And so it begins… The past two weeks were our first ever of running a course. Say hello to APSC 498T! In total we are 11 enrolled students. Given the level of engagement from our students so far, we are excited for what is to come and all that we will learn together!
In our first class we filled out a pre-assessment survey, which asked a few short questions about why climate change is a hard problem to solve, what is the role of technology in both contributing to and mitigating climate change, and how policy helps to shape technology. We will return to the survey at the end of the course to see how our views may have changed over the course of our study. We also played the icebreaker: 2 truths, 1 lie. A classic! Lastly, we discussed the worldviews of climate change outlined in Clapp and Dauvergnes’ book “Path to a Green World” by synthesizing one sentence descriptions for each worldview. There is the Market Liberal, who thinks economic growth and markets are the strongest weapon against climate change; the Institutionalist, who believes in the growth of global institutions and strong political norms to address the issue; the Bioenvironmentalist, who sees growing human society as a cancer to ecological balance; and the Social Green, who believes that inequity and social issues are so tightly intertwined with environmental injustice that one cannot be solved without addressing the other.
In our second class we took the climate change problem head on by discussing Chapter 2: Why Climate Change is Such a Hard Problem to Solve from David Victor’s book, “Global Warming Gridlock.” This chapter should be required first reading for anyone studying the climate change problem! The chapter begins by reviewing the history of climate science and efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions since the 1930s. It was interesting to consider how young climate science is, and that humans have understood this problem for less than a century. In class we talked about how climate change is a difficult problem because CO2 emissions are intrinsic to an economy powered by fossil fuels, there are long time horizons in the cost/benefit of cutting GHG emissions (called the ‘time inconsistency principle’), and climate pollutants are extremely long-lived in the atmosphere. We also discussed the policymaking myths that the author hoped to dispel in the chapter. The first myth, the Scientist’s Myth, is that climate policy will follow consensus on climate science. In actuality consensus is difficult to come by, especially in a field as complex as climate science, and this myth distracts from the fact that deep cut in emissions are needed now, by implementing practical policies, regardless of what the sciences says. The second, Environmentalist’s Myth, is that climate change is strictly an environmental problem. This myth fails to account for broad social and economic factors, which are deeply important for crafting good mitigation and adaptation policy. Lastly, the Engineer’s Myth, is that just devising the right technology is all that is needed to address the climate change problem. This myth doesn’t account for the careful crafting of markets that is required to aid the dispersion of appropriate technology, especially when new tech faces competition from established and entrenched industries like fossil energy. Moreover, there are historically long timelines (~30 years in many cases) for a technology to reach full market potential.
Climate justice was the topic of our last class this week, with a reading from the Annals of Global Health, “Climate Change, Human Rights, and Social Justice.” In class we discussed how it is an injustice that many of the poorest countries have contributed the fewest GHGs, yet are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, and how marginalized populations are often at additional climate risk. For example, indigenous communities whose lives are closely tied to the land, or women that are in charge of sourcing food and water for their families. We also discussed that certain policies could be especially harmful to low-income populations, for example if they raise the price of energy significantly. As a class activity, we split into groups, and each took on the identity of a different world citizen(s): A family in Delhi, and young woman in Mexico City, a family in Alberta, and a resort owner in the Maldives. The goal of the activity was to brainstorm the various impacts and adaptation measures our citizen(s) could take on. The outcome was a better understanding of the inequitable distribution of adaptation measures, and the significant anxiety/impacts that various world populations may feel if climate change worsens. Instilling this climate justice framework was a key learning objective our course!
Next week we will continue to explore the scope of the climate change issue with readings from the 2017 UN Emissions Gap Report. Despite the tendency for doom & gloom, we will try to keep morale alive with a framework of hope.
This week’s reading list:
Clapp, Jennifer, and Peter Dauvergne. 2011. Paths To A Green World. Chapter 1: Peril or Prosperity? Mapping Worldviews of Climate Change. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Victor, David G. 2011. Global Warming Gridlock. Chapter 2: Why Global Warming is Such a Hard Problem to Solve. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levy, Barry S., and Jonathan A. Patz. 2015. “Climate Change, Human Rights, And Social Justice”. Annals Of Global Health 81 (3): 310. doi:10.1016/j.aogh.2015.08.008.