Every year people are blinded by a new climate change policy being implemented. We constantly hear of new agreements, new emission goals for companies, new promises. And every year we hear of this and to the common person it seems as though we’re moving in the right direction; which isn’t completely fallacious. In the past decade many areas of the world have been moving towards a greener tomorrow but what many fail to see is that the poverty demographic is the demographic that is the most detrimentally affected by climate change. Along with this, people are failing to see that the large scale policy implemented by policies such as the Paris Agreement simply does not help the people living in these impoverished areas. One specific part of the Paris Agreement states that their biggest goals is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% (Paris Agreement). In rural areas, this policy is simply useless. A more localized policy such as increasing health care access for impoverished communities that are developing lung issues due to a worsening air quality would be much more effective. In order to reduce the detrimental effects of climate change specifically on those living in poverty localized solutions need to be created rather than large-scale policy.

In 1970, a powerful cyclone claimed 300,000 lives in Bangladesh. In 1992, the Kyoto Protocol was released as policy to help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions (Policy Responses to Climate Change). Quite obviously, this policy does not help/effect the people in Bangladesh who were now homeless as an indirect result of climate change. But, in 2007, localized solutions were created which included the implementation of low-cost shelters in to help dissolve the homelessness created by cyclones and the implementation of an improved forecasting system for powerful cyclones in the future (Bangalore). Without the localized solutions, yes the cyclone power might be reduced with a decrease in air temperature that would eventually come about from the Kyoto Protocol, but the reduction of the effect on the impoverished people living in Bangladesh would certainly not be possible because the protocol does not address their situation specifically because it’s working on the basis of mitigation strategy, not adaptation strategy.

Moving to Mumbai, the city has become extremely vulnerable to extreme flooding within the past decade (Mumbai Disaster Risk Management Master Plan). With the amount of impoverished areas in the city of Mumbai, recovering from flooding has become increasingly difficult because people living on the street have no protection from the water flow. In this case, a large scale policy created to combat the actually cause of flooding such as policy that works towards reducing the global air temperature, reducing ice melt, decreasing sea levels and precipitation, combatting flooding, would potentially be effective in the long-run. But what the area needs is localized policy such as the Mumbai Disaster Risk Management Master Plan (Mumbai Disaster Risk Management Master Plan). One of the biggest after-effects of major flooding is that communicable diseases are able to spread more easily with so many people, sewage, and objects entering the moving water. This is one of the effects that the disaster risk plan addresses and that which large-scale policy simply would not fix.

Looking at the 1999-2000 drought in Ethiopia, the poorest citizens lost 60-80 percent of their assets while the wealthiest citizens lost just 6 percent of theirs. In this situation, the localized solution was to create a safety net that now supports nearly 8 million people (Woodeneh). With the application of the safety net, people living in Ethiopia that are food insecure before natural disasters are put under protection so that when a drought or other potential natural disaster reaches the mainly impoverished rural areas, there is literally a safety net that prevents the complete loss of assets for these people. Considering the scale of the project which requires about $600 million, one might consider this similar to large scale policy, but compared to the amount of cost and human time/labor of a national or global policy, this is a localized solution.

Localized solutions go hand-in-hand with adaptation strategies. Above, solutions specific to areas have been addressed but what’s also helpful to most impoverished areas, focusing on rural areas specifically, is general adaptation techniques that are not typically found within large-scale policy such as the aforementioned Paris Agreement and Kyoto Protocol.

With adaptation techniques, the biggest goal is to reduce the vulnerability of an area to the effects of climate change. There are many, many adaptation strategies that have been adopted across the globe but when focusing on impoverished rural areas such as Ethiopia, there are some specific strategies that can be more helpful than the latter. The first strategy focuses on agricultural production. The main purposes of this approach are developing crops with more drought tolerance, designing rainwater storage plans, and promoting the growth of forests where possible so that wild, edible foods are more plentiful. (International Water Management Institute) Developing the drought resistant crops and creating rain management systems (building large basins) are typically the most important projects within adaptation approaches because these solutions are low-cost and can benefit rural areas greatly. Often adaptation plans like these will not be included in large-scale policy because it is so specific to certain areas which is why localized policy is the easier and more efficient route for impoverished areas.

