Climate equity: Danielle Deane

A foundation officer on the need for coordination and funding for equity efforts 3

This is a guest essay by Danielle Deane. Deane is a Program Officer at the Hewlett Foundation, where she runs the New Constituencies for the Environment initiative. She is also a 2007-2008 Association of Black Foundation Executives (ABFE) Connecting Leaders Fellow. The essay is part of a series on climate equity.

-----

Danielle Dean1. What would climate equity look like? What's the end state we're aiming for?

Climate change is going to hurt the poor the most, but there are ways to make a difference. Legislators and policy makers who promote reforms to reduce climate change should include in their considerations the impact of reforms on the most vulnerable populations. This is beginning to happen. California's landmark Global Warming Solutions Act, AB 32, has a provision mandating that measures to reduce global warming cannot cause additional pollution in neighborhoods already suffering from unhealthy conditions.

Second, rich nations should speed the spread of clean, energy efficient technologies and practices to developing countries. Doing so should be a funding and policy priority. Right now, too many nations are pointing fingers instead of leading. We need to see leapfrogging. There is no time to waste.

Third, the "green economy" is attracting tremendous investment capital and can have great economic benefits. Who is getting access to these dollars, and where will be benefits occur? The communities most in need of job opportunities could benefit, but that is not likely to happen without deliberate effort. There is potential for economic and environmental wins. It should come as no surprise, then, that many labor unions support a greener energy policy at the federal level.

2. What are the policy steps that start us down the road?

We need a cap on carbon designed with equity in mind. That means, among other things, that climate change policies and Environmental Impact Reports for major projects should be required to consider the impact on the populations most vulnerable to climate change. An "Equity Analysis," if you will, along with economic opportunity analyses.

Beyond that, regulators should compel companies to report on greenhouse gas emissions across the complete life cycle of a product. Right now, some companies call themselves environmentally responsible, but a look at what went into every facet of their products, including components that were outsourced and the products' ultimate disposal, would tell a different story. Often companies exclude the impact of exporting their dirtiest production processes and waste into poorer countries with lax environment standards. It's just another way that the poor bear a disproportionate price for environmental degradation.

If we don't demand more honesty about which practices are genuinely green, it will be harder to slow global warming and the most vulnerable populations will pay the greatest price. Life cycle reporting will shine a light on how "green" companies really are, and incentivize companies to work with their suppliers to reduce environmental impacts.

3. What's needed, politically speaking, to marshal support for those policy steps?

We need political pressure on our elected leaders, from across the political and economic spectrum. That means we need resources for effective, strategic mobilization and advocacy to generate that pressure.

Organizations working on behalf of the most affected communities -- with the most at stake -- need significantly more resources. It is going to take more than the work of traditional environmental organizations. We are already seeing partnerships with unions, green businesses, churches, and social justice organizations. We'll need this and more to win this battle.

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. Kevin Doyle Posted 4:01 am
    16 Oct 2007

    Let's get it right this timeDanielle Deane's comments are right on the mark.  We've had previous waves of environmental investment over the last forty years focused on air and water quality, hazardous materials management, solid waste management/recycling, natural resource management improvements and early experiments in brownfields redevelopment.  We're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars in government and business expenditures. The previous waves produced lots of great public and private sector jobs and a vibrant "environmental" careers field which employs over two million people today. But these waves haven't been linked to economic development improvements for low-income communities and communities of color and the gains haven't been equitably spread around.
    It's clear that the biggest wave of all is potentially in front of us, with massive investments in all things green on the horizon, much of it supported or fueled by taxpayer dollars.  With intentional thinking and advance planning, this new wave can make a big difference on the ground in the communities that need the most help.  Or, these billions can disappear into the pockets of a few and further increase the already ridiculous discrepancies between the haves and the have nots in this country.
    Let's hope other foundations are listening to Ms. Deane.
    Kevin Doyle

    President

    Green Economy

    Boston

    Kevin Doyle

    (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

    //
    var l=new Array();

    var output = '';

    l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[26]='\"';l[27]=' 109';l[28]=' 111';l[29]=' 99';l[30]=' 46';l[31]=' 108';l[32]=' 105';l[33]=' 97';l[34]=' 109';l[35]=' 103';l[36]=' 64';l[37]=' 101';l[38]=' 108';l[39]=' 121';l[40]=' 111';l[41]=' 100';l[42]=' 108';l[43]=' 110';l[44]=' 105';l[45]=' 118';l[46]=' 101';l[47]=' 107';l[48]=':';l[49]='o';l[50]='t';l[51]='l';l[52]='i';l[53]='a';l[54]='m';l[55]='\"';l[56]='=';l[57]='f';l[58]='e';l[59]='r';l[60]='h';l[61]='a ';l[62]='

    Permalink

  2. Delay And Deny's avatar

    Delay And Deny Posted 7:11 am
    17 Oct 2007

    Good Arguments; Bad Assertion

    The enviros think they can bury the world in paperwork in order to get their way....and their funding.
    Ms. Deane starts hers with "Climate change is going to hurt the poor the most."
    No facts...nothing to back it up.   But this is typical of the Climate Deluder.   They repeat mantras based on what they "want" to believe, not what they can prove and the rattle on about what should be done.
    Yet, the facts have shown that over the past 2 centuries, increasing temperature has benefitted all of mankind, and the poor have "benefitted" disproportionately more due to warmer weather.

    John Bailo


    Sutext:

    Permalink

  3. Max Weintraub Posted 5:28 am
    23 Oct 2007

    Domestic environmental justice impactsThe Global Warming Environmental Justice Advisory Committee is meeting next week to discuss impacts in California in response to passage of AB32 noted by Danielle.  Some of the issues being addressed are identified in the Redefining Progress report.  http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ejac/ejac.htm

    http://www.redefiningprogress.org/publications/2006/CARB_ ...
    A critical national overview of environmental justice and climate change was offered by the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation

    (http://www.cbcfinc.org/pdf/Climate_Change.pdf#search=%27u ...)
    While the draft federal "Analyses of the effects of global change on human health and welfare and human systems" recognizes domestic impacts on the poor, neither it nor the associated federal advisory committee are evaluating disparate domestic harms based on race.

    (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=17564 ...)

    Max Weintraub is the director of the Environmental Justice & Health Union

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.