Although climate
justice is often considered a type or subset of environmental justice, there
are important differences. One very simple difference is that in many cases of
environmental justice, there is more certainty about the risk. The polluting
entity is close to those that entity is harming. Ambiguity in those cases is
not an issue. However, with climate justice, assumptions are made that are very
difficult to quantify such as how much of the risk is attributable to natural
climate change and regular extreme weather. Climate change is an influence, often
a source among many other sources of harm. Conflating the two opens up the
argument to other odd forms of “justice” such as ‘improper building in
vulnerable areas justice,’ ‘improper wildfire prevention justice,’ or ‘improper
flood control justice.’
According to Wikipedia climate justice:
“…focuses on the unequal impacts of climate change on
marginalized or otherwise vulnerable populations. Climate justice seeks to
achieve an equitable distribution of both the burdens of climate change and the
efforts to mitigate climate change.”
Both environmental
justice and climate justice are concerned with disproportional effects on those
marginalized or vulnerable populations, but climate justice cases are far vaguer
in determining the often multiple sources of those effects and their relative contributions.
Climate justice has been described in two forms:
“procedural justice, which emphasizes fair,
transparent and inclusive decision making, and distributive justice,
which places the emphasis on who bears the costs of both climate change and the
actions taken to address it.”
The goal of climate
justice is to address the rights and obligations of individuals, corporations,
and governments, to those marginalized and vulnerable populations. But before
they can be addressed, they need to be assessed, and that process is wrought
with uncertainties. Climate justice is full of vague assumptions and hard-to-quantify metrics like intergenerational equity, legacy responsibility, and other
issues of so-called attribute science. Disproportionality of cause and burden
is a good way to describe the legacy responsibility argument of climate
justice. However, using similar logic, one could argue that countries that improved
the world with inventions, processes, and aid efforts, including deriving ways
to mitigate climate change, are disproportionately benefiting the world. The cause
of all that climate change also benefited all people. It is a bit of a vague
argument but what I think I am trying to say here is that while I understand
that people affected by climate change like those islanders losing their land
to sea level rise and I think they deserve help and compensation, I tend to mistrust
attribute science because it seems to make a criminal out of corporations that
are very necessary to our society that just happen to pollute. Sure, they have
a civil case, it may be argued, but I have seen attribute science being wielded
to point the blame and to vilify. In the case of intergenerational equity, I
think we do have a responsibility to future generations to protect the environment
and conserve resources. We should also keep in mind that quantifying intergenerational
equity is no easy matter. At the COP29 meeting in progress now U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres met with affected islanders and presented their
problem as an injustice done to them:
“You have every right to be angry, and I am too. You are
on the sharp end of a colossal injustice. An injustice that sees the very
future of your islands threatened by rising seas; your people pounded by record
hurricanes; your economies torn apart,” Mr. Guterres said.
Environmental
justice, on the other hand, has many concrete examples, the bulk of them legacy
examples. Locating housing projects near highways, refineries, landfills, power
plants, and industry provides many environmental justice examples. It has been described
as an amalgam of the environmental movement and the civil rights movement. It
is synonymous with environmental rights for minorities and the vulnerable. It acknowledges
injustices done in the past to minorities such as slavery, colonialism, and inadequate
basic human rights.
At the core of
environmental justice are disproportionate impacts and social vulnerability.
Environmental justice should continue to be a factor in project evaluation.
This is important. Underserved and disadvantaged communities need support. Absolutely
nobody wants to be exposed to dangerous levels of pollution, especially in
their own house or on their own property, whether rented or owned.
Lee Carter, in
the 2005 textbook: Environmental Health: From Global to Local defines environmental
justice holistically:
“The vision of environmental justice is the
development of a holistic community-based, participatory, and integrative
paradigm for achieving healthy and sustainable communities for all peoples.”
While both
environmental justice and climate justice have been permeated by activists, it is
the climate activists with more uncertain and flimsy cases that have been more intense
in activism.
According to
Biden’s April 2023 Executive Order 14096:
“Environmental justice” means the just treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of income, race, color,
national origin, Tribal affiliation, or disability, in agency decision-making
and other Federal activities that affect human health and the environment so
that people: (i) are fully protected from disproportionate and adverse human
health and environmental effects (including risks) and hazards, including those
related to climate change, the cumulative impacts of environmental and other
burdens, and the legacy of racism or other structural or systemic barriers; and
(ii) have equitable access to a healthy, sustainable, and resilient environment
in which to live, play, work, learn, grow, worship, and engage in cultural and subsistence
practices.
Has the Biden Administration Been Funneling Money
to Climate Justice Activist Groups in the Guise of Environmental Justice?
According to a
recent report by the U.S. House of Representatives Energy & Commerce
Committee, the answer is yes. The lawmakers argued that giving money to
activists as part of the Inflation Reduction Act is “akin to a
taxpayer-funded lobbying operation.” I would agree. The report also notes:
“The lists of organizations selected to receive
funding or partner with those organizations include environmental activist
organizations that work to influence public and elected officials to adopt
their often-extreme views, such as completely eliminating the use of fossil
fuels, which Americans recognize are an important part of an all-of-the-above
energy mix,” the report states. “While some selected organizations include
other types of entities such as institutes of high education, many are special
interest environmental nonprofit organizations. These organizations’ views and
missions often align with those of the administration, in effect using taxpayer
dollars to promote the Biden-Harris radical energy agenda.”
“Simply put, the EPA is awarding taxpayer dollars to special
interest groups committed to a radical energy agenda to “educate” others and
drive public outreach, as well as assist those it engages with to influence
government policymaking and outcomes.”
“As the IRA and the EPA’s funding announcements state
that these awards will go to“community-based nonprofit organizations,”15
Americans may expect selectees to be small, local organizations with limited
resources. Some selectees may meet this description. However, many selectees and
partners already receive substantial amounts of funding from massive green
groups and environmental advocacy organizations.”
One group, The
Climate Justice Alliance received $50 million from the administration. They
have stated goals of eliminating the use of fossil fuels and nuclear energy.
They have also advocated for Palestinians. The report also claims that the
grants were awarded too quickly, without enough vetting for extremist groups,
and that they failed to safeguard against waste, fraud, and abuse.
I really think
this was a bad choice of the Biden administration, whether the intention was to
facilitate real environmental justice issues, and they just did not do proper
due diligence, or whether the intention was to deliberately support radical climate
activism. Advocacy groups are involved in politics, not science, not technology,
and not problem-solving.
The bottom line here is that taxpayers should not be funding radical climate advocacy groups in the guise of environmental justice. Indeed Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's Department of Government Efficiency inquiry to users of X to identify government waste went all out against environmental justice appropriations. The '$50 million via "environmental justice" for an anti-Israel group' they mentioned is likely the IRA grant for Climate Justice Alliance mentioned. I agree that should be cut. However, they seem to want to cut anything having to do with environmental justice. While I am sure, other environmental justice cuts can be justified, I doubt that cutting the whole idea out of government is a good idea.
Should “Justice” Apply to the Poor Who Are
Disadvantaged by Clean Energy Subsidies, Energy Access in Developing Countries,
and Higher Electricity Prices Due to Renewable Energy Growth?
Rich people
pollute more than poor people. However, rich people can also afford to mitigate
their carbon footprints more easily than poor people. Thus, it can be argued that
clean energy subsidies for rooftop solar and EVs advantage the wealthy over the
poor since they can take advantage of the cost-savings while the poor generally
cannot. Should that be considered an environmental justice issue against
low-income people? Should withholding fossil fuel financing to developing countries
be considered an environmental(ist) justice offense since the poor are
disadvantaged economically by not having access to energy that is cheaper and
reliable, though higher emitting? The poor also bear the brunt of higher electricity
prices due to the growth of renewable energy. Should that be a justice issue as
well. As the definition of climate justice noted above in this post states:
“Climate justice seeks to achieve an equitable
distribution of both the burdens of climate change and the efforts to mitigate
climate change.”
The examples I
give above are clearly disproportionate impacts on the poor due to “efforts
to mitigate climate change.” Thus, by that definition, the answer to those questions
should be yes.
References:
Biden-Harris
Admin Routed ‘Environmental Justice’ Cash To Left-Wing Activists, House Report
Details. Nick Pope. Daily Caller. November 4, 2024. Biden-Harris Admin Routed
‘Environmental Justice’ Cash To Left-Wing Activists, House Report Details
Exposing
the Green Group Giveaway Behind the Biden-Harris Environmental Justice Programs.
U.S. House of Representatives. Energy & Commerce Committee. November 2024. E+C EJ REPORT | PDF | United States
Environmental Protection Agency | American Government
Climate
justice. Wikipedia. Climate justice - Wikipedia
Environmental
Health: From Global to Local. Ed. Howard Frumkin. Wiley. 2005.
DOGE:
Examples of federal spending that could be on the chopping block. Casey Harper.
The Center Square. November 15, 2024. DOGE: Examples of federal spending that could be on the
chopping block
No comments:
Post a Comment