I find the Center for Progressive Reform’s pursuit of environmental justice inherently appealing, but this work raises provocative questions: Should U.S.-focused groups like the Center and policymakers pursue an environmental justice mission that does not account for potentially negative trade-offs in developing countries? Or, are there ways to account for those trade-offs to ensure environmental justice work and efforts to address climate change benefit people across the globe? The answers to those questions determine the positions we should take on a wide range of issues. Here are just a few.
There are well over a billion people in Asia, Africa, and South America who lack access to things that those of us in industrialized nations take for granted, like electricity and cars. China and India are attempting to respond to those basic needs by building many more coal-fired power plants. While installing more fossil fuel-fired electricity generation capacity doesn’t advance environmental justice (and in fact leads to increased, unequal pollution burdens), it is currently the fastest and cheapest route to meeting the basic needs of low-income people in the developing world. Should advocates and policymakers support those efforts or try to block them? Are there readily available alternatives that could be rapidly deployed in developing countries and that would reduce the disproportionate impacts of fossil fuel pollution?
Here is a closely related question: How should we react to efforts to export U.S. natural gas to Asia to displace some of the coal that now dominates generation of electricity there? That would be better for the climate than coal-fired power plants, as well as for low-income people in Asia, but it would have a variety of adverse effects on some low-income people in the United States. These would include increasing the cost of gas-generated electricity and home heating and cooking, as well as increasing pollution and disaster risks from drilling, processing, and transporting that gas.
The U.S. effort to replace fossil fuel-powered vehicles with electric vehicles will require a 500 percent increase in the quantity of 11 key minerals. That will require opening or expanding hundreds of mines, both domestically and in other countries. Many of those new or expanded mines will have severe adverse environmental effects on the residents of neighboring communities. Should advocates and policymakers support or oppose the dramatic expansion of mining in these areas?
The Inflation Reduction Act raises many questions of this type, as well. Should we support or oppose the content prerequisites to the green energy subsidies, knowing that they have adverse effects on low-income people in many countries? Should we support or oppose the prevailing wage and mandatory training prerequisites for subsidies, knowing that they cannot be satisfied by products made in the Global South? Should we support or oppose the efforts to eliminate or dramatically reduce China’s dominant role in the supply chain for the critical components of electric vehicles, knowing that any such effort will both slow the transition away from fossil fuels for transportation and increase the cost of transportation for low-income people in the United States?
I don’t have good answers to these questions. I hope that other Member Scholars at the Center — and others — do.
Showing 2,817 results
Richard Pierce, Jr. | February 1, 2024
I find the Center for Progressive Reform’s pursuit of environmental justice inherently appealing, but this work raises provocative questions: Should U.S.-focused groups like the Center and policymakers pursue an environmental justice mission that does not account for potentially negative trade-offs in developing countries? Or, are there ways to account for those trade-offs to ensure environmental justice work and efforts to address climate change benefit people across the globe?
James Goodwin, Will Dobbs-Allsopp | January 31, 2024
What if we told you that every day, tens of millions of Americans are exposed to something that contributes to neurological disease, depression, and an increased risk of heart disease and stroke? What if we also told you that in causing these health harms, it was disproportionately affecting low-wealth communities and communities of color? What is this dangerous “something”? It’s excessive noise. And, as it happens, more than 50 years ago, Congress recognized the seriousness of the harms that excessive noise causes and, as a result, passed a law directing the EPA to take aggressive action against it.
Robin Kundis Craig | January 11, 2024
Fisheries regulation might seem to be unusual grounds for the U.S. Supreme Court to shift power away from federal agencies. But that is what the court seems poised to do in the combined cases of Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. vs. Department of Commerce.
Daniel Farber | January 10, 2024
State climate policy is a big deal. State governments began cutting emissions at a time when the federal government was essentially doing nothing about climate change. Since then, more states have become involved. Part II of this post covers state climate action from New Jersey to Washington State during the second half of 2023, as well as multi-state efforts.
Daniel Farber | January 10, 2024
State climate policy is a big deal. State governments began cutting emissions at a time when the federal government was essentially doing nothing about climate change. Since then, more states have become involved, and state policies have become more aggressive. It’s not for nothing that 2023 was called a banner year for state climate action. The state developments in just the second half of the year make up an impressive list. Part I of this post covers state climate action from California to Michigan.
Dan Rohlf, Zygmunt Plater | January 2, 2024
In the history of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) — which President Richard Nixon signed just over 50 years ago on December 28, 1973 — no creature looms larger than the snail darter. As some lawmakers today seek to weaken the law’s promise to avoid human-caused extinctions, the long-ago battle over this little fish points […]
Daniel Farber | December 11, 2023
The steel industry applied for U.S. Supreme Court intervention on what they claimed was an urgent issue of vast national importance. Chief Justice Roberts requested an immediate government response. That was six weeks ago. Since then ... crickets. No doubt you’re on the edge of your seat, wondering about the impending crisis facing the industry and the earthshaking legal issue in the case. And maybe also wondering why this is the first you’ve heard about it.
Kaitlyn Johnson | November 27, 2023
One in five residents in Baltimore, and one in three Black residents, lives in food deserts — areas where people face systemic barriers to accessing affordable and healthy foods. It’s a problem that has long evaded effective policy solutions. But the rapidly evolving technology of e-commerce platforms offers a new way to bring food justice and security to structurally marginalized communities across the country.
Hannah Wiseman | November 16, 2023
A recent Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania decision has thrown Pennsylvania’s actions on climate change into further disarray. In 2021, through regulatory action by its Department of Environmental Protection, Pennsylvania became a member of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). RGGI is a collection of Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states that have agreed to cap emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from electric power plants with 25 megawatts or more of generating capacity. The cap includes an overall regional limit and a cap for each state. Power plants must purchase allowances or offset their emissions (or pursue other options noted below) to collectively meet the state cap. But lawsuits have challenged Pennsylvania’s entry into RGGI, and on November 1, a memorandum opinion of the Commonwealth Court declared that Pennsylvania’s scheme for auctioning CO2 allowances under the state’s RGGI cap was an unconstitutional tax. The court voided the rulemaking.