Effecting change through community research and non-research projects
Abstract:
Sustainability research exists in the realm of post-normal science, and is often carried out by researchers who have deep commitments to change. Therefore, their research can ignite, draw from, and exist alongside on-the-ground community projects and initiatives. In this seminar, we will speak to researchers who have gotten involved in hands on work and collaboration in the communities that they study. What are the benefits and challenges created by occupying the position of researcher and participant concurrently? How does the role of knowledge generation and documentation affect ethical and appropriate participation of researchers in activist, technological, commercial, and political ventures in communities? This seminar will wade into the ambiguous and productive waters of research that turns into something more.
Panel Speakers:
Dr. Terre Satterfield
Professor, IRES
Dr. Satterfield is an anthropologist by training and an inter-disciplinarian by design. Her work concerns environmental values and sustainable natural resource development as these intersect with First Nations interests in land management, local food security, policy and regulation.
Dr. Hadi Dowlatabadi
Professor, IRES
Hadi Dowlatabadi’s sees the world in terms of interacting social, economic and environmental systems. He is interested in how these systems create and respond to challenges over time. Most of his work has focused on the interface of technology, energy, the environment, public health and public policy.
Dr. Nathan Bennett
Research Associate, IOF
Nathan Bennett is an environmental social scientist. Dr Bennett’s recent research focuses on marine protected area governance in Mexico, responses of fishing communities to environmental change in Thailand, indigenous community perspectives on conservation in Canada, marine planning initiatives in North Am. and human dimensions of large-scale marine protected areas.
Governments worldwide have barely managed to work towards the modest commitments under the Paris climate accord, and it’s not enough to address the problem.
Climate initiatives are currently under siege from major polluters. The United States and Australia have organized pro-coal events amid climate talks, carbon emissions are increasing again while new political regimes in Brazil and Saudi Arabia have shown worrying signs of climate skepticism. Why is it so difficult for politicians around the world to take the necessary steps to deal with the climate crisis?
Experts commonly offer two options to address climate change: Flexible regulations on polluting sectors like electricity and transportation, and carbon pricing that reflects the indirect cost of pollution.
These are justified economically, since mitigating climate change can result in popular sustainable development opportunities, create new jobs, prevent loss in professions that depend on healthy ecosystems and improve health outcomes at a lower cost. But that may not be enough — there is no bold Green New Deal that is even being contemplated in places like Russia or China at this time.
Political leaders need to care about climate enough to take on polluting entities like fossil fuel companies that supply or generate the vast majority of energy, provide millions of jobs and make political contributions.
Behavioural psychology suggests that politicians are resistant to measures that aren’t popular with voters or donors.
Even moderate efforts to price carbon have sometimes faced political backlash. A prime example is the domestic unrest in France where carbon pricing on top of economic measures exacerbated economic insecurity within society.
A man makes his way through tear gas as demonstrators protest on the Champs-Elysees on Dec. 15, 2018 in Paris. It was the fifth straight weekend of protests by the country’s ‘yellow vest’ movement. (AP Photo/Kamil Zihnioglu)
As politicians delay decisive action, what could be realistically and quickly done within political systems as diverse as those of the U.S., China, India and Russia? Together, they are the top four polluters, contributing 53 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions in 2017.
Citizens are apathetic too
We argue that the apathy of political leaders reflects the apathy of their citizens. Many politicians, and the people they represent around the world, simply do not view climate change as a crisis. Even when mainstream cable channels are covering it (a rarity in itself), people seem to care more about the next sports showdown or celebrity gossip for entertainment in their daily lives.
At the extreme are those who associate climate change and carbon pricing with various conspiracy theories. This includes everything from the supposed financial gain of climate scientists to socialist schemes to create a world government to destroy capitalism, and a Chinese plot against Western economies.
Arguably, discussions on climate change under these conditions can sometimes deepen the political divide given proponents of such conspiracy theories are largely immune to evidence and reason.
So how do we get citizens to care about climate?
Any energy transition will need to be preceded by a transition of vocal and influential citizens, or swing voters, away from an anti-climate position. We don’t necessarily need all citizens of diverse socioeconomic and educational backgrounds to understand climate science or proactively support it (though that would be highly desirable), we just need a politically influential section of citizens to not oppose bold climate action.
Presenting the case for climate action on CNN, BBC or CBC is important but leaves out the billions of people across China, Russia, India and a host of other countries with divergent political systems and their own media landscape.
They must also be concurrently convinced to take action. How?
Appealing to citizens via their wallets
If carbon pricing is going to be a significant vehicle for climate action, then the key to securing broader support is through people’s wallets.
We should take advantage of human nature. People care about personal gains like well-paying jobs and pay raises. And they instinctively oppose taxes. But would they oppose a tax if they directly profit from it?
This would address real concerns that carbon pricing can disproportionately affect the economically marginalized (as seen in France). But it also dangles a real incentive for citizens to actually demand a carbon tax.
Higher energy prices would still encourage a shift to renewables, and any energy conservation by consumers would financially benefit them even more. This is the core of the “Canadian backstop” proposal.
Carbon taxes could yield cash immediately — and loads of it. An estimated carbon price of US$40 to US$80 per tonne of carbon dioxide is needed by 2020 to achieve the Paris accord goals. Yet, in the 48 OECD and G20 countries (accounting for 80 per cent of global carbon emissions), 46 per cent of emissions are not taxed, while another 13 per cent was charged less than US$6 in 2018.
Science academies should take the lead
If governments are unwilling to convince the public of the personal benefits, the respective national academies of sciences should use their expertise on science and economics to take the lead. Citizens around the world should know how much “carbon dividend” a working family could earn every month if carbon revenues are returned as a dividend.
Even with a modest tax of $20 a tonne, the Canadian federal backstop would return $300 a year more to 70 per cent of the households affected. A more ambitious tax, say $60 per tonne, could be combined with explicit policies to return nearly all the revenue to households with the amount depending on their income levels.
A modest portion from the world’s biggest economies could be earmarked for climate adaptation in the most vulnerable developing countries. At minimum, this might ensure agreement with, or even widespread demands, for a carbon tax.
The best-case scenario is that a critical mass of citizens then starts showing interest in this extra income, and politicians respond with pragmatic carbon pricing design without alienating their core support base. If the estimated carbon dividend could be paid a year in advance, it would only sweeten the deal.
So let’s pressure the politicians across different political systems to act, or they risk alienating citizens who are waiting for their carbon dividend cheques.
IRES current students and alumni, including Sameer Shah, Lucy Rodina, Edward J Gregr, Mollie Chapman, Steve Williams, Nicole J Wilson, and Graham McDowell, teamed up in a new publication which highlights questions of justice, equity and ethics in transformations research. They suggest that more precise indicators of change, a more explicit understanding of system boundaries, and a dual focus on process and outcomes will help advance our understanding of the social-ecological implications of transformations.
Tugce completed her PhD with Prof. Stephanie Chang at IRES in 2018. For her PhD dissertation research, she investigated the use of coastal green infrastructure (CGI)—natural and nature-based flood and erosion protection methods—as a measure of sea level rise adaptation. She is a Planner II at the City of Vancouver’s Intergated Sewer and Drainage Planning Branch. Her work focuses on advancing planning and policy initiatives to manage rain and storm water as a valuable resource, implementation of Rain City Strategy governance and Action Plans, and the development of a One Water Framework for her division.
As a Master’s student at IRES supervised by Dr. Hadi Dowlatabadi, Arielle analyzed carsharing usage and visibility patterns across Metro Vancouver municipalities, as well as Transportation Demand Management (TDM) policy levers designed to discourage personal vehicle ownership, encourage public and shared transit behaviors. Her professional background is in international electric utility regulation, wholesale/state power markets, and renewable energy policy. She is currently a Policy Analyst at Arcadia, a climate crisis-fighting tech company connecting utility customers with community solar. Arielle is a 2022 Fellow at the Clean Energy Leadership Institute (CELI) working on developing policy solutions for equitable clean energy justice and access.
Managing human-dominated landscapes at multiple scales for ecosystem services and multi-functionality
Abstract:
How can we effectively manage human-dominated landscapes for both people and nature? This is a critical question as people increasingly impact and modify natural landscapes, but also expect these areas to provide multiple ecosystem services and conserve biodiversity. Using examples from agricultural, urban, and natural ecosystems at local to regional to national scales, I will show how landscape structure underlies many of these relationships, that it is equally important to understand where ecosystem services are provided by ecosystems and where they are demanded by people, and describe new and novel methods to pinpoint critical locations for ecosystem service provision and conservation planning. Working to integrate this knowledge into current decision-making should lead to landscapes that better meet the needs of both people and nature.
Dr. Matthew Mitchell
NSERC Postdoctoral Fellow
Bio:
Matthew Mitchell is a NSERC Postdoctoral Fellow at UBC’s Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, with an adjunct position at The Centre for Sustainable Food Systems. He completed his Ph.D. at McGill University in 2014, M.Sc. at the University of Alberta in 2006, and B.Sc. (Honours) at the University of Victoria in 2002. His research focuses on how to manage human-dominated agricultural and urban landscapes for both biodiversity and ecosystem services, with the goal to provide knowledge that can inform and improve land management decisions for both people and nature.
Photo Credit: Robin Harder, Postdoc Fellow at IRES
The nuts and bolts of the publishing-industrial complex
Abstract:
Scholarly publications are the bread and butter of academic work. As graduate students, some of us are just starting to dip our toes into the world of academic publishing, while some of us are seasoned and prolific publishers. What do we all need to know about publishing during our graduate studies? What’s normal? What are tradeoffs in trying to publish a lot vs a little? And how important is it anyway? In this conversation, we’ll talk to people at different stages of their academic life about the both the practical mechanics and underlying questions behind this ubiquitous, but seldom-discussed topic.
Dr. Leila Harris
Associate Professor, IRES
Associate Professor, Institute for Gender, Race, Sexuality and Social Justice
Bio:
Leila Harris is an Associate Professor at IRES and in the Institute for Gender, Race, Sexuality and Social Justice. She also serves as Co-Director for UBC’s Program on Water Governance, is a member of the EDGES research collaborative (Environment and Development: Gender, Equity, and Sustainability Perspectives. Dr. Harris’s current research focuses on the intersection of environmental issues and inequality / social difference, water governance shifts (e.g. marketization, participatory governance), in addition to a range of water governance challenges important for Canada.
Dr. Guillaume Peterson St-Laurent
UBC Faculty of Forestry Postdoctoral Research Fellow
Bio:
Dr. Guillaume Peterson St-Laurent is a recent graduate from IRES and currently a post-doctoral research fellow in the UBC Faculty of Forestry. His research falls at the intersection between natural and social sciences. He has broad research interests that bring together natural resource management, territorial governance, environmental policies, deliberative-analytical engagement processes, climate change mitigation and adaptation and the socio-economic and environmental impacts of the extractive industries.
Dr. Matthew Mitchell
UBC IRES Postdoctoral Fellow
Bio:
Dr. Matthew Mitchell is a post-doctoral fellow at IRES. He completed his PhD at McGill, and previously spent two years as a post-doc at the University of Queensland in Australia. His current research focuses on how the arrangement of different land uses and habitats across landscapes affect biodiversity and ecosystem services, mainly in human-dominated agricultural and urban landscapes. His work aims to improve our knowledge about how human activities influence landscape and ecosystem dynamics.
In this June 2017 photo, a coal barge is positioned as a backdrop behind U.S. President Donald Trump as he speaks during a rally in Cincinnati. A coal company executive said Trump personally promised to activate emergency legal authorities to keep dirty or economically uncompetitive coal plants from shutting down. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)
At a town hall meeting in Ohio in March 2016, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said:
“…I’m the only candidate who has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right?”
Coal workers and communities in the United States overwhelmingly supported the rise of Donald Trump because he promised to bring back coal jobs, while Clinton had pledged new jobs and new economic investments in coal communities using clean energy.
Four key coal-producing states — Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky and Pennsylvania — collectively produce more than two-thirds of U.S. coal. In 2016, Trump received more than 30 per cent more votes than Clinton in three of those states. He also won the fourth, Pennsylvania, just not by as much.
Once he became president, Trump pledged to pull out of the Paris climate agreement and his government launched a slew of anti-climate and pro-fossil-fuel policies.
Despite politically powerful coal communities helping elect a president who vowed to guarantee their continued prosperity, their future remains more uncertain than ever. To understand this, it’s necessary to understand the power of coal communities and the future of coal.
The political power of coal communities
The configuration and structure of the coal industry reveals why coal communities remain strong politically. Our calculations show that approximately 100,000 people work directly in the coal industry in the U.S. — with an almost equal split between coal miners and power plant workers.
This number may seem small in a country like the United States, but these 100,000 jobs and revenue from coal operations support an even larger number of people.
There are a large number of “indirect jobs” for people who work on a contractual basis within the broader coal industry. This includes, for example, workers in manufacturing industries that supply equipment and provide transportation services to coal
operators.
A supporter holds a sign as President Donald Trump speaks at a rally in West Virginia on Nov. 2, 2018. (AP Photo/Tyler Evert)
Studies have shown that every 10 coal jobs support at least an equal number of indirect jobs. But that is just the coal industry. Hundreds of thousands of people work in local retail industries in coal towns such as in coffee shops, grocery stores and bars. These are “induced jobs” and, in the absence of alternative industries, the survival of these jobs depends on the survival of coal.
For example, the United Mine Workers of America, the leading trade union in the U.S., runs a pension fund with only 10,000 workers supporting over 120,000 retired coal workers. There are several other pension funds in the U.S. that support retired coal workers.
When we add up all these direct, indirect and induced jobs, and pensioners (and all their families), suddenly the coal community looks big. And they all are tied together by a single thread — the survival of coal.
‘Sense of belonging’
Studies have also shown that coal industry workers, particularly coal miners, have a strong sense of belonging to the place where they live and work, and have very strong social bonding. For several generations, the coal industry is what they know, and whatever they have is because of this industry.
In coal towns, coal is considered an iconic industry that built the United States as we know it today. It’s for these reasons that despite the decline of direct employment, overall coal communities still remain a formidable political force.
Despite their political power, the U.S. coal industry is struggling. It has seen an unprecedented decline in both coal production and coal-based power generation in the last few years. A core issue is that coal is unable to compete with cheap natural gas and the rise of renewables is not helping either.
In 2018, even with Trump almost half way through his presidency, the U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts that in 2018, the share of electricity production using natural gas will increase to 35 per cent from 32 per cent last year and coal-based power will decline from 30 per cent to 28 per cent.
Coal and natural gas compete tooth and nail in the electricity sector.
In this November 2016 photo, a haul truck carries coal from the Spring Creek strip mine near Decker, Mont. (AP Photo/Matthew Brown)
The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis has also predicted:
“This year [2018] will most likely see a record set for coal-fired power capacity retirements in the U.S.”
If this wasn’t already bad news for the coal industry, a new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) special report claimed that to meet the 1.5°C climate target, coal’s share in the energy mix would need to decrease by 59 to 78 per cent by 2030 and 73 to 97 per cent by 2050.
This will likely squeeze U.S. coal exports further, even if it doesn’t change domestic consumption. Europe imports a large portion of American coal and will now face increased pressure from environmental groups and political parties to stop burning coal.
Domestic and foreign action on climate change will mean further declines in both coal mining and coal power plant jobs and the associated jobs and pensions.
So, what’s next for these communities? The coal communities are caught between maintaining the status quo or making a hard shift to a different future. That kind of shift has not always been good for workers.
One only has to look at the decline of the coal industry in the United Kingdom or of steel in the U.S. Midwest to see what can happen. If the coal industry is close to a point of no return globally and in the United States, it’s important that coal workers and their communities leverage their political power to elect politicians who will provide the right leadership for them looking forward.
In the last presidential election and the recent midterm elections, coal country tilted heavily towards a promise of the status quo. In future elections, a promise of a just transition for workers and their communities may hold more sway. That will probably only happen if politicians and those seeking to hasten that transition actively engage with coal communities.
