410 align:middle line:84% in favor of clean and strong government action 00:01:29.410 --> 00:01:32.060 align:middle line:84% and intervention into the economy. 00:01:32.060 --> 00:01:33.910 align:middle line:84% That's why he's become quite relevant. 00:01:33.910 --> 00:01:36.670 align:middle line:84% The Roosevelt Institute is one of our most progressive 00:01:36.670 --> 00:01:39.470 align:middle line:90% economic think tanks. 00:01:39.470 --> 00:01:42.020 align:middle line:84% He's also, for the purposes of our class, 00:01:42.020 --> 00:01:43.970 align:middle line:90% known as a conservationist. 00:01:43.970 --> 00:01:48.680 align:middle line:84% He's strongly associated with the US National Park System. 00:01:48.680 --> 00:01:50.810 align:middle line:84% There's a quote from Wallace Stegner, a noted 00:01:50.810 --> 00:01:51.890 align:middle line:90% environmental writer. 00:01:51.890 --> 00:01:55.850 align:middle line:84% He calls the national parks, one of "the best ideas we ever had. 00:01:55.850 --> 00:01:58.550 align:middle line:84% Absolutely American, absolutely democratic, 00:01:58.550 --> 00:02:01.760 align:middle line:84% they reflect us at our best rather than our worst." 00:02:01.760 --> 00:02:05.720 align:middle line:84% Of course, I put the asterisks on the National Park System 00:02:05.720 --> 00:02:09.410 align:middle line:84% because, as many people have noted throughout history, 00:02:09.410 --> 00:02:12.380 align:middle line:84% and more recently, a lot of the National Park System 00:02:12.380 --> 00:02:15.620 align:middle line:84% is also land appropriated from Indigenous peoples 00:02:15.620 --> 00:02:16.970 align:middle line:90% of the United States. 00:02:16.970 --> 00:02:18.920 align:middle line:84% But also relevant for our discussion 00:02:18.920 --> 00:02:22.040 align:middle line:84% today, Theodore Roosevelt has fairly troubling 00:02:22.040 --> 00:02:24.440 align:middle line:84% racial beliefs, even for his time. 00:02:24.440 --> 00:02:28.010 align:middle line:84% One could argue that he was in favor of immigration, 00:02:28.010 --> 00:02:30.050 align:middle line:84% but also assimilation of immigrants 00:02:30.050 --> 00:02:32.420 align:middle line:90% into a strong American culture. 00:02:32.420 --> 00:02:34.940 align:middle line:84% One could argue that he had Booker T. Washington 00:02:34.940 --> 00:02:37.640 align:middle line:84% as a dinner guest at the White House, which was considered 00:02:37.640 --> 00:02:39.200 align:middle line:84% quite controversial at the time-- 00:02:39.200 --> 00:02:42.650 align:middle line:84% one of the first presidents to entertain a Black dinner 00:02:42.650 --> 00:02:44.060 align:middle line:90% guest at the White House. 00:02:44.060 --> 00:02:47.120 align:middle line:84% However, he's also known for essentially advocating 00:02:47.120 --> 00:02:50.150 align:middle line:84% race war against Native Americans early in his career, 00:02:50.150 --> 00:02:52.850 align:middle line:84% in his writings, and also prosecuted 00:02:52.850 --> 00:02:55.970 align:middle line:84% a Black regiment in Brownsville, Texas for mutiny, 00:02:55.970 --> 00:02:59.310 align:middle line:84% quite unjustly, according to the historical evidence. 00:02:59.310 --> 00:03:01.760 align:middle line:84% So we have this kind of troubling history. 00:03:01.760 --> 00:03:04.820 align:middle line:84% On one hand, he's known as a conservationist. 00:03:04.820 --> 00:03:07.400 align:middle line:84% He's one of our more scholarly presidents. 00:03:07.400 --> 00:03:10.730 align:middle line:84% He writes about the environment, writes about the need 00:03:10.730 --> 00:03:12.710 align:middle line:90% to conserve nature. 00:03:12.710 --> 00:03:16.400 align:middle line:84% At the same time, he also has these troubling racial beliefs. 00:03:16.400 --> 00:03:19.190 align:middle line:84% Let me tell you another story about John Muir. 00:03:19.190 --> 00:03:22.010 align:middle line:84% John Muir was born in Scotland in 1838. 00:03:22.010 --> 00:03:25.820 align:middle line:84% He is an early naturalist writer, early environmentalist. 00:03:25.820 --> 00:03:28.550 align:middle line:84% He's considered one of the founding fathers 00:03:28.550 --> 00:03:31.340 align:middle line:84% of environmentalism because of his strong ideas 00:03:31.340 --> 00:03:33.260 align:middle line:84% about human relationships in nature, 00:03:33.260 --> 00:03:35.750 align:middle line:84% our impact on the Earth, and the preservation 00:03:35.750 --> 00:03:38.750 align:middle line:90% of the idea of wilderness. 00:03:38.750 --> 00:03:41.410 align:middle line:84% He's also closely associated with the American West, 00:03:41.410 --> 00:03:44.150 align:middle line:84% the founding of Yosemite Park, and the founding of the Sierra 00:03:44.150 --> 00:03:44.650 align:middle line:90% Club. 00:03:44.650 --> 00:03:46.510 align:middle line:84% Many of his writings on the Sierra Nevadas, 00:03:46.510 --> 00:03:49.420 align:middle line:84% leading to the founding of the Sierra Club. 00:03:49.420 --> 00:03:51.710 align:middle line:90% He also has recently noted-- 00:03:51.710 --> 00:03:54.400 align:middle line:84% we've also recently noted his troubling racial beliefs, 00:03:54.400 --> 00:03:57.340 align:middle line:84% most notably in 2020, when the executive director 00:03:57.340 --> 00:03:59.500 align:middle line:84% of the Sierra Club, Michael Brune, 00:03:59.500 --> 00:04:03.610 align:middle line:84% apologized for his racial beliefs and racial writings. 00:04:03.610 --> 00:04:06.520 align:middle line:84% He writes early on in his career about Native Americans 00:04:06.520 --> 00:04:09.550 align:middle line:90% and Blacks as lazy. 00:04:09.550 --> 00:04:11.980 align:middle line:84% At the same time, later on, other scholars 00:04:11.980 --> 00:04:16.570 align:middle line:84% note that he writes approvingly of Native American culture 00:04:16.570 --> 00:04:18.940 align:middle line:84% as having much less impact on the Earth. 00:04:18.940 --> 00:04:22.180 align:middle line:84% Other scholars have noted that his idea of wilderness 00:04:22.180 --> 00:04:24.850 align:middle line:84% essentially assumes a pristine wilderness, 00:04:24.850 --> 00:04:27.220 align:middle line:84% in the absence of people, ignoring 00:04:27.220 --> 00:04:29.930 align:middle line:84% the presence of Indigenous peoples and cultures. 00:04:29.930 --> 00:04:32.410 align:middle line:84% And so what I want to do by kind of just talking 00:04:32.410 --> 00:04:36.100 align:middle line:84% about these biographies a little bit is explore the idea of what 00:04:36.100 --> 00:04:39.670 align:middle line:84% is justice going to be in a climate context, 00:04:39.670 --> 00:04:43.210 align:middle line:84% do his racial writings matter, or does 00:04:43.210 --> 00:04:45.940 align:middle line:84% his idea of wilderness and preservation of wilderness 00:04:45.940 --> 00:04:46.738 align:middle line:90% also matter? 