[00:00:18] Speaker A: Welcome to Uptown Chats, a podcast where we share stories about environmental justice by and for everyday people. I'm your co host, Lonnie.
[00:00:24] Speaker B: And I'm your other co host, Jaronous.
[00:00:26] Speaker A: And today we'll be wrapping up our wrong direction mini series with a bit of a reflection and giving you a sneak peek into what you might expect in future episodes. But before we get to that, Jaron, can you read WEAC's mission?
[00:00:39] Speaker B: I sure can. WEAC's mission is to build healthy communities by ensuring that people of color and or low income residents participate meaningfully in the creation of sound and fair environmental health and protection policies and practices.
[00:00:52] Speaker A: Thank you.
[00:00:53] Speaker B: Yeah, so I feel like it's going to be a fun and very relaxed episode. We've had many topics as a part of this wrong direction mini series, and so today is really going to be, like Lonnie said, a bit of a reflection, thinking back on those trying to pick out some major themes that we noticed some really key points and just have a discussion between ourselves to really kind of neatly tie up this mini series. So, Lonnie, we've had quite a few topics that we've covered as a part of this mini series.
What are some of them?
[00:01:25] Speaker A: Well, yeah, we covered quite a bit when it comes to what we were calling false solutions or false energy solutions. We started with hydrogen. We talked about carbon capture and storage, or also known as CCS. Talk about liquefied natural gas, nuclear biogas, and waste incineration. Those were some of the false energy solutions that we talked about.
[00:01:47] Speaker B: It's a long list. It's a long list.
[00:01:50] Speaker A: Not so many series. It wasn't as many as we thought.
[00:01:53] Speaker B: It was turned into a regular series. It started as a miniseries. Now it's a regular series. But within that, we also, within that mix of false solutions technologies, we also sprinkled in a couple other pretty big concepts, two of those being greenwashing and cumulative impacts. Greenwashing, for folks who don't recall or aren't familiar with that term, is really just the act of making false or misleading statements about the environmental benefits of our product or practice. It can be a way for companies to continue or expand looting, essentially, as well as related harmful behaviors, all while essentially gaming the system or profiting off of well intentioned, sustainably minded consumers, essentially misleading people and making something seem more, quote unquote, green or clean than it actually is, right?
[00:02:44] Speaker A: Yep. That's exactly what greenwashing is. And then we also covered cumulative impacts with Doctor Nikki sheets, and cumulative impacts for those who don't remember refer to combined and amplified effects of multiple environmental stressors and hazards like the pollution and toxin or the infrastructure, poor infrastructure on a community over a period of time. And these impacts are typically more severe and vulnerable and overburdened areas or environmental justice communities. So it leads to greater health and environmental risks.
[00:03:16] Speaker B: So if any of those topics seem, oh, wow, that might be interesting. I don't remember that. This is a good reminder to go back and listen to those episodes because we obviously went in so much more depth on each of them and had a chance to hear from some incredible guests. One, if you are interested in any of those topics and you didn't have a chance to listen to those episodes, great excuse to go back and give them a listen. But we're going to think a little bit more forward and kind of move the conversation beyond and think about some of the things that really jumped out to us, some major themes that we noticed across all these technologies, across all these kind of big concepts that we talked about with folks and kind of pull out the things that stood out to us the most and maybe give you a little bit of food for thought to really sit with. One of the things that stood out to me the most is this concept, this idea of maintaining the status quo. All of these false solution technologies that we talked about really are rooted in the idea of maintaining this status quo, continuing our reliance on old technologies, fossil fuel infrastructure, and is comforting for people because it allows them to maintain their lives as they are. You know, it doesn't require change in the way that implementing new technology often does. And it's a bit of a borrowed comfort just continuing this, you know, this. This narrative that this is not going to impact your life in a meaningful way when in reality, it's continuing to harm and impact the same communities, communities of color, low income communities. And we can't really expect to address the health disparities and other impacts of fossil fuel infrastructure that we know are bad, that we know are harmful to environmental justice communities if we continue to invest in these technologies. So this idea of the status quo is really kind of what allows these false solutions to be as prominent as they are, to be as popular among some people as maybe they would be otherwise, right?
[00:05:15] Speaker A: Yeah, I 100% agree. And I think one of the things that came out of that, to kind of piggyback off of what you're saying is this idea that there are all of these promises made to communities when it comes to these technologies. Right? So. And they end up being false promises or empty promises. It's like there's lack of true community engagement when it comes to emerging, or I guess you could say these repackaged technologies that are basically just continuing the fossil fuel infrastructure and industry and companies come through with their technologies and they're saying, well, one of the benefits that we're going to do is not only we're going to provide jobs, but we'll fund your little league team. And it doesn't seem to really outweigh all of the negatives that are coming with the technology that they're placing into their communities.
[00:06:01] Speaker B: Yeah, it's like a textbook greenwashing. Like, you know, really ties into that false promises. And I, it's like here we're gonna chop your leg off, but we're gonna give you a lollipop.
[00:06:15] Speaker A: That's a good analogy.
[00:06:16] Speaker B: I like that deal. That's a pretty crappy deal, if you ask me.
[00:06:20] Speaker A: That's a great analogy.
[00:06:22] Speaker B: Yeah. But, yeah, I appreciate that because that does really tie in nicely to that concept of greenwashing that we mentioned. And I think the other part of that extending out, elaborating on that concept of greenwashing that kind of permeates, that's kind of embedded in all of these different topics that we talked about, is this goal that these technologies are framed to try to address, which is trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They're framed as climate solutions, false climate solutions in that way. And whether or not they're actually doing that, they're being framed as making it seem like they're trying to reduce emissions and at the same time totally ignoring the local air pollution or local contamination, local pollution that they're leaving for the environmental justice communities in the actual area. So it's like, oh, you know, we're doing this net positive, we're helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which is a global problem, but we don't really actually care about the local community that we're embedded in and we're going to make all these false promises. It kind of reminds me of this story that Bernice Miller Travis, one of the co founders of Weact, told us in a previous episode. We were talking about the history of we act. And she mentioned this point when they were really starting to get react off the ground and trying to come into their own as an organization, as an organized group of people really forming the organization that is now we act and trying to understand it and help help people understand this concept of environmental justice, what they were there to do, who they were trying to protect. And the quote, that's sticking in my head is like, we're not trying to save the damn whales. You know, we're trying to save, you know, people, you know, at the time, you know, the community of Harlem. And I think as a part of the messaging around that time period was, you know, black people aren't endangered to be some. Some variation of that framing where it's like, no, we're not focused on what at the time was really the primary problem of the, of the environmental movement, which was, let's save the whale, save the polar bears, all this stuff. It's like, no, we need to think about people living in the community where these facilities are, and that's like totally being missed by a lot of these, you know, quote unquote false solutions. That's just really kind of missing the mark on that. Right.
[00:08:42] Speaker A: Yeah. That kind of the human input into it all. And like how the environmental justice movement definitely found a way to recenter kind of climate and environmental issues to address problems with humans and people, as opposed to, like you just said, just saving the whales or trees or polar bears. And to be clear, disclaimer, Bernice is not against whales or polar bears at all. It's just, you know, priorities.
[00:09:14] Speaker B: Yeah. Yeah. I think. I can't remember which of the episodes. I think it was more recent, but the framing was when we're thinking about these local impacts and the solutions that we're investing in is. It has to be a yes. And we have to think about the greenhouse gas emission reduction and the benefits to the local community. When we're investing billions, trillions of dollars in things like that. Money needs to really be prioritizing both of those things. Let's reduce emissions and let's improve the pollution levels in the local community. It doesn't have to be an either or. We can do both. And we should.
[00:09:49] Speaker A: Yes. And we are.
[00:09:51] Speaker B: Yes, exactly. Yeah. So any other high level reflections, anything that jumped out to you, themes or big points from any of the episodes that we did as a part of this mini series? Lonnie?
[00:10:03] Speaker A: I think those. I think we covered kind of some of those high level things and stuff that stuck out with me again, always going to take it back to our opportunity costs. What could we be funding? Where could we be spending money and where could we be putting investment? If we put as much money into these false energy solutions, we probably much further along in some of the things that we actually do want to see within our communities when it comes to getting off of fossil fuels and then tackling the climate crisis and environmental injustices.
[00:10:33] Speaker B: Yes. Well, thank you. I think that's a helpful last kind of note to kind of summarize some of those main themes and main points. I think since just Lonnie and I, we get to get to one of our favorite parts of all of our episodes, which is asking questions, and we'll be asking each other questions today. So I think the first question I'll ask you, Lonnie, in helping unpack some of these themes and concepts from our recent episodes, is this term false solutions. We've kind of gone back and forth on it throughout this mini series and trying to really nail down the ideal, the most appropriate language to talk about these technologies that are moving us in the wrong direction. So my question to you is, where do we land now? Is false solution the most accurate terminal that we want to use to describe these technologies? Is there something better? Yeah. How should we be thinking about this?
[00:11:28] Speaker A: That's a really good question, I think, and I hope it's been clear that the terms wrong direction and kind of false solutions have been used interchangeably and probably will continue that way, especially in this space. When you talk to a lot of other advocates, sometimes they will use the term false solution.
It's not really fully appropriate after kind of like, having a different conversation, interviews that we've had in this mini series, because we've learned that these technologies are not solutions at all. They're actually going down a pathway that potentially causes additional harm to environmental justice communities. Hence, that's why I think wrong direction is much better fit, because there are things that we should be doing, but that's not the pathway we're choosing right now. We are going down the wrong path, hence the wrong direction. And so I think that kind of removes the concept or the idea that there is possibility that these things are solutions, kind of removes a little bit of power that they have with the term solution. So I like the wrong direction and moving towards calling it that and reframing it that way. But I do know that plenty of people will still call it false solutions and energy solutions. False energy solutions, and we should still know that those, those are the same things. They're still wrong, they're still bad.
Not where we need to be going in society, for sure.
[00:12:48] Speaker B: Yeah. And I think it was Doctor Ana Baptiste who was the first person to be very direct about it. I was like, you use that term. I don't want to use that term. So let's talk about it. Let's frame it a different way. So I like the way that you summarize it. Though. Yeah. That's a reason this mini series is called our wrong direction mini series. So. Thanks, Lonnie.
[00:13:07] Speaker A: Yes. All right, I got a question for you. All right, so was there something that you learned from the series that you were completely unaware of or shocked by when one of our guests mentioned?
[00:13:19] Speaker B: Yeah, absolutely. There was the first thing that came to mind, one thing that stood out to me probably the most is speaking of something that Doctor Anna Baptista touched on when we were talking about carbon capture and storage. And it totally went against my perception of how carbon capture and storage worked and the whole point of it. So my understanding was that the carbonous that was captured as part of the process was being stored in the ground. I thought that was the whole point. Like, you pull the carbon out of the atmosphere, you put it in the ground, it stays there forever. Well, as a part of that conversation, she mentioned that actually most of the carbon that's captured as a part of industrial processes and not in the way that I had imagined. Just sucking it straight out of the air, just like a big straw, just pulling it out of the air. But literally, just as a part of that industrial process that's essentially pouring this pollution out, just kind of capturing some of that carbon and then using it for enhanced oil recovery, which is essentially just pushing it into existing oil and gas reserves to get more out of them. So as far, possibly away as you could get from the concept of what any sane person would consider green and clean or any kind of renewable energy, about as far as you can get from that. So that really hit me when she said that. I was like, wow, that's definitely not how it's framed. No one, no average person out there is thinking about that when they hear the term carbon capture in storage. Only folks who are probably really knee deep or really immersed in the industrial processes would really know that. So I feel like, for me, that was like, wow, we're really being sold a bill of goods. Like, this is totally reinforcing the idea. This is a misleading term, carbon capture and storage, but there's probably a better term to describe it. But carbon capture and storage, I feel like, really just doesn't, doesn't sum up what is actually going on there.
[00:15:14] Speaker A: So I absolutely agree. That was definitely one of the ones for me as well. That just was relatively kind of shocking to know that it's literally just helping do the thing that we don't want done anymore. Exactly.
And it just blew my mind. That this can be considered a solution to the climate crisis is by rapidly making sure we can extract more oil and gas from. From the earth.
[00:15:45] Speaker B: Yeah. Could not be a wronger direction.
[00:15:48] Speaker A: Couldn't be more wrong.
[00:15:49] Speaker B: For real. All right, so I got my next question for you. You ready?
Okay. So again, we mentioned this idea of adjust transition a couple of times throughout this mini series. I think the most recent time was and our conversation with Doctor Nikki sheets talking about cumulative impacts. So again, it's kind of a lot going on there. Can you just quickly define what it is that we're talking about when we talk about adjust transition and how is it showing up in the work that react is doing?
[00:16:19] Speaker A: So we talk about just transition often in this space. And off the top of my head, there are multiple definitions that you can probably find out there if you search for it. I think it's clear to me that a just transition is a transition off of fossil fuels that puts the health and safety and well being of communities first and foremost. Also liking it so far. We got more, got more. So also making sure that communities are engaged throughout the entire process of the deployment of renewable energy technologies and ensuring that needs of the community are being met and remedying any harms that have been done to communities in the past or present. We can prevent them from future harms also. I'll add too, energy technologies should always aim to replace fossil fuel infrastructure not extended to life. And those who are currently working in the fossil fuel industries cannot be left behind. They need to be like fully trained to work in a green renewable energy sector. I often like to tell people as well that folks who are working in the fossil fuel industry, who are just on the ground doing the work, they're not the enemy and they're not the problem here. They're just a part of economy and they're making a living. But we need to make sure that we are supplying them, supplying them with new skills so that they can also be a part of this transition so that they're not just completely jobless or careerless. Right. A lot of these fossil fuel kind of industries have been around for a really long time and it's a skill that a lot of people have. That's what people know. But if we train them to do other things that are more so in the green energy sector, that's a just transition.
[00:17:57] Speaker B: Yeah, absolutely. And, you know, thinking about even the whole community, communities that are dependent on these jobs and, you know, economic benefits that come with having a major industry, like how do you transition a whole community, you know, towards a cleaner and more sustainable source of revenue? Economic framing, you know, economic structure.
[00:18:17] Speaker A: Yep. And WEAC is going to continue to share stories and policy updates on the wrong direction energy efforts. And so we look forward to focusing on positive impacts of clean energy investments and the hope for just transition. And so stay tuned for next year for more when it comes to wrong direction and just transition work.
[00:18:37] Speaker B: Absolutely.
[00:18:38] Speaker A: All right. Got one more question in you I can get.
[00:18:41] Speaker B: I think so let's do it.
[00:18:43] Speaker A: All right. I thinking about just transition. What are technologies or innovations that you want to see more of, or where do you think we should focus our resources and investment?
[00:18:53] Speaker B: That's a great question. I think that's kind of the natural question when you see this miniseries wrong direction, like, okay, great. So that's what we don't do. What do we actually want to do? What's the direction that we do want to be headed in? And the first thing that comes to mind for me is something that you actually mentioned several times throughout this mini series, and that's continuing to improve the efficiency of some of our existing technologies, like solar and wind. They already are great technologies. They're filling a purpose now, but we know they can continue to be better. And the only way to make them better is to invest in the development and research and make those technologies as efficient as possible. We don't need all these main fancy new gadgets. We just need to improve the things that we have and make them better and better and better so that they are more efficient, so the lifecycle of them is better. And we also need more efficient ways to improve multifamily housing. We think of buildings, and especially housing, as one of the major sources of one emissions, but also major sources of exposure. We spend so much of our time in our homes, and if we can improve the efficiency of our heating and cooling and just our buildings in general, that provides so many benefits to us in our lives. And we need to see the investments in those spaces so that we can address those challenges, because we're only going to see increased energy demand in the future from those spaces, from needing more housing, more people, and things like window heat pumps for preheating and cooling, you know, kind of those innovative technologies that help fill those, those niche challenges of big buildings where you can't put a regular heat pump system and, like, you have all these, all these units in this big building. Like, how do you support those innovative technologies that help address those big multifamily housing complexes where you have so many people living and you're kind of being exposed to pollution through the existing technology that we have today? So I think those are, those are big things. And also, most importantly, we need investments in actual communities themselves, not in just technology. We have technologies that kind of seem like these shiny objects. Oh, great, we get these cool new things. But at the end of the day, what we need is investments in the existing infrastructure in black and brown communities. One, clean up the toxic chemicals that are left behind by the legacy of the fