Climate change is no longer a theoretical possibility, but rather a certainty that is supported by scientific evidence, a diverse body of research and countless reports produced by highly credible organizations.
While accepting the scientific realities of climate change has become nearly universal, there is still uncertainty as to how this global phenomenon will manifest itself locally and at what pace changes will occur. The emerging climate-justice movement shifts the discursive framework of climate change from a scientific-technical debate to one about ethics focused on human rights and justice.
A growing body of literature, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), documents that those least responsible for climate change are also those likely to be first and most impacted by its effects. The catastrophic damage wrought by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 - whether one sees this as evidence of climate change, or as a harbinger of climate change impacts - revealed the deep-seated injustice underlying the vulnerability and limited response capacity, or resilience of poor and minority populations. Importantly, it revealed the differential vulnerability of people today to present climate variability and extremes.
It made climate justice not just some future issue, but one that should concern us today. Wealthy New Orleans residents fled in droves in their cars and SUVs, tapping their extensive social networks, while the sick, the poor, the elderly and the undocumented immigrants were left to fend for themselves. This hurricane may well shift the climate change and present-day disaster risk debate in many ways - not least from the science and engineering arena into the territory of ethics, human rights and social justice.
A number of other key themes have emerged with the development of the climate-justice movement. First, low income and minority populations are faced with a disproportionate burden of the impacts of climate change on both health and economic well-being. While the impacts of climate change will occur on a global scale, the effects will not be spread evenly over the world's
population. Rather, climate change is likely to have different impacts on people of different socioeconomic and racial groups, and particularly between Northern versus Southern Hemisphere populations. To this extent, climate change will exacerbate spatial injustice.
Second, there is a growing body of literature exploring issues of spatial injustice and, in effect, demonstrating that in the United States, black Americans are significantly more likely to live and work in locations where they are exposed to higher levels of pollution than the remainder of the general public. The factors contributing to this disparity are related to both socioeconomic status and race. A Congressional Black Caucus Foundation report from 2004 highlights data indicating that in 2002, an estimated 71 percent of blacks lived in counties in violation of federal air pollution standards - as compared to 58 percent of the white population. In addition, it reveals that 78 percent of blacks are located within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant, where the environmental and health impacts of the smokestack plumes are most acute, as compared to 56 percent of whites.
Third, as we saw in Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, there are differential coping and adaptive capacities between middle-class and lower-income and minority populations with regard to cars and insurance (both of which are more abundant in the middle class). Telling people to get in their cars and evacuate may only be effective if everyone has a vehicle and one is prepared to ignore road capacity issues. Such class differences also suggest why lower-income populations have greater attachment to their limited possessions (homes and other property). They are predominantly uninsured and therefore may be more reluctant to leave, even if they had a vehicle to escape in.
Finally, the climate justice movement emphasizes the fact that the structure of policies aimed at addressing the issue of climate change will come at either great cost or great benefit to vulnerable populations. For instance, poorly designed climate policies will most directly harm poor and minority families. Such policies include those that suddenly increase the price of energy but do not raise revenue and recycle it in a progressive manner, or those that fail to promote clean energy technologies.
In contrast, properly designed energy policies can create large net benefits for the poor and minorities. When the revenue from carbon "charges" is used to offset distortionary taxes, such as payroll taxes, dramatic employment benefits can be reaped across the nation. Several studies find that progressive climate protection policies can create up to 1.4 million jobs. Based on historic hiring patterns, this increase in employment will disproportionately profit the poor and minorities. It is therefore imperative that any climate adaptation and mitigation strategies take into consideration issues of ethics, human rights and justice.
It is precisely the unethical and unjust lack of connection between responsibility and burden that has given rise to the climate justice movement. It fosters the observed shift in the framing of climate change to reflect issues of equity, justice and accountability.
In planning for climate treaties and appropriate policy measures, both domestically and internationally, the climate justice movement focuses on an evaluation of the disproportionate health and economic burdens with which many low-income and minority communities are faced. In effect, it demands no less than the re-framing of climate change in order to ensure that principles of equity and justice are fully incorporated.
Luckily for our community, two important voices for this reframing are on campus this week: Dr. Beverly Wright, founding director of the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, now at Dillard University in New Orleans; and Ted Glick, coordinator of the U.S. Climate Emergency Council and co-founder of the Climate Crisis Coalition. They will be in Braker 001 tomorrow at 6:00 p.m. and will explore the connection between climate change, social justice and diversity. Join in and lend your voice to this emerging movement.
Julian Agyeman is the associate professor and chair of the Department of Urban and Environmental Planning. Julia Prange is an M.A. candidate in the Department of Urban and Environmental Planning.
