CSTPR Welcomes Dr. Jack Stilgoe

stilgoe

Dr. Jack Stilgoe has just joined CSTPR through August 2017, while he is on sabbatical from University College London.

Jack is a senior lecturer in the department of Science and Technology Studies. He teaches courses on science and technology policy, responsible science and innovation and the governance of emerging technologies. His most recent book is Experiment Earth: Responsible Innovation in Geoengineering (Routledge-Earthscan). The paperback was published in June 2016.

Before joining UCL he was Senior Research Fellow at the University of Exeter, working on a framework for responsible innovation for the UK Research Councils. He was Senior Policy Adviser at the Royal Society, where he ran work on the science base, innovation, emerging technologies and public engagement. Before this, he spent four years at the independent think tank Demos, leading work on science and society. He is on the editorial board of Public Understanding of Science, a member of the Government’s Sciencewise steering group and a member of the European Commission’s expert group on Science with and for Society. He is co-editor the Guardian’s Political Science blog.

Posted in Announcements | Leave a comment

Notes from the Field: Community Action Plans – Learning the Art of Compromise in Serving Local Visions

rccc2016_blog2

Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Centre Internship Program
by Sierra Gladfelter – Zambia
July 2016

In Zambia, Sierra is supporting the monitoring and evaluation component of the ‘City Learning Lab processes’ Zambia Red Cross Society program. This includes supporting the facilitation and documentation of the First Lusaka Learning Lab for the Future Resilience for African Cities and Lands (FRACTAL) project, including contribution to the development of a learning framework and establishing a learning baseline, researching background materials and preparing reading materials in collaboration with the FRACTAL team and documenting learning during the Learning Lab interactions and compiling a learning report.

As we dodge potholes on the highway from Kazungula to Sesheke, the bush smolders on the shoulders of the road. Men pause in the heat of the day from clearing brush, squatting in small patches of shade on the side of the road. When I ask the Zambia Red Cross Society (ZRCS)’s Disaster Management Officer, Samuel Mutambo, seated beside me about the fires, his brow furrows. We are in the midst of a week monitoring activities associated with the Building Resilient African Communities (BRACES) program supported by the American Red Cross and are on our way to check on communities and deliver materials for the implementation of local action plans in Kazungula and Mwandi districts. Samuel, still troubled by the sight outside our window, launches into a thoughtful explanation. The forest burning is common here I come to learn, along with many other areas of Sub-Saharan Africa. According to Zambia’s Energy Regulation Board, approximately 75% of Zambians live off the grid without electricity (a rate that rises to 95% in rural areas), where firewood serves as one of their only forms of fuel, heat, and light.

“While rural Zambians often shoulder the blame for statistics on the growing rate of deforestation (according to the Times of Zambia, now approaching 300,000 hectares per year), the reality is not so simple.”

Even in Lusaka, Zambia’s rapidly developing capital, people who live with modern conveniences and access to more sustainable fuel alternatives often choose charcoal for cooking traditional dishes over their outdoor charcoal stoves. This urban consumption of forest resources has been exacerbated by the growing frequency of power cuts and load-shedding in urban areas which leaves vast swathes of Lusaka without power on a daily basis. Getting a meal on the table often means lighting up a bag of charcoal. Rural communities, like those along the road between Sesheke and Kazungula, serve as suppliers in a market currently estimated to be worth more than US $100 million (Ngosa, 2014).

The Zambia Red Cross Society (ZRCS)’s BRACES project seeks to combat such ‘destruction of the environment’ by empowering communities to manage local forest and land resources in ways that build rather than erode their resilience. While this aim is noble, its implementation is not always so straightforward on the ground, particularly when the approach depends on residents identifying their own needs through community action plans. This becomes evident during our first stop in a cluster of huts in the community of Sikaunzwe. We are delivering axes to the local head of the Satellite Disaster Management Committee (SDMC), so that remote communities gardening in the bush could clear a track to the main road to get their goods to market. Not having known exactly what we were delivering, I have to laugh at the profound irony as we, as part of a climate resilience intervention, stack hatchets in the shade of a hut that also has dozens of bags of charcoal waiting to be carried to the highway. I ask Samuel, trying to suppress the doubt in my voice, how we know that the axes will be used to clear the road and not in the production of local charcoal (certainly more profitable than selling tomatoes and okra!).

Samuel laughs. He knows where I am going. He assures me that the axes will be used for widening the road so that buyers may better access the vegetables grown through the BRACES program. Here, SDMCs carefully manage the tools they are provided and they cannot just be used for anything. Still, even Samuel admits that the possibility of the axes being used for other means remains. This, however, is the compromise he and others must be willing to make if they take seriously the self-proclaimed needs of communities. They have to learn to trust in order to build a reciprocal exchange with communities. The longer I have time to reflect on my own internal conflict over distributing axes, which could very well be used to exacerbate the forest’s felling, however, the less crazy it feels. Anything less than this commitment to local self-determination, I came to realize, would be paternal and colonial, another unidirectional intervention rooted in ‘education’ and coercion that so often occurs in the development industry and that the ZRCS works hard not to reproduce. When they give a community tools, they never have full control over how the community uses them. In the end, the lesson becomes about having a relationship that does not breed doubt but trust. Read more …

Posted in Commentaries | Leave a comment

Brexit Takes the Space: June 2016 Climate Change Coverage Drops in UK and EU

figure_june2016

Brexit takes the space: June 2016 climate change coverage drops in UK  & EU but steady elsewhere

Updated through June 2016

The Media and Climate Change Observatory (MeCCO) monitors fifty sources across twenty-five countries in seven different regions around the world. MeCCO assembles the data by accessing archives through the Lexis Nexis, Proquest and Factiva databases via the University of Colorado libraries. These fifty sources are selected through a decision processes involving weighting of three main factors:

  • geographical diversity (favoring a greater geographical range)
  • circulation (favoring higher circulating publications
  • reliable access to archives over time (favoring those accessible consistently for longer periods of time)

World, Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, Spain, United Kingdom, & United States

Figure Citations
Gifford, L., Luedecke, G., McAllister, L., Nacu-Schmidt, A., Andrews, K., Boykoff, M., and Daly, M. (2016). World Newspaper Coverage of Climate Change or Global Warming, 2004-2016. Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Web. [Date of access.] http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/media_coverage.

Posted in Announcements | Leave a comment

It Isn’t Easy Being Green — Just Ask Those Who Are

leaders

by Gayathri Vaidyanathan and Brittany Patterson, E&E reporters

ClimateWire
July 5, 2016

How small must a climate scientist’s carbon footprint be? How about a celebrity who calls for environmental protection? Or a politician?

Champions of the environment say they try to practice what they preach. But they also argue that demanding proof of eco-purity is a smokescreen used by climate skeptics and irrelevant to the larger issue of creating a systemic change in how people use energy.

“We will not solve the climate problem by telling people they can’t have toast,” said Ken Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science. “We will solve it by making sure that the wire from the toaster is connected to a wind turbine or a solar panel and not a coal plant.”

From former Vice President Al Gore to “hockey stick” climate curve scientist Michael Mann, those who put themselves in the climate change limelight feel the heat. “Leonardo DiCaprio Takes Private Jet to Accept Environmental Award,” blared Us Weekly magazine after the Academy Award-winning actor was honored by a clean water advocacy group in May. The New York Post similarly slammed President Obama for taking Air Force One to Paris last year to join “jet-setting representatives” from nearly 200 other countries to sign a climate change accord.

Conservative magazine National Review took aim at actor and anti-fracking activist Mark Ruffalo. Citing the fame he’s won for the role of Dr. Bruce Banner/The Hulk in “The Avengers” movie series, the piece opined that “Perhaps playing a character with two different personas has taught him how to lead the double-standard life of a typical Hollywood environmental hypocrite; one day, you’re flying to award ceremonies and making energy-guzzling action movies, the next day you’re raging against the very industries and technologies that make your comfortable lifestyle possible.”

Even the pope is not immune to attack. After Pope Francis released his environmental encyclical calling for climate action, a piece in the National Catholic Reporter noted the “darling of environmentalists” was poised to depart on a high-carbon Latin America tour. “The pope’s journey from Rome to Ecuador, Bolivia and Paraguay will inevitably involve a considerable amount of air travel, known to be a form of transportation that is incredibly damaging to the environment,” the piece said.

Increasingly, academics are entering the fray. A recent study published in the journal Climatic Change found people are more receptive to scientists they perceive as “green” (E&ENews PM, June 16).

Meanwhile, a growing body of scientific literature is trying to tease out what impact celebrities can have on public engagement around climate change. The latest is an upcoming special issue of Environmental Communication devoted to the growing prominence of media and celebrity in environmental policies and how they are shaping the way we think about climate solutions.

Max Boykoff, an associate professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and a contributor to the upcoming special issue, said he has been intrigued by celebrities because of their power to inspire and to shape behavior change.

He said on the one hand, celebrities run the risk that their climate message is brushed off as a “fashion or fad” or that they are engaging in individual actions, which undermine larger societal momentum on climate change. But overall, he and others have concluded celebrities who take up the green megaphone create a net-positive by getting the public to think about climate change.

“U2 frontman Bono has commented, ‘Celebrity is a bit silly, but it is currency of a kind,'” Boykoff said. “This currency provides access to many people and places, from top leaders and everyday people to the podium at the U.N. and to people’s living room every evening.”

This power allows celebrities to reach an audience scientists may not. Media cover celebrities because people are curious and interested. It can also drive scrutiny when a celebrity preaches climate action but doesn’t follow through. Read more …

Posted in In the News | Leave a comment

Notes from the Field: Adaptive Small Scale Farming on the Zambezi River Floodplain

rccc2016_blog1

Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Centre Internship Program
by Sierra Glatfelter – Zambia
June 2016

In Zambia, Sierra is supporting the monitoring and evaluation component of the ‘City Learning Lab processes’ Zambia Red Cross Society program. This includes supporting the facilitation and documentation of the First Lusaka Learning Lab for the Future Resilience for African Cities and Lands (FRACTAL) project, including contribution to the development of a learning framework and establishing a learning baseline, researching background materials and preparing reading materials in collaboration with the FRACTAL team and documenting learning during the Learning Lab interactions and compiling a learning report.

The truck fishtailed in deep sand as we rumbled out an unmarked track into the bush toward Sikaunzwe, a community situated along the Zambezi River on Zambia’s southern border. As an intern in Zambia for two and a half months through the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre, I was traveling with the Zambia Red Cross Society (ZRCS)’s Disaster Management Officer, Samuel Mutambo, and District Project Officer, Emmanuel Mudenda. We had left the ZRCS field office in Kazungula, six hours from the capital of Lusaka in Zambia’s southern province, almost an hour ago to monitor community interventions as part of the Building Resilient African Communities (BRACES) program supported by the American Red Cross. The objective of this program is to increase the security and resilience of rural communities in the three southern districts of Kazungula, Mwandi and Sesheke, which are particularly vulnerable to droughts and flooding within the Zambezi River Basin.

Key to BRACES’ goal of achieving local resilience is the diversification of livelihood strategies to sustain households economically through times of climactic variability and deep uncertainty. While this region of Zambia has benefited from investment by the Red Cross in early warning systems for floods due to its proximity to the Zambezi River, the communities here are currently struggling through an extended period of drought (see: New York Times article, Climate Change Hits Hard in Zambia, an African Success Story). Since one of the interventions under BRACES is to support the development of small-scale sustainable agriculture, my colleagues were particular keen on learning how beneficiaries were coping with the lack of water. Climbing out of the truck in Sikaunzwe, we bushwhacked through neck-high grasses to several plots carved out of the bush above a sandy wash. Dry except for a few stagnant pools, this water source continues to sustain more than a dozen gardens strung along its banks. Scrambling down into the channel, we found two women crouching near a pit that they have dug into the sand. Using a bowl, they dished water into a bucket. When it is full, they carried it up the bank to irrigate their crops.

Following the women into their gardens, we found the plots dominated by tomato plants, heavy with green fruits and lashed to stakes for support. Once ripe, these will be carried to the road to sell to buyers. I am reminded of my eight-hour bus ride from the capital of Lusaka; every time we pulled off the road women would emerge from patches of shade, raising plates of stacked red tomatoes to the bus window. This is one way small pockets of cash come to circulate in the region’s villages. BRACES, in an effort to support the expansion of income at the household level, supports farmers by supplying them with a variety of seeds and irrigation equipment. As a result, even those farmers who had been gardening for decades were able to expand their diversity of vegetables under production. Some had even begun to find a pathway out of poverty. One farmer, we spoke with outside the village of Kawewa, had entered the BRACES program with only a few plants. However, the following year with access to a pump and irrigation tubing provided by the program, he was able to exponentially expand his land under cultivation. Following him through freshly tilled fields, we listened to him describe the crops he planned to plant this season and the calculations of his anticipated profits.

While this farmer’s tale deeply resonates with resilience, not all gardens offer such financial advancement.

“Many barriers impede the translation of seeds into crops, and ultimately into cash. It is not a simple story of merely having the motivation.” Read more …

Posted in Commentaries | Leave a comment

Two Problems of Climate Ethics: Can we Lose the Planet but Save Ourselves?

planet

by CSTPR Alumni Alexander Lee and Jordan Kincaid

Ethics, Policy & Environment
June 2016
DOI: 10.1080/21550085.2016.1195559
A. Lee and J. Kincaid

Climate change presents unprecedented challenges for the ethical community and society at large. The harms of climate change—real and projected—are well documented (Pachauri et. al, 2015). Rising sea levels, increased drought, warming temperatures and other impacts of climate change will devastate vulnerable communities, the global economy, and the natural world unless difficult choices, behavioral changes, and major policy shifts are made. But the problem we must address is not just the amalgam of climate harms. Climate change also presents a multifaceted problem of moral wrongdoing consisting of the actions that caused or coalesced to cause climate change.

The ‘problem’ of climate change is both an issue of harmful impacts and a question of wrongdoing. While certain deleterious effects of climate change are unavoidable, philosophy offers solutions to moral problems that are not contingent on successful mitigation or adaptation. In light of this distinction, Thom Brooks’ criticism that philosophers have ‘misunderstood’ the climate change problem as a problem that is solvable (Brooks, forthcoming) arises from a conflation of the two climate change problems and not from a shortcoming of philosophy in the climate conversation.

Climate harms may not be easily addressed, but righting wrongs is a separate matter. Read more …

Posted in New Publications | Leave a comment

The Influence of Religious Affiliation on Community Views about Environment, Climate Change, and Renewable Energy in and around the Mormon Culture Region

religion

New Paper out by CSTPR alum Shawn K. Olson-Hazboun

Society & Natural Resources
June 2016
S. K. Olson-Hazboun, R. S. Krannich, and P. G. Robertson
DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2016.1185558

Abstract: While political ideology is a consistent predictor of public environmental views in the United States, religious affiliation may also be an important correlate of environmental attitudes, especially in regions with a majority denomination. Using data from a 2014 survey in five communities across Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming (n = 906) experiencing renewable energy development, we investigate the influence of religious affiliation on environmental beliefs, views about climate change, and support for renewable energy. We are particularly interested in the influence of Mormonism, an understudied area of research. We find Mormonism, Protestantism, and Catholicism all significantly and negatively related to general pro-environment beliefs. However, this relationship doesn’t hold as consistently for views about global warming or renewable energy development. We also find income, gender, length of residence, and political orientation to be important predictors of environmental attitudes, and that general environmental beliefs are only weakly related to views about renewable energy. Read more …

Posted in New Publications | Leave a comment

Lens on Climate Change Film Screening

locc

June 24 at 3:00 PM
CU Museum of Natural History, BioLounge

Climate Change in Colorado Through the Lens of High School Students Students in the Lens on Climate Change program will be screening their short films that examine the effects of climate change on their communities in Colorado. Please join us for this free public event and help us support the hard work of the students and their mentors from CU and the Colorado Film School. The screening is at 3pm, June 24th in the BioLounge at the CU Museum of Natural History. Refreshments will be provided.

Posted in Events | Leave a comment

Managing Carbon on Federal Public Lands: Opportunities and Challenges in Southwestern Colorado

san_juan

by L. Dilling, K. C. Kelsey, D. P. Fernandez, Y. D. Huang, J. B. Milford, and J. C. Neff

Environmental Management
June 2016

Abstract: Federal lands in the United States have been identified as important areas where forests could be managed to enhance carbon storage and help mitigate climate change. However, there has been little work examining the context for decision making for carbon in a multiple-use public land environment, and how science can support decision making. This case study of the San Juan National Forest and the Bureau of Land Management Tres Rios Field Office in southwestern Colorado examines whether land managers in these offices have adequate tools, information, and management flexibility to practice effective carbon stewardship. To understand how carbon was distributed on the management landscape we added a newly developed carbon map for the SJNF-TRFO area based on Landsat TM texture information (Kelsey and Neff in Remote Sens 6:6407-6422. doi: 10.3390/rs6076407 , 2014). We estimate that only about 22 % of the aboveground carbon in the SJNF-TRFO is in areas designated for active management, whereas about 38 % is in areas with limited management opportunities, and 29 % is in areas where natural processes should dominate. To project the effects of forest management actions on carbon storage, staff of the SJNF are expected to use the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) and extensions. While identifying FVS as the best tool generally available for this purpose, the users and developers we interviewed highlighted the limitations of applying an empirically based model over long time horizons. Future research to improve information on carbon storage should focus on locations and types of vegetation where carbon management is feasible and aligns with other management priorities. Read more …

Posted in New Publications | Leave a comment

The Latest Climate Change Doubters: Shareholders

devon

Reuters Westlaw
June 13, 2016

Corporate shareholders are rejecting efforts to compel energy companies to report on how they contribute to climate change, even as the United States and other countries agree to work to limit rising global temperatures.

The latest failure of a climate change proposal was at oil explorer Devon Energy Corp., where 63.8 percent of shareholders on June 8 rejected the call for a report on the company’s impact on climate. It follows similar rejections within the past month at Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp.

The failure of these measures shows the difficulty of trying to use federal regulators as a wedge to add green policies at global energy producers. Shareholders this year have voted down climate change proposals at FirstEnergy Corp., Dominion Resources Inc., Berkshire Hathaway Inc., NextEra Energy Inc., and Kinder Morgan Inc.

The shareholder proposal process generally takes place under the oversight of the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is often forced to rule whether these advisory measures should advance to a vote.

“I think it is predictable that these [proposals] continue to get rejected,” said Maxwell Boykoff, associate professor in the environmental studies program at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, a non-partisan group at the University of Colorado. “It’s rejected in the short term, but in the long term, these shareholders won’t go away because there are shifts that are changing beneath our feet.”

The climate change proposals were fueled by the Paris Agreement on climate change, signed by the United States and more than 170 nations on April 22. The agreement set a goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.

The climate change proposals commonly request boards to adopt long-term, quantitative, company-wide targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in products and operations, taking into consideration the global commitment to limit warming. The proposals come to a vote when the companies themselves decline to report on climate change impact.

“Exxon and Chevron’s rejection of their own stakeholders’ proposals to act on climate change shows the fossil fuel industry is still betting on short-term profits coming from an outdated business model,” said Naomi Ages, climate liability project lead at Greenpeace. “Governments agreed in Paris to act on climate change, so companies — including big oil — must follow that lead and be competitive in a new world order.” Read more …

Posted in In the News | Leave a comment