I intend this to be more of a discussion diary than anything else. Also, I didn’t write this diary to be critical of the environmental movement. I wrote it wanting to start a conversation about how the environmental movement can connect with more people.
I’ve wondered for a long time why the environmental movement hasn’t been more successful. While the majority of Americans accept climate science, polls indicate most people do not have a sense of urgency about it. The public rates climate change at the very bottom in terms of priorities. The media doesn’t seem to think it’s even worth asking about in the debates — here. In 2015, the Sunday network shows devoted just 73 minutes to climate change a 10% decline from 2014 -here.
I talk to Democrats in real life. When I mention climate change, I get responses such as “What is that exactly?” and “Isn’t that in 100 years?” They are Democrats due to issues they believe impact them now, such as economic worries and LGBT rights. They don’t reject climate science, but they feel no connection to the climate movement. When I came to Daily Kos in 2006, I was a solid Democrat but I had no connection to the climate movement.
Of course, the people I run across in real life are no more or less representative of the population than the people anyone else runs across. All of our real life stories are relevant in terms of how we can better connect.
I’ve also read on Daily Kos environmental organizations are often run mostly by affluent white males. Why is that not advisable? Without diverse perspectives, an organization or political movement will connect with fewer people.
Van Jones has talked a lot about the lack of diversity within the environmental movement. He started "Green For All" as part of an effort to rectify that. He’s also author of the book "The Green Collar Economy" which talks about solving both our environmental and economic problems with the same dollars.
I’ll rewind to 2005. I wouldn’t have connected with the environmental movement by reading scientific articles about rising global temperatures. But I would have connected with Van Jones book. Why? He connected climate change to bread and butter economic issues my number one issue. He made the issue relevant to my daily life.
I am not a person of color, and the Democrats I spoke of were not. But I’ve read on Daily Kos the environmental movement has also not connected with many people of color. Van Jones talks about that with Grist in "The Whitewashing of the Environmental Movement." He goes on to say the problem isn’t just that mainstream eco groups are mostly white, but that the environmental justice groups often have a fraction of the funding mainstream groups do. He adds: (emphasis mine).
Jones says for the environmental movement as a whole to succeed, that needs to change. Environmental justice groups are the ones serving populations that are often most vulnerable to climate change and affected most by pollution — Americans who are low-income, live in cities, and are often people of color.
“The mainstream donors and environmental organizations could be strengthened just by recognizing the other ‘environmentalisms’ that are already existing and flourishing outside their purview,” Jones said.
Van Jones talks about some smaller, community based environmental justice groups such as the West Harlem Environmental Action & Bus Rider's Union in Los Angeles. He also talks about the work local activists are doing in Detroit such as community gardening, community clean up, and small scale manufacturing. These activists are just as much environmentalists as anyone else.
Denise has written about environmental justice here. She did a lot of activism in the 1960’s and 1970’s that had a direct impact on people’s lives, but she never thought of herself as an environmentalist. The environmental issues communities of color were immediately concerned with were issues that impacted their health.
I read a very thought provoking article "New Study Finds People of Color Are Less Polarized About Climate Change Than Whites." More information about the study can be found here and here. Note: the second link is to the actual research paper. The study also notes people of color are also less likely to identify themselves as environmentalists even though they have equal or greater concern about climate change.
The study concluded that environmentalism among people of color is more about group harm and real life impact than political ideology. That’s presumably because communities of color are disproportionately victimized by polluters. There is a lot of research to corroborate this and some examples can be found here, here, here, and here. The Washington Post published an article "Pollution is segregated too.” The maps show communities of color are exposed to more environmental toxins than white communities are all over the U.S. Also, Dr. Robert Bullard has written several books on the subject- here.
I found there’s an 85 mile stretch between Baton Rouge and New Orleans in Louisiana referred to as "Cancer Alley." There are 150 petrochemical plants in this area that manufacture chemicals used in fossil fuels and many of the consumer products people buy. I was horrified by how many people developed cancer all within a few blocks.
In that article, Dr. Robert Bullard is quoted:
“People are talking about this economic recovery and the rebirth of clean energy and renewable energy, but what we have is energy apartheid, where poor communities and poor communities of color are still getting the dirtiest of the dirty energy,” said Dr. Robert Bullard, author of “Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality.”
The Guardian cited a Harvard study linking two Chicago area coal based power plants to adverse health and economic impacts on a Latino community:
While the Fisk and Crawford Coal Power Plants were running, Little Village residents – primarily Latino families – suffered extremely high rates of respiratory illnesses, including both asthma and bronchitis. A study out of Harvard linked more than 40 premature deaths, 550 emergency room visits and 2,800 asthma attacks every year to the toxic emissions from the two plants, with children being the most vulnerable to the plants’ pollution. Thousands of children and parents stayed home from school or missed work every year due to sickness. This had significant educational and economic impacts on our 100,000-strong community that continues today.
What about the Flint water poisoning- link? Would an elitist Republican Governor have allowed a wealthy white communities water to be poisoned? Would he go to jail if he had?
What if America didn’t have “energy apartheid?” or any kind of environmental apartheid? What if the environmental and health effects of pollution was equally distributed in all communities? Would the country have transitioned off fossil fuels by now? Or at least be well on our way?
How would the environmental movement change if mainstream environmental groups included more people of color? Are there other changes that could or should be made to better connect with additional groups and build a very solid effective coalition?
How can the environmental movement connect with people living in energy producing states such as West Virginia, Kentucky, Texas, etc? The majority of the people who live in those states know that fossil fuels pollute. People work in those industries because they need a job. How will building a clean energy infrastructure replace the jobs lost in carbon based energy industries? That’s a question we need to answer if more people are to connect with the environmental movement. Yes, it can be done. As Van Jones noted in his book, we can create an economic win and an environmental win.
In the NY Times, Tom Friedman reviewed Van Jones book. The article talks about how the fossil fuel industry succeeded in getting poorer people into their camp afraid of higher energy prices. Van Jones notes:
“The leaders of the climate establishment came in through one door and now they want to squeeze everyone through that same door. It’s not going to work. If we want to have a broad-based environmental movement, we need more entry points.”
I understand the climate crisis. Yes, it’s a crisis. I believe climate scientists when they tell us we have reached a tipping point where things begin to go downhill rapidly- here. But talking about the science or trying to scare people isn’t going to work when so many people are struggling to survive now. That’s why we need to change our approach and have more “entry points” or “on ramps” that connect with people’s everyday needs.
The polling survey I linked to earlier does show climate change ranked last in the public’s list of priorities. Yes, that will change as the planet heats up and we have more and more environmental catastrophes. But I don’t consider waiting for that to happen a viable option. I think the reason people do not have a greater sense of urgency is they are focused on immediate needs such as economic policy, health care, trade policy, abortion rights, voting rights, the war on drugs, and on and on and on.
That’s why I wrote this diary. I was trying to write about climate change in a way people might be able to connect to. That’s why I think Van Jones book about the Green Collar Economy is a great idea- people will connect to that and join the climate movement. That’s why I linked to Denise’s diary here. Yes, working to get environmental toxins out of local communities is something people connect to.
Any other ideas how we can better connect with people? How can we advocate for climate action in a way that also meets the needs of a diverse population and makes climate action relevant to their immediate needs?