00:04:46.738 --> 00:04:47.530 align:middle line:90% How do they matter? 00:04:47.530 --> 00:04:50.170 align:middle line:84% That's something we're going to discuss in class. 00:04:50.170 --> 00:04:54.310 align:middle line:84% Just to take one more example, Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., 00:04:54.310 --> 00:04:58.270 align:middle line:84% was a noted journalist, writer, farmer, and abolitionist, 00:04:58.270 --> 00:05:01.030 align:middle line:84% well-known for his writings before he becomes a landscape 00:05:01.030 --> 00:05:01.960 align:middle line:90% architect. 00:05:01.960 --> 00:05:04.540 align:middle line:84% But as a landscape architect, he's fairly prolific. 00:05:04.540 --> 00:05:07.240 align:middle line:84% Here, in Boston, he builds the Boston Common, the Public 00:05:07.240 --> 00:05:10.570 align:middle line:84% Garden, the Emerald Necklace, and the Fens. 00:05:10.570 --> 00:05:14.830 align:middle line:84% In New York, he builds Prospect Park in Brooklyn, 00:05:14.830 --> 00:05:17.050 align:middle line:84% Belle Isle Park in the Detroit River, 00:05:17.050 --> 00:05:19.120 align:middle line:84% the Biltmore Estate in North Carolina, 00:05:19.120 --> 00:05:21.795 align:middle line:84% and also designs the US Capitol grounds. 00:05:21.795 --> 00:05:23.170 align:middle line:84% More recently, however, there has 00:05:23.170 --> 00:05:25.690 align:middle line:84% been controversy, not so much about his role, 00:05:25.690 --> 00:05:29.590 align:middle line:84% but about his most noted, perhaps, work, Central Park. 00:05:29.590 --> 00:05:33.680 align:middle line:84% Central Park at the time was well north of the city. 00:05:33.680 --> 00:05:36.310 align:middle line:84% So actually outside of New York City, which was I 00:05:36.310 --> 00:05:38.800 align:middle line:90% think largely below 34th Street. 00:05:38.800 --> 00:05:41.380 align:middle line:84% And at the time, New York state legislators 00:05:41.380 --> 00:05:45.190 align:middle line:84% basically looked at it as 700 acres of not particularly 00:05:45.190 --> 00:05:47.260 align:middle line:90% desirable landscape 00:05:47.260 --> 00:05:49.660 align:middle line:84% Frederick Law Olmsted and his partner, Calvert Vaux, 00:05:49.660 --> 00:05:52.030 align:middle line:84% are well-known for transforming Central Park 00:05:52.030 --> 00:05:54.100 align:middle line:90% into what we know it as today. 00:05:54.100 --> 00:05:56.650 align:middle line:84% The design has largely been preserved. 00:05:56.650 --> 00:05:59.200 align:middle line:84% And they build Central Park and they 00:05:59.200 --> 00:06:04.000 align:middle line:84% write about Prospect Park as a open-air area for immigrants 00:06:04.000 --> 00:06:07.720 align:middle line:84% and people from all backgrounds to mix. 00:06:07.720 --> 00:06:11.110 align:middle line:84% They have an essentially democratic vision of what these 00:06:11.110 --> 00:06:15.130 align:middle line:84% parks are meant to do in a bustling, turn-of-the-century, 00:06:15.130 --> 00:06:18.010 align:middle line:90% rapidly changing New York City. 00:06:18.010 --> 00:06:20.470 align:middle line:84% Of course, more recently, landscape architects 00:06:20.470 --> 00:06:23.020 align:middle line:84% and historians have unearthed or noted 00:06:23.020 --> 00:06:25.750 align:middle line:84% the presence-- that it was not actually 00:06:25.750 --> 00:06:28.540 align:middle line:84% a barren landscape, as the New York State 00:06:28.540 --> 00:06:29.860 align:middle line:90% legislator wrote about it. 00:06:29.860 --> 00:06:32.980 align:middle line:84% There were actually several small villages, notably 00:06:32.980 --> 00:06:35.680 align:middle line:84% Seneca Village, one of the few middle-class Black 00:06:35.680 --> 00:06:37.720 align:middle line:90% communities in New York City. 00:06:37.720 --> 00:06:40.480 align:middle line:84% Apparently, it also had German and Irish immigrants. 00:06:40.480 --> 00:06:44.200 align:middle line:84% But by eminent domain, the city or the state 00:06:44.200 --> 00:06:46.150 align:middle line:84% claims the landscape of Central Park 00:06:46.150 --> 00:06:48.250 align:middle line:84% and essentially razes Seneca Village. 00:06:48.250 --> 00:06:51.850 align:middle line:84% So there's a lot more historical writing about Seneca Village 00:06:51.850 --> 00:06:52.540 align:middle line:90% recently. 00:06:52.540 --> 00:06:56.260 align:middle line:84% And the question is, does this change the legacy of Frederick 00:06:56.260 --> 00:06:58.630 align:middle line:84% Law Olmsted or should we talk about his works 00:06:58.630 --> 00:07:00.470 align:middle line:90% in a different way? 00:07:00.470 --> 00:07:04.000 align:middle line:84% And this brings me to the last story I want to tell you. 00:07:04.000 --> 00:07:07.090 align:middle line:84% It's about Professor Robert Bullard, considered 00:07:07.090 --> 00:07:09.880 align:middle line:84% one of the leading scholars on environmental racism 00:07:09.880 --> 00:07:11.170 align:middle line:90% and environmental justice. 00:07:11.170 --> 00:07:12.640 align:middle line:84% And I think it's just a good story 00:07:12.640 --> 00:07:16.420 align:middle line:84% of how he gets involved in this topic 00:07:16.420 --> 00:07:21.820 align:middle line:84% and how he continues to write about these issues today. 00:07:21.820 --> 00:07:24.070 align:middle line:84% There's a 2012 portrait on the left. 00:07:24.070 --> 00:07:26.110 align:middle line:84% This is a small excerpt on the right. 00:07:26.110 --> 00:07:30.070 align:middle line:84% It's a list of summary of community disputes from one 00:07:30.070 --> 00:07:32.950 align:middle line:84% of his earliest writings on environmental racism. 00:07:32.950 --> 00:07:36.700 align:middle line:84% And, essentially, lists grassroots movements 00:07:36.700 --> 00:07:39.310 align:middle line:84% throughout the South, but also the American West, 00:07:39.310 --> 00:07:41.680 align:middle line:84% where communities and neighborhoods are trying 00:07:41.680 --> 00:07:45.280 align:middle line:84% to fight back against environmental infrastructure 00:07:45.280 --> 00:07:46.890 align:middle line:84% that will be located in neighborhoods. 00:07:46.890 --> 00:07:50.350 align:middle line:84% Environmental infrastructure, like landfills, smelters, 00:07:50.350 --> 00:07:53.110 align:middle line:84% houses, waste incinerators, petrochemical refineries, 00:07:53.110 --> 00:07:56.740 align:middle line:84% that we know will probably have negative environmental or 00:07:56.740 --> 00:07:59.200 align:middle line:90% health effects on the residents. 00:07:59.200 --> 00:08:00.843 align:middle line:84% His wife at the time is a lawyer-- 00:08:00.843 --> 00:08:02.260 align:middle line:84% or, in fact, his wife is a lawyer. 00:08:02.260 --> 00:08:05.500 align:middle line:84% And at the time, she's involved in litigation 00:08:05.500 --> 00:08:08.290 align:middle line:90% against this landfill. 00:08:08.290 --> 00:08:11.080 align:middle line:84% She asks him to get involved in the lawsuit as an expert 00:08:11.080 --> 00:08:14.360 align:middle line:84% witness and to do research on where landfills are located. 00:08:14.360 --> 00:08:17.290 align:middle line:84% He finds that 100% of landfills in Houston 00:08:17.290 --> 00:08:19.600 align:middle line:84% are actually located in Black neighborhoods, 00:08:19.600 --> 00:08:23.620 align:middle line:84% even though only 25% of the population of Houston is Black. 00:08:23.620 --> 00:08:27.970 align:middle line:84% And so he essentially identifies this as a racial phenomenon, 00:08:27.970 --> 00:08:29.920 align:middle line:84% that these infrastructures are being 00:08:29.920 --> 00:08:31.450 align:middle line:90% located in Black communities. 00:08:31.450 --> 00:08:33.409 align:middle line:90% And he starts writing about it. 00:08:33.409 --> 00:08:35.409 align:middle line:90% And so this is a good example-- 00:08:35.409 --> 00:08:37.390 align:middle line:84% or I think all of these stories are 00:08:37.390 --> 00:08:42.429 align:middle line:84% good examples of how we have to discuss race and justice 00:08:42.429 --> 00:08:44.140 align:middle line:90% in environmental context. 00:08:44.140 --> 00:08:47.170 align:middle line:84% The 1960s and '70s are noted for the environmental and 00:08:47.170 --> 00:08:48.520 align:middle line:90% civil rights movements. 00:08:48.520 --> 00:08:51.010 align:middle line:84% The civil rights movements, obviously 00:08:51.010 --> 00:08:52.630 align:middle line:84% typified by the civil rights leaders 00:08:52.630 --> 00:08:55.210 align:middle line:84% like Martin Luther King, Jr., or Malcolm 00:08:55.210 --> 00:08:57.010 align:middle line:90% X, or Stokely Carmichael. 00:08:57.010 --> 00:08:59.290 align:middle line:84% At the same time, we have the environmental movement, 00:08:59.290 --> 00:09:03.460 align:middle line:84% culminating in the Clean Air and Clean Water Act in 1970s. 00:09:03.460 --> 00:09:07.630 align:middle line:84% These two movements are largely separate, typified 00:09:07.630 --> 00:09:10.750 align:middle line:84% by different people, and different leaders, 00:09:10.750 --> 00:09:12.820 align:middle line:90% and different groups. 00:09:12.820 --> 00:09:16.090 align:middle line:84% Of course, there are nascent linkages 00:09:16.090 --> 00:09:17.650 align:middle line:90% between some of these issues. 00:09:17.650 --> 00:09:21.250 align:middle line:84% The United Church of Christ Commission on Racial Justice 00:09:21.250 --> 00:09:25.030 align:middle line:84% issues a report in 1987, called Toxic Wastes and Race 00:09:25.030 --> 00:09:27.390 align:middle line:90% in the United States. 00:09:27.390 --> 00:09:29.640 align:middle line:84% Robert Bullard starts writing about it-- 00:09:29.640 --> 00:09:33.930 align:middle line:84% or, after this expert witness testimony in his wife's 00:09:33.930 --> 00:09:37.350 align:middle line:84% lawsuit, he writes Dumping in Dixie, 1990, 00:09:37.350 --> 00:09:39.720 align:middle line:84% arguing for convergence between the Civil Rights 00:09:39.720 --> 00:09:41.320 align:middle line:90% and environmental movements. 00:09:41.320 --> 00:09:43.200 align:middle line:84% And he writes about environmental justice 00:09:43.200 --> 00:09:47.610 align:middle line:84% and racism using very similar terms that we now 00:09:47.610 --> 00:09:49.950 align:middle line:90% think about those things today. 00:09:49.950 --> 00:09:52.950 align:middle line:84% It's also really interesting in these writings 00:09:52.950 --> 00:09:55.620 align:middle line:84% how he writes very clearly that racism 00:09:55.620 --> 00:09:57.720 align:middle line:84% plays a key factor in environmental planning 00:09:57.720 --> 00:09:59.160 align:middle line:90% and decision-making. 00:09:59.160 --> 00:10:01.110 align:middle line:84% And what's really striking about his writing 00:10:01.110 --> 00:10:02.880 align:middle line:84% is that it's a very clear critique 00:10:02.880 --> 00:10:04.968 align:middle line:84% of the mainstream environmental movement, which 00:10:04.968 --> 00:10:06.760 align:middle line:84% is separate than the Civil Rights movement. 00:10:06.760 --> 00:10:09.150 align:middle line:84% He writes, "It is a fact of life in the United States 00:10:09.150 --> 00:10:12.150 align:middle line:84% that the mainstream environmental movement is only 00:10:12.150 --> 00:10:16.470 align:middle line:84% beginning to wake up to," the fact of life being racism. 00:10:16.470 --> 00:10:20.280 align:middle line:84% But, just the same year, the EPA issues a report 00:10:20.280 --> 00:10:22.020 align:middle line:90% called "Environmental equity-- 00:10:22.020 --> 00:10:24.780 align:middle line:84% reducing risk for all communities." 00:10:24.780 --> 00:10:27.480 align:middle line:84% They very self-consciously choose the phrase 00:10:27.480 --> 00:10:28.920 align:middle line:90% "environmental equity." 00:10:28.920 --> 00:10:31.110 align:middle line:84% And they put it in terms of reducing risk 00:10:31.110 --> 00:10:32.490 align:middle line:90% for all communities. 00:10:32.490 --> 00:10:35.580 align:middle line:84% They say in the introduction that environmental equity 00:10:35.580 --> 00:10:40.500 align:middle line:84% is to study or to identify the "distribution and effects 00:10:40.500 --> 00:10:43.230 align:middle line:84% of environmental problems and the policies and processes 00:10:43.230 --> 00:10:46.890 align:middle line:84% to reduce differences in who bears environmental risks." 00:10:46.890 --> 00:10:49.680 align:middle line:84% And in just the next year, the US president, Bill Clinton, 00:10:49.680 --> 00:10:52.410 align:middle line:84% issued an executive order, in 1994, 00:10:52.410 --> 00:10:54.810 align:middle line:84% titled "Federal Actions to Address Environmental 00:10:54.810 --> 00:10:58.330 align:middle line:84% Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations." 00:10:58.330 --> 00:11:01.950 align:middle line:84% So even in this seven-year period or so, in these writings 00:11:01.950 --> 00:11:04.740 align:middle line:84% you see the idea of environmental justice 00:11:04.740 --> 00:11:07.350 align:middle line:84% essentially becoming fully normalized. 00:11:07.350 --> 00:11:11.860 align:middle line:84% Of course, we still have to understand what it means. 00:11:11.860 --> 00:11:14.220 align:middle line:84% Of course, it's also worth pointing out 00:11:14.220 --> 00:11:16.650 align:middle line:84% that environmentalists, or the mainstream environmental 00:11:16.650 --> 00:11:18.480 align:middle line:84% movement, as Robert Bullard calls it, 00:11:18.480 --> 00:11:21.850 align:middle line:84% is still quite separate from the environmental justice movement. 00:11:21.850 --> 00:11:25.290 align:middle line:84% Here's a headline, very typical in 2020, 00:11:25.290 --> 00:11:27.270 align:middle line:84% about green groups that are grappling 00:11:27.270 --> 00:11:30.287 align:middle line:84% with a history of racism and exclusion. 00:11:30.287 --> 00:11:31.870 align:middle line:84% "The environmental movement in America 00:11:31.870 --> 00:11:33.970 align:middle line:84% has deep ties to the nation's history 00:11:33.970 --> 00:11:36.070 align:middle line:84% of systemic racism and white supremacy," 00:11:36.070 --> 00:11:37.390 align:middle line:90% this article writes. 00:11:37.390 --> 00:11:40.810 align:middle line:84% "Now, as Americans confront racial injustice anew, 00:11:40.810 --> 00:11:42.610 align:middle line:84% powerful green groups like the Sierra Club 00:11:42.610 --> 00:11:45.040 align:middle line:84% are beginning to reckon with their own histories of hate 00:11:45.040 --> 00:11:45.910 align:middle line:90% and exclusion." 00:11:45.910 --> 00:11:47.800 align:middle line:84% And so there is significant controversy 00:11:47.800 --> 00:11:49.780 align:middle line:90% within the Sierra Club itself-- 00:11:49.780 --> 00:11:52.990 align:middle line:84% Sierra Club also closely associated 00:11:52.990 --> 00:11:54.820 align:middle line:90% with the idea of conservation. 00:11:54.820 --> 00:11:56.740 align:middle line:84% The executive director apologized 00:11:56.740 --> 00:11:59.560 align:middle line:84% for John Muir's writings about Black people 00:11:59.560 --> 00:12:00.790 align:middle line:90% and Native Americans. 00:12:00.790 --> 00:12:03.070 align:middle line:84% Other board members disagreed, and argued 00:12:03.070 --> 00:12:06.340 align:middle line:84% that the Sierra Club has a strong legacy of conservation. 00:12:06.340 --> 00:12:09.400 align:middle line:84% Of course, the question is, conservation for who? 00:12:09.400 --> 00:12:11.585 align:middle line:84% And what's more interesting about the article-- 00:12:11.585 --> 00:12:13.960 align:middle line:84% I encourage you to either listen to it as a radio segment 00:12:13.960 --> 00:12:17.350 align:middle line:84% or read it-- is that a reporter from The Washington 00:12:17.350 --> 00:12:19.690 align:middle line:84% Post, Darrell Fears, started writing 00:12:19.690 --> 00:12:23.140 align:middle line:84% about green groups and their lack of diversity many years 00:12:23.140 --> 00:12:23.650 align:middle line:90% before. 00:12:23.650 --> 00:12:26.230 align:middle line:84% He said that if you go to many environmental meetings, 00:12:26.230 --> 00:12:29.312 align:middle line:84% and basically essentially see no other Black people there. 00:12:29.312 --> 00:12:31.270 align:middle line:84% And so he started writing about the homogeneity 00:12:31.270 --> 00:12:32.728 align:middle line:84% of the environmental movement then. 00:12:32.728 --> 00:12:34.810 align:middle line:84% And so environmental justice movements 00:12:34.810 --> 00:12:37.960 align:middle line:84% are much more closely associated with grassroots movements 00:12:37.960 --> 00:12:39.610 align:middle line:90% and community groups. 00:12:39.610 --> 00:12:41.710 align:middle line:84% And the question is, how do we, perhaps, 00:12:41.710 --> 00:12:44.740 align:middle line:84% hopefully, bring these two movements together 00:12:44.740 --> 00:12:47.650 align:middle line:90% into a coalition? 00:12:47.650 --> 00:12:51.760 align:middle line:84% And so this has spawned many different kind of conceptions. 00:12:51.760 --> 00:12:55.000 align:middle line:84% And I would argue to you that our ideas about justice, 00:12:55.000 --> 00:12:57.640 align:middle line:84% fairness, and equity, which are not necessarily the same, 00:12:57.640 --> 00:12:59.440 align:middle line:84% but often used quite interchangeably, 00:12:59.440 --> 00:13:01.810 align:middle line:84% have become crossed with energy and climate. 00:13:01.810 --> 00:13:05.540 align:middle line:84% And this is the key thing we want to discuss in class. 00:13:05.540 --> 00:13:07.870 align:middle line:84% For example, climate justice has roots 00:13:07.870 --> 00:13:10.750 align:middle line:84% in ideas about historical responsibility 00:13:10.750 --> 00:13:13.150 align:middle line:90% and intergenerational equity. 00:13:13.150 --> 00:13:15.010 align:middle line:84% We will talk about historical responsibility 00:13:15.010 --> 00:13:18.640 align:middle line:84% and intergenerational equity, in terms of climate change, 00:13:18.640 --> 00:13:20.770 align:middle line:84% as a problem that older generations may 00:13:20.770 --> 00:13:23.540 align:middle line:84% be leaving for later or following generations. 00:13:23.540 --> 00:13:26.740 align:middle line:84% It is interesting to see how that rhetoric has perhaps 00:13:26.740 --> 00:13:29.290 align:middle line:84% diminished because climate change is here now. 00:13:29.290 --> 00:13:31.380 align:middle line:84% We all know that climate change is happening. 00:13:31.380 --> 00:13:34.190 align:middle line:84% It may no longer be a intergenerational problem. 00:13:34.190 --> 00:13:36.830 align:middle line:90% It is a problem here and now. 00:13:36.830 --> 00:13:39.550 align:middle line:84% And so I think a more modern, I guess, 00:13:39.550 --> 00:13:41.350 align:middle line:84% way to talk about climate justice 00:13:41.350 --> 00:13:43.600 align:middle line:84% has been about its disproportionate causes 00:13:43.600 --> 00:13:46.930 align:middle line:84% and burdens, not only on our older generations, 00:13:46.930 --> 00:13:48.490 align:middle line:84% causing greenhouse gas emissions that 00:13:48.490 --> 00:13:51.110 align:middle line:84% will affect future generations in terms of climate change. 00:13:51.110 --> 00:13:54.130 align:middle line:84% We also know that rich Western or developed countries 00:13:54.130 --> 00:13:56.300 align:middle line:84% have disproportionately caused the problem. 00:13:56.300 --> 00:13:58.210 align:middle line:84% This is an argument I've made to you before. 00:13:58.210 --> 00:14:01.240 align:middle line:84% And that those burdens have been modeled or forecast 00:14:01.240 --> 00:14:03.730 align:middle line:84% to disproportionately affect the countries that 00:14:03.730 --> 00:14:06.400 align:middle line:84% are least responsible for causing climate change, 00:14:06.400 --> 00:14:09.940 align:middle line:84% like the flooding happening in Pakistan, like hurricanes 00:14:09.940 --> 00:14:13.410 align:middle line:90% and typhoons hitting Mozambique. 00:14:13.410 --> 00:14:15.030 align:middle line:84% At the same time, climate justice 00:14:15.030 --> 00:14:18.600 align:middle line:84% has become a more important phrase or idea 00:14:18.600 --> 00:14:20.790 align:middle line:84% because of the rise of grassroots movements, 00:14:20.790 --> 00:14:23.520 align:middle line:84% like Fridays for the Future or Extinction Rebellion. 00:14:23.520 --> 00:14:25.740 align:middle line:84% When you have a social movement, you 00:14:25.740 --> 00:14:29.190 align:middle line:84% need to have a set of organizing principles or ideas. 00:14:29.190 --> 00:14:33.930 align:middle line:84% Climate justice has become one of those important ideas. 00:14:33.930 --> 00:14:35.850 align:middle line:84% And of course, climate justice has 00:14:35.850 --> 00:14:38.520 align:middle line:84% become a more important idea because of legal actions 00:14:38.520 --> 00:14:39.760 align:middle line:90% on climate change. 00:14:39.760 --> 00:14:42.480 align:middle line:84% I think the United Nations counted recently 00:14:42.480 --> 00:14:45.570 align:middle line:84% almost 900 legal actions on climate change. 00:14:45.570 --> 00:14:49.410 align:middle line:84% A lot of those, adjudication of litigation 00:14:49.410 --> 00:14:51.450 align:middle line:84% around the effects of climate change, 00:14:51.450 --> 00:14:53.790 align:middle line:84% are trying to get to an idea of who is 00:14:53.790 --> 00:14:55.750 align:middle line:90% responsible for climate change? 00:14:55.750 --> 00:14:59.640 align:middle line:84% How can, let's say, different countries, or groups, 00:14:59.640 --> 00:15:02.280 align:middle line:84% or corporations be held responsible 00:15:02.280 --> 00:15:04.230 align:middle line:84% for the impacts of climate change? 00:15:04.230 --> 00:15:11.560 align:middle line:84% Do they owe reparations or remedies to affected groups? 00:15:11.560 --> 00:15:13.870 align:middle line:84% Climate justice is also closely associated 00:15:13.870 --> 00:15:16.330 align:middle line:84% with the idea of transformative justice. 00:15:16.330 --> 00:15:18.340 align:middle line:84% These are practices and philosophies 00:15:18.340 --> 00:15:21.040 align:middle line:84% designed to create change in social systems. 00:15:21.040 --> 00:15:22.540 align:middle line:84% I would encourage you to take note 00:15:22.540 --> 00:15:25.030 align:middle line:84% of the idea of transformational justice 00:15:25.030 --> 00:15:26.980 align:middle line:84% in Shalanda Baker's article that I 00:15:26.980 --> 00:15:29.980 align:middle line:84% assigned for this discussion, and also 00:15:29.980 --> 00:15:31.630 align:middle line:90% the idea of energy justice. 00:15:31.630 --> 00:15:34.300 align:middle line:84% A number of these different articles 00:15:34.300 --> 00:15:36.820 align:middle line:84% mentioned the idea of energy justice 00:15:36.820 --> 00:15:39.250 align:middle line:84% as a fairly nascent idea in the literature. 00:15:39.250 --> 00:15:42.130 align:middle line:84% And the idea of energy justice gets at the idea 00:15:42.130 --> 00:15:44.560 align:middle line:84% that there are disproportionate access 00:15:44.560 --> 00:15:48.400 align:middle line:84% or disproportionate people who have access to the energy 00:15:48.400 --> 00:15:50.690 align:middle line:90% system, including its benefits. 00:15:50.690 --> 00:15:52.420 align:middle line:84% But also the energy system we know 00:15:52.420 --> 00:15:56.320 align:middle line:84% has clear harms and burdens that fall disproportionately 00:15:56.320 --> 00:15:59.860 align:middle line:84% on certain groups, like Black Americans and minority 00:15:59.860 --> 00:16:03.160 align:middle line:84% groups, who live much more closely to the polluting 00:16:03.160 --> 00:16:06.370 align:middle line:84% infrastructure, that Robert Bullard first identified 00:16:06.370 --> 00:16:08.710 align:middle line:90% in the '70s and '80s. 00:16:08.710 --> 00:16:11.110 align:middle line:84% And, of course, our discussion of climate justice 00:16:11.110 --> 00:16:14.800 align:middle line:84% has to get at the idea of, disproportionate to who? 00:16:14.800 --> 00:16:16.900 align:middle line:84% There are plenty of disproportionate harms 00:16:16.900 --> 00:16:19.130 align:middle line:84% of the fossil fuel system to go around. 00:16:19.130 --> 00:16:22.090 align:middle line:84% But as we start to seek an energy transition, 00:16:22.090 --> 00:16:25.900 align:middle line:84% one group that has been notably skeptical, until recently, 00:16:25.900 --> 00:16:28.480 align:middle line:84% of an energy transition, mostly pushed 00:16:28.480 --> 00:16:32.110 align:middle line:84% by environmentalists-- unions and workers have been notably 00:16:32.110 --> 00:16:35.380 align:middle line:84% skeptical sometimes of the idea of an energy transition, 00:16:35.380 --> 00:16:37.480 align:middle line:84% and the energy transition that we are seeking, 00:16:37.480 --> 00:16:41.080 align:middle line:84% because of probably well-founded skepticism 00:16:41.080 --> 00:16:43.870 align:middle line:84% that they may not have the same jobs or standard 00:16:43.870 --> 00:16:46.300 align:middle line:84% of living in an energy transition, 00:16:46.300 --> 00:16:48.010 align:middle line:90% and I think for good reason. 00:16:48.010 --> 00:16:52.000 align:middle line:84% Fossil fuel-dominated communities-- fossil fuel jobs 00:16:52.000 --> 00:16:54.790 align:middle line:84% typically are higher paying than average, 00:16:54.790 --> 00:16:57.640 align:middle line:84% than other jobs with the same education level. 00:16:57.640 --> 00:17:00.790 align:middle line:84% And fossil fuel jobs in a fossil fuel-dominated community, 00:17:00.790 --> 00:17:02.800 align:middle line:84% according to this Marchand and Weber study, 00:17:02.800 --> 00:17:05.990 align:middle line:84% typically creates or supports two to five other jobs. 00:17:05.990 --> 00:17:08.119 align:middle line:84% So if we seek an energy transition, 00:17:08.119 --> 00:17:11.050 align:middle line:84% how are we going to make sure that workers, and unions, 00:17:11.050 --> 00:17:13.960 align:middle line:84% and fossil fuel-dominated communities maintain 00:17:13.960 --> 00:17:16.480 align:middle line:84% or even improve their standard of living? 00:17:16.480 --> 00:17:17.920 align:middle line:84% And, of course, we know that there 00:17:17.920 --> 00:17:20.500 align:middle line:84% are disproportionate harms on frontline 00:17:20.500 --> 00:17:22.300 align:middle line:84% or environmental justice communities, 00:17:22.300 --> 00:17:25.150 align:middle line:84% like minority groups, like African Americans. 00:17:25.150 --> 00:17:27.760 align:middle line:84% We know that there are particular places that 00:17:27.760 --> 00:17:31.580 align:middle line:84% are affected by the harms of fossil fuels, 00:17:31.580 --> 00:17:34.180 align:middle line:84% including spills, including refining, including 00:17:34.180 --> 00:17:35.140 align:middle line:90% air pollution. 00:17:35.140 --> 00:17:36.760 align:middle line:84% And, of course, it's also worth noting 00:17:36.760 --> 00:17:40.390 align:middle line:84% that these two groups, that have disproportionate effects 00:17:40.390 --> 00:17:42.880 align:middle line:84% of the energy system, are often the same group. 00:17:42.880 --> 00:17:45.970 align:middle line:84% You could be a member of a front-line environmental 00:17:45.970 --> 00:17:47.060 align:middle line:90% justice community. 00:17:47.060 --> 00:17:49.910 align:middle line:84% Whether you're white or Black, you may be a fossil fuel worker 00:17:49.910 --> 00:17:50.410 align:middle line:90% also. 00:17:50.410 --> 00:17:52.930 align:middle line:84% And you may actually oppose change in the fossil fuel 00:17:52.930 --> 00:17:55.210 align:middle line:84% system because you're worried about maintaining 00:17:55.210 --> 00:17:57.123 align:middle line:90% your standard of living or job. 00:17:57.123 --> 00:17:58.540 align:middle line:84% And so it's interesting, actually. 00:17:58.540 --> 00:18:00.760 align:middle line:84% If you look at the Shalanda Baker article, 00:18:00.760 --> 00:18:03.550 align:middle line:84% she talks about her Black relatives, 00:18:03.550 --> 00:18:07.007 align:middle line:84% who are fossil fuel workers in Port Arthur. 00:18:07.007 --> 00:18:09.340 align:middle line:84% And, of course, this recent headline from The Washington 00:18:09.340 --> 00:18:12.520 align:middle line:84% Post, a few weeks ago, actually kind of 00:18:12.520 --> 00:18:14.770 align:middle line:84% describes now how the conversation has changed. 00:18:14.770 --> 00:18:18.670 align:middle line:84% This headline is about people in Port Arthur, Texas, who 00:18:18.670 --> 00:18:20.380 align:middle line:90% are surrounded by fossil fuels. 00:18:20.380 --> 00:18:23.140 align:middle line:84% But they fear that the climate bill leaves them behind. 00:18:23.140 --> 00:18:25.870 align:middle line:84% And this includes not only fossil fuel workers, 00:18:25.870 --> 00:18:28.300 align:middle line:84% who work in Port Arthur, but climate 00:18:28.300 --> 00:18:29.770 align:middle line:84% and environmental activists, who've 00:18:29.770 --> 00:18:32.720 align:middle line:84% been fighting this environmental infrastructure for a long time. 00:18:32.720 --> 00:18:34.330 align:middle line:84% The climate bill, which I've been 00:18:34.330 --> 00:18:37.932 align:middle line:84% celebrating in the discussion, we know has significant gaps. 00:18:37.932 --> 00:18:40.390 align:middle line:84% And one of those significant gaps is environmental justice. 00:18:40.390 --> 00:18:45.970 align:middle line:84% In fact, one of the compromises made in the climate legislation 00:18:45.970 --> 00:18:49.030 align:middle line:84% was to allow additional oil and gas 00:18:49.030 --> 00:18:50.620 align:middle line:90% leasing in the Gulf of Mexico. 00:18:50.620 --> 00:18:53.020 align:middle line:84% And additional permitting of pipelines 00:18:53.020 --> 00:18:54.460 align:middle line:90% may be coming this fall. 00:18:54.460 --> 00:18:56.350 align:middle line:84% But environmental justice activists, 00:18:56.350 --> 00:18:58.330 align:middle line:84% in places like Port Arthur, are quite 00:18:58.330 --> 00:19:00.070 align:middle line:84% disappointed by the climate bill, 00:19:00.070 --> 00:19:04.870 align:middle line:84% even as much of the climate movement celebrates this bill. 00:19:04.870 --> 00:19:08.800 align:middle line:84% And so this brings me to a basis for our discussion or class 00:19:08.800 --> 00:19:12.340 align:middle line:84% exercise that we're going to have. 00:19:12.340 --> 00:19:16.150 align:middle line:84% This is a geography article by Heffron and McAuley, 00:19:16.150 --> 00:19:18.670 align:middle line:84% asking what is a just transition? 00:19:18.670 --> 00:19:23.440 align:middle line:84% They identify four components of a just transition-- 00:19:23.440 --> 00:19:25.330 align:middle line:90% justice, universality. 00:19:25.330 --> 00:19:26.680 align:middle line:90% It's a geography article. 00:19:26.680 --> 00:19:29.260 align:middle line:84% So they focus on space and also the time. 00:19:29.260 --> 00:19:31.840 align:middle line:84% But I want to focus on the different forms of justice 00:19:31.840 --> 00:19:34.420 align:middle line:84% because I would argue that there are rhetorical forms 00:19:34.420 --> 00:19:36.940 align:middle line:84% or framings of the idea of justice. 00:19:36.940 --> 00:19:38.470 align:middle line:90% And they're all quite different. 00:19:38.470 --> 00:19:41.290 align:middle line:84% There's the idea of distributional justice. 00:19:41.290 --> 00:19:42.880 align:middle line:90% There's procedural justice. 00:19:42.880 --> 00:19:44.810 align:middle line:90% There's restorative justice. 00:19:44.810 --> 00:19:48.700 align:middle line:84% They say there's different kind of dimension of universality. 00:19:48.700 --> 00:19:51.580 align:middle line:84% That universal forms of justice may include recognition justice 00:19:51.580 --> 00:19:53.770 align:middle line:90% and cosmopolitanism. 00:19:53.770 --> 00:19:56.050 align:middle line:84% Let's examine that a little more closely-- 00:19:56.050 --> 00:20:00.010 align:middle line:84% how Pai uses it in their article. 00:20:00.010 --> 00:20:02.800 align:middle line:84% Distributional justice concerns the equitable distribution 00:20:02.800 --> 00:20:05.320 align:middle line:84% of burdens and benefits of energy and environmental 00:20:05.320 --> 00:20:07.030 align:middle line:90% decisions. 00:20:07.030 --> 00:20:08.770 align:middle line:84% Procedural justice highlights the right 00:20:08.770 --> 00:20:11.020 align:middle line:84% to a fair process for different stakeholders 00:20:11.020 --> 00:20:16.020 align:middle line:84% to take part equitably in the decision-making process. 00:20:16.020 --> 00:20:18.060 align:middle line:84% Restorative justice primarily aims 00:20:18.060 --> 00:20:21.000 align:middle line:84% to repair the harm done to individuals, instead 00:20:21.000 --> 00:20:24.070 align:middle line:84% of focusing upon punishing the offender. 00:20:24.070 --> 00:20:26.800 align:middle line:84% Whereas, universal conceptions of justice 00:20:26.800 --> 00:20:29.950 align:middle line:84% do draw on these other forms of justice. 00:20:29.950 --> 00:20:33.160 align:middle line:84% But Pai et al., distinguish recognition justice 00:20:33.160 --> 00:20:36.082 align:middle line:84% as entailing recognition of parts of society 00:20:36.082 --> 00:20:38.540 align:middle line:84% that might suffer as the result of energy and environmental 00:20:38.540 --> 00:20:41.440 align:middle line:84% decisions, and identify individuals and groups 00:20:41.440 --> 00:20:43.750 align:middle line:84% who might be impacted by such decisions. 00:20:43.750 --> 00:20:45.760 align:middle line:84% The jump to universality is to start 00:20:45.760 --> 00:20:47.950 align:middle line:84% to think about groups of individuals, 00:20:47.950 --> 00:20:51.550 align:middle line:84% rather than specific harm or specific individuals. 00:20:51.550 --> 00:20:54.010 align:middle line:84% And, of course, cosmopolitan justice 00:20:54.010 --> 00:20:58.270 align:middle line:84% is an idea that reinforces all of the above justice forms. 00:20:58.270 --> 00:21:00.490 align:middle line:84% But states that the above forms of justice 00:21:00.490 --> 00:21:02.775 align:middle line:84% must apply universally to all human beings. 00:21:02.775 --> 00:21:04.150 align:middle line:84% And I think it's important for us 00:21:04.150 --> 00:21:07.450 align:middle line:84% to think about how our conceptions of justice 00:21:07.450 --> 00:21:09.430 align:middle line:84% and how our rhetorical framing of justice 00:21:09.430 --> 00:21:11.200 align:middle line:90% may apply to different groups. 00:21:11.200 --> 00:21:13.150 align:middle line:84% Does it apply differently to people 00:21:13.150 --> 00:21:14.770 align:middle line:90% in cities or rural areas? 00:21:14.770 --> 00:21:17.345 align:middle line:84% Does it apply differently to people involved 00:21:17.345 --> 00:21:19.720 align:middle line:84% in the fossil fuel industry, whether or not they're white 00:21:19.720 --> 00:21:22.060 align:middle line:84% or they're Black, in the United States? 00:21:22.060 --> 00:21:25.090 align:middle line:84% Do we expect that energy workers in the United States 00:21:25.090 --> 00:21:27.070 align:middle line:84% should have the same standard living 00:21:27.070 --> 00:21:30.100 align:middle line:84% as energy workers in other countries, say India, 00:21:30.100 --> 00:21:32.410 align:middle line:90% say in Pakistan? 00:21:32.410 --> 00:21:35.290 align:middle line:84% What does this mean for us-- for our conception 00:21:35.290 --> 00:21:39.550 align:middle line:84% of climate justice, depending on the scale that we apply it to? 00:21:39.550 --> 00:21:41.980 align:middle line:84% And, of course, I would argue that our idea of climate 00:21:41.980 --> 00:21:46.300 align:middle line:84% justice is fairly inseparable from our idea of politics. 00:21:46.300 --> 00:21:48.640 align:middle line:84% Just to take the climate part, this 00:21:48.640 --> 00:21:50.320 align:middle line:84% is a figure from the Yale Project 00:21:50.320 --> 00:21:51.580 align:middle line:90% on Climate Communication. 00:21:51.580 --> 00:21:54.820 align:middle line:84% In 2018, they looked at Democratic and Republican views 00:21:54.820 --> 00:21:56.290 align:middle line:90% of global warming. 00:21:56.290 --> 00:21:58.030 align:middle line:84% And when they asked the estimated-- 00:21:58.030 --> 00:22:02.000 align:middle line:84% registered voters if they were worried about global warming, 00:22:02.000 --> 00:22:03.760 align:middle line:84% the percentages are quite striking. 00:22:03.760 --> 00:22:07.960 align:middle line:84% You look here, in the left-hand side, regardless of geography, 00:22:07.960 --> 00:22:11.590 align:middle line:84% about 80% to 90% of Democrats are fairly concerned 00:22:11.590 --> 00:22:13.120 align:middle line:90% about global warming. 00:22:13.120 --> 00:22:17.740 align:middle line:84% If you look on the right-hand side, about maybe 30% to 40% 00:22:17.740 --> 00:22:21.110 align:middle line:84% of Republicans are quite concerned about global warming. 00:22:21.110 --> 00:22:22.900 align:middle line:84% This is not to say that there are 00:22:22.900 --> 00:22:25.180 align:middle line:84% equal distributions of Democrats and Republicans 00:22:25.180 --> 00:22:26.470 align:middle line:90% across the United States. 00:22:26.470 --> 00:22:28.900 align:middle line:84% But I would argue, for the purposes of our class, 00:22:28.900 --> 00:22:31.660 align:middle line:84% talking about cities and what cities can do, 00:22:31.660 --> 00:22:34.450 align:middle line:84% there may not be similar numbers of Democrats or Republicans 00:22:34.450 --> 00:22:35.800 align:middle line:90% in city and rural areas. 00:22:35.800 --> 00:22:37.070 align:middle line:90% That's for sure. 00:22:37.070 --> 00:22:39.400 align:middle line:84% But, at the same time, it's also quite possible 00:22:39.400 --> 00:22:41.950 align:middle line:84% that our partisanship or our political beliefs 00:22:41.950 --> 00:22:45.200 align:middle line:84% may trump, necessarily, where we live-- 00:22:45.200 --> 00:22:46.790 align:middle line:90% I guess pun intended-- 00:22:46.790 --> 00:22:49.700 align:middle line:84% and this may affect how we talk about climate. 00:22:49.700 --> 00:22:52.490 align:middle line:84% Not only climate, but even the word "justice" 00:22:52.490 --> 00:22:54.350 align:middle line:90% may resonate quite differently. 00:22:54.350 --> 00:22:56.330 align:middle line:84% We talk about racial and social justice 00:22:56.330 --> 00:22:58.040 align:middle line:90% quite often in universities. 00:22:58.040 --> 00:23:00.020 align:middle line:84% I would argue that justice may not 00:23:00.020 --> 00:23:03.650 align:middle line:84% be a frame or a phrase that even carries very far 00:23:03.650 --> 00:23:05.210 align:middle line:90% outside of universities. 00:23:05.210 --> 00:23:07.070 align:middle line:84% For example, ideas about fairness 00:23:07.070 --> 00:23:11.210 align:middle line:84% may resonate more deeply with different audiences. 00:23:11.210 --> 00:23:13.640 align:middle line:84% Just to reinforce this point, again, another 00:23:13.640 --> 00:23:16.100 align:middle line:84% figure from the Yale Project on Climate Communication. 00:23:16.100 --> 00:23:18.380 align:middle line:84% This is from their sixth American study. 00:23:18.380 --> 00:23:22.760 align:middle line:84% They have run, I think, 20 or so surveys since 2008, 00:23:22.760 --> 00:23:25.100 align:middle line:84% looking at the US adults' populations 00:23:25.100 --> 00:23:27.240 align:middle line:90% attitudes about climate change. 00:23:27.240 --> 00:23:30.080 align:middle line:84% They ask questions about race, ethnicity, 00:23:30.080 --> 00:23:32.480 align:middle line:84% partisan affiliation, or political affiliation. 00:23:32.480 --> 00:23:34.790 align:middle line:84% And they find that they can segment the US population 00:23:34.790 --> 00:23:37.460 align:middle line:90% overwhelmingly into six groups. 00:23:37.460 --> 00:23:40.880 align:middle line:84% On the left-side side, there's the alarmed and concerned 00:23:40.880 --> 00:23:41.570 align:middle line:90% groups. 00:23:41.570 --> 00:23:42.890 align:middle line:84% These are the groups that have the highest 00:23:42.890 --> 00:23:43.970 align:middle line:90% belief in global warming. 00:23:43.970 --> 00:23:45.960 align:middle line:84% They're most concerned about climate change. 00:23:45.960 --> 00:23:48.060 align:middle line:84% They're most motivated to do something about it. 00:23:48.060 --> 00:23:50.210 align:middle line:84% And on the right-hand side, these four groups-- 00:23:50.210 --> 00:23:52.820 align:middle line:84% the cautious, the disengaged, the doubtful, 00:23:52.820 --> 00:23:55.100 align:middle line:84% and the dismissive-- have the lowest belief 00:23:55.100 --> 00:23:56.000 align:middle line:90% in global warming. 00:23:56.000 --> 00:23:57.050 align:middle line:90% They're least concerned. 00:23:57.050 --> 00:23:58.520 align:middle line:90% They're least motivated. 00:23:58.520 --> 00:24:00.890 align:middle line:84% Of course, on the left-hand side, 00:24:00.890 --> 00:24:02.630 align:middle line:84% these two groups, alarmed and concerned, 00:24:02.630 --> 00:24:05.360 align:middle line:90% are dominated by Democrats. 00:24:05.360 --> 00:24:08.810 align:middle line:84% The other four groups are dominated by Republicans. 00:24:08.810 --> 00:24:12.500 align:middle line:84% The groups on the left tend to skew younger and more female. 00:24:12.500 --> 00:24:15.590 align:middle line:84% The groups on the right tend to skew older and more male. 00:24:15.590 --> 00:24:18.170 align:middle line:84% And so this is just a question about how 00:24:18.170 --> 00:24:21.380 align:middle line:84% are we going to present the idea of climate justice? 00:24:21.380 --> 00:24:24.470 align:middle line:84% Is this an idea that is going to have traction 00:24:24.470 --> 00:24:26.030 align:middle line:90% with all six of these groups? 00:24:26.030 --> 00:24:28.760 align:middle line:84% We're going to discuss this in class. 00:24:28.760 --> 00:24:30.850 align:middle line:84% Finally, there's this interesting quiz, 00:24:30.850 --> 00:24:31.960 align:middle line:90% I kind of enjoyed taking. 00:24:31.960 --> 00:24:34.080 align:middle line:90% It's The New York Times quiz. 00:24:34.080 --> 00:24:36.700 align:middle line:84% If America had six parties, rather than two, 00:24:36.700 --> 00:24:38.260 align:middle line:90% which would you belong to? 00:24:38.260 --> 00:24:41.200 align:middle line:84% This is a political scientist simply commenting 00:24:41.200 --> 00:24:44.680 align:middle line:84% on how our major political parties are distributed 00:24:44.680 --> 00:24:47.290 align:middle line:84% or comprised of different coalitions 00:24:47.290 --> 00:24:48.430 align:middle line:90% and different groups. 00:24:48.430 --> 00:24:50.830 align:middle line:84% Those groups have different social-- 00:24:50.830 --> 00:24:52.540 align:middle line:84% certain levels of social conservatism 00:24:52.540 --> 00:24:54.190 align:middle line:90% and economic conservatism. 00:24:54.190 --> 00:24:56.500 align:middle line:84% For example, you could take the American Labor Party, 00:24:56.500 --> 00:24:58.420 align:middle line:84% Progressive Party, and Neoliberal Party 00:24:58.420 --> 00:25:01.150 align:middle line:90% as relatively democratic groups. 00:25:01.150 --> 00:25:02.890 align:middle line:84% But it turns out that the American Labor 00:25:02.890 --> 00:25:05.370 align:middle line:84% Party and the Growth and Opportunity Party, 00:25:05.370 --> 00:25:07.120 align:middle line:84% probably more associated with Republicans, 00:25:07.120 --> 00:25:10.747 align:middle line:84% have similar attitudes about social conservatism. 00:25:10.747 --> 00:25:12.580 align:middle line:84% At the same time, if you look at the Patriot 00:25:12.580 --> 00:25:14.110 align:middle line:84% Party, and the Christian Conservative Party, 00:25:14.110 --> 00:25:15.880 align:middle line:84% and the Growth and Opportunity Party, 00:25:15.880 --> 00:25:19.150 align:middle line:84% it turns out that part of the Republican coalition 00:25:19.150 --> 00:25:22.240 align:middle line:84% or Republican Party is relatively 00:25:22.240 --> 00:25:24.490 align:middle line:84% close to the economically conservative group 00:25:24.490 --> 00:25:28.253 align:middle line:84% in the Democratic coalition, called the Neoliberal Party. 00:25:28.253 --> 00:25:30.670 align:middle line:84% And so this is to say that all of our different rhetorical 00:25:30.670 --> 00:25:32.260 align:middle line:90% framings of justice-- 00:25:32.260 --> 00:25:33.910 align:middle line:90% how we talk about history-- 00:25:33.910 --> 00:25:35.050 align:middle line:90% some of these ideas-- 00:25:35.050 --> 00:25:37.960 align:middle line:84% how we talk about the imperative to achieve climate justice-- 00:25:37.960 --> 00:25:42.260 align:middle line:84% may resonate differently with all six of these groups. 00:25:42.260 --> 00:25:44.612 align:middle line:84% So what we're going to do in our class discussion 00:25:44.612 --> 00:25:46.570 align:middle line:84% is we're going to do a discussion exercise that 00:25:46.570 --> 00:25:49.960 align:middle line:84% requires you to argue for different energy policy 00:25:49.960 --> 00:25:52.510 align:middle line:84% based on different conceptions of justice. 00:25:52.510 --> 00:25:56.060 align:middle line:84% And we're going to do this as discussion together. 00:25:56.060 --> 00:25:59.710 align:middle line:84% And it's good for you to prepare by looking at the Ramey et al. 00:25:59.710 --> 00:26:02.410 align:middle line:84% article, looking at a specific energy policy, 00:26:02.410 --> 00:26:04.450 align:middle line:84% and thinking about how different groups might 00:26:04.450 --> 00:26:07.410 align:middle line:90% talk about this energy policy. 00:26:07.410 --> 00:26:23.000 align:middle line:90%