Other second adaption approaches to consider were inspired by the farmers of Asia. In Bangladesh, farms were flooding from sea levels rising and in order to adapt to this, farmers created floating gardens made out of water hyacinth and bamboo. With their crops on top of these plants, no matter how high the sea level rises, the gardens will not flood. In addition to this, inhabitants of Bangladesh most frequently affected by the increased flooding have been looking into solutions involving floating schools, libraries, and large-scale farms (Dasgupta). The other approach being introduced by farmers is in India where an Ice Stupa was created. This Ice Stupa draws from glacial melt and distributes the water to farmers in the Himalayan Dessert (The Ice Stupa Project). Due to climate change, in recent years during the summer months, the glacial ice has been melting at a higher rate, so this excess water is being used to source water for the farms in April and May when the farmers have a shortage of water. Although the excess water from the glaciers helps the farmers during these months, it is not actually a good sign that the glaciers are producing that amount of glacial melt (The Ice Stupa Project).

One more point of interest to keep in mind when addressing how to reduce the effects of climate change on the impoverished is the counterargument that insinuates implementing mitigation approaches within large-scale policy is more effective than adaptation strategies. This point of view actually expresses that mitigation is not possible without adaptation to an extent. With mitigation efforts, one of the main goals is to curb greenhouse gas emissions but in the recent years it’s become clear that the mitigation effort needs to be complemented with adaptation efforts. Another argument made by this side is that some things such as ocean acidification cannot be “adapted” to but rather need to be mitigated. This is true, but in order to fully reach mitigation, adaptation strategies need to be implemented in the short run (International Council for Science).

In conclusion, climate change affects everyone in adverse ways but the demographic that is affected most vigorously is the impoverished. In order to decrease the effects of climate change, impoverished areas need to be presented with localized solutions with adaptation techniques rather than large-scale policy that implements mitigation strategy. Although the long-term goal for climate change should be to completely mitigate the planet of the detrimental environmental changes, adaptation strategy is the most effective way to help reduce the effects of climate change specifically on people living in rural and impoverished areas at least in the short term.

Works Cited

“Artificial Glaciers of Ladakh.” Artificial Glaciers of Ladakh | The Ice Stupa Project, icestupa.org/.

Bangalore, Mook, et al. Worldbank.org, www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/Climate/Climate%20and%20Poverty%20Conference/D1S1_Hallegatte_CCandPov_9Fev_v6.pdf.

Dasgupta, Shreya. “’Adaptation Bangladesh: Sea Level Rise’ Film Shows How Farmers Are Fighting Climate Change.” Mongabay Environmental News, 23 Feb. 2018, news.mongabay.com/2018/02/adaptation-bangladesh-sea-level-rise-film-shows-how-farmers-are-fighting-climate-change/.

“International Water Management Institute.” International Water Management Institute (IWMI), www.iwmi.cgiar.org/#.

“Mitigation vs. Adaptation.” Road to Paris – International Council for Science, roadtoparis.info/top-list/mitigation-vs-adaptation/.

“Mumbai Disaster Risk Management Master Plan .” United Nations, United Nations, sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=99&nr=244&menu=1449.

“Paris Agreement.” Paris Agreement PDF, 2015, unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf.

“Policy Responses to Climate Change.” Policy Responses to Climate Change – World Nuclear Association, June 2017, www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/policy-responses-to-climate-change.aspx.

Woodeneh, Gelila, and Ekaterina Svirina. “World Bank to Help Ethiopia Build a National Safety Net System as a More Effective Response to Droughts.” World Bank, 14 Sept. 2017, www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2017/09/14/world-bank-to-help-ethiopia-build-a-national-safety-net-system-as-a-more-effective-response-to-droughts.

 

1. One Alert Too Many: Addressing Sexual Assault Through Prevention, Protection, and Prosecution

During my deliberation, we explored 3 different approaches with the goal of addressing sexual assault and looking at preventative measures. The 1st approach we explored was prevention through things such as avoiding risk and empowering the individual. T he only issues we found here were that the approaches might limit the freedom of the individual or it may lead to victim blaming if the victim employs the tactics, and they do not work. The second approach we explored was protection if an attack is pending or actually happening. This involved discussing bystander action, better police training, and self-protection things such as a nail-polish that can detect date-rape drugs. Lastly, we explored the prosecution aspect of sexual assault such as shortening court proceedings. A common theme that came up during our deliberation was that there’s a lot of gray area when exploring sexual assault. A big thing that came up was personal preference whether that applied to setting an intention for yourself before going out, or even what age to start the discussion about sex and sexual assault. A lot of conflict arose when discussing when it would be appropriate to start discussing sexual assault. One person suggested in elementary school even because kids at this age might not even understand that they’re being violated. A few people definitely disagreed with this just because there’s another issue of who has the discussion with them, and what you can exactly explain to them without crossing the line. I think the most successful approach would be a combination of prevention and protection. We talked a lot about the people that you’re with when you go out which I think is a big part of solving the problem. If you’re out with people you know it’s a lot easier for them to tell if you’re comfortable with the situation you’re in. I think this would probably fall into the prevention category but it really could be your friends protecting you from a risky situation. I also think that educating children younger would be a great idea, especially young men. Yes, there are women that sexually assault men, but the highest number of sexual assaults committed are by men. If young people are educated earlier about the kind of effect sexual assault has on a victim’s life, that idea will stick with them for longer and may make them actually take a step back if they create a situation that would involve an assault. The prosecution approach is great but it only happens after a sexual assault occurs. So yes, it’s part of solving the problem sexual assault creates, but only after the fact which is why I think prevention methods would be a lot more effective. Overall, I think our deliberation did not really stray from the likes of a normal deliberation. At points when people were comparing statistics the discussion did remind me of a debate a little bit, but no one got very argumentative. Everyone shared their opinion without openly trying to take down another person’s argument which I think made the discussion feel a lot more like an open-forum. As said by a participant in the deliberation, just having an open discussion like we did should become part of the solution when actually looking at accomplishing preventing sexual assault.

2) Plastic State University: Reducing Single-Use Waste

The second deliberation I attended on my own was a discussion regarding reducing the use of plastic products that people only use once. What I noticed about this talk that was very different from the one that my group hosted was that the discussion was held in a public place so it was slightly less organized than the one that we held in the classroom. Being in a public place, it can get kind of difficult to hear people and actually find space for participants, but once the talk started, I don’t really think it was a problem. Another strength of the group was that they had a lot of people that had a personal stake in the discussion come and actually talk which was nice because people like this typically know a little bit more about the issue at hand and might be able to offer straightforward information if the deliberation comes to a stand still. Also as an added bonus, the mayor of state college came which was a great addition. So although the location of the deliberation wasn’t ideal, the actual discussion that we had definitely made up any little hiccups.  The first approach we looked at (I think) was the idea of reducing things like to-go containers or introducing the idea of green to-go containers like the ones we have in our dining halls on campus. I say “I think” because some of the approaches came across a little bit confusing and unfocused but I’m pretty sure that was the point they were trying to get across. During this approach they also discussed the possibility of a small tax on order put in to-go containers which I think could be beneficial in reducing their use and increasing the use of green to-go containers. Approach 2 involved discussing positive incentives to get rid of single-use items such as discounts for using reusable cups. This was a bit similar to the negative incentive idea but I still think it would be very effective. The 3rd approach introduced was just general education of the public about being environmentally conscious. This included ideas such as websites, advertising on CATA buses, and sustainability updates in emails/news sections. Approach 3 is probably where most of the “arguing” came in because people disagreed about how/f we should even bother attempting to educate the public. This was because people might not even wan to be educated, or they might be educated and not care because sometimes things like recycling are difficult and inconvenient. Overall, the group fostered the discussion pretty well and I think it was a good sign that they only had to participate here and there because other people had so much to say on the topic. I originally went to this discussion because I thought I was a pretty environmentally-conscious person but honestly, I think I was in a bit over my head attending the deliberation. It definitely made me realize that there were a lot of other things I could be doing to be more sustainable and that things I was doing may not have been the best way to recycle which is why I did not participate as much as I should have at the deliberation.