On Thursday I attended two very different and similar meetings on climate change.Climate Change Meeting 1
The first meeting was with the Roxbury Environmental Empowerment Project (REEP) - a youth-led environmental justice organization based in Boston's Roxbury neighborhood. I visited with them at ACE in order to help them with their presentation on global warming. They have their script down pretty well - concise and basically right. Not surprisingly, there were some kinks and some needed clarifications:
- The 'greenhouse effect' is actually a natural process. The problem is that we are over-enhancing it.
- Global warming and the ozone hole are two different problems (a lot of people seem to confuse these two issues).
- It's generally okay to use the terms 'climate change' and 'global warming' interchangeably, but 'global warming' should not be interpreted to mean it's just going to get warmer. The effects of climate change are not the same everywhere. The western US is getting drier and hotter, while the northeast is getting a lot more precipitation and stronger storms both in summer AND winter (including more intense ice storms).
- The biggest immediate and chronic impacts on urban communities are heat stress and worsened air pollution. Heat stress is deadly for the very young, the very old, and the chronically ill - especially if you don't have A/C, have under-treated health conditions because you lack money or health insurance, and are stuck in a concrete environment with little or poorly maintained vegetation. Add to that the fact that smog - especially ground-level ozone and particulate matter - are enhanced by warm weather. Worse smog can be deadly, if not downright unpleasant, to the very young, the very old, and the chronically ill ... you get it. Houston, we have a problem.
Climate Change Meeting 2
The second meeting (to which I arrived late because it was hard to stop talking over at ACE) was with the state's Climate Change Adaptation Advisory Committee. I've been attending the Key Infrastructure subcommittee. I need to thank Gene Benson from ACE, who was actually appointed by the Governor to the Committee, for suggesting me as a participant, as well as Brian Brodeur at DEP, for vouching for me to the subcommittee chair. The subcommittee meetings have been where the action is, but this big meeting was an opportunity to hear what all the other subcommittees have been doing regarding: coastal zones, public infrastructure, health and human welfare, terrestrial habitats, government and private business, etc. Each of the subcommittee chairs summarized their work to date, most of which had to do with identifying key vulnerabilities and suggested strategies. However, the point, as the Committee Chair reminded us, was not to "get into the weeds" on the details.
What's interesting to me, is the way in which many of the participants have seized on this crisis assessment as an opportunity for meaningful change - not just a panicked reaction to some imminent threat. As Ed Kuntz from DEP put it, we have the opportunity to change the whole paradigm of land use, economic development, and environmental management. Two strategies in particular stand out (at least to me):
- Incorporating "nature-based" adaptation and mitigation strategies. This is similar to the idea of using "green infrastructure." Basically, this means recognizing and making use of the amazing variety and robustness of "services" that natural ecosystems provide. For example: wetlands for water filtration and buffering from storm surge; trees to provide cooling and absorption of excess water; open/green space to allow infiltration of rain and prevent excessive runoff and flooding, etc. Bob Zimmerman of the Charles River Watershed Association did an amazing presentation for the Infrastructure subcommittee on this issue.
- Using the lens of community vulnerability to set priorities and design strategies. At a minimum, this means identifying those communities that are exposed to hazards AND less able to handle or recover from them - a concept known as resilience. It also means that when you look to clean things up, say by eliminating inefficient industrial practices or technologies, you begin by cleaning up the dirtiest in the most impacted neighborhoods. Finally, the lens of community vulnerability forces us to look for ways to reduce vulnerability and enhance resilience by changing the very conditions that create vulnerability and low resilience - low socioeconomic status, geographic and social segregation, political influence, etc. First step: direct job and restructuring opportunities (i.e. stimulus funds) to communities most in need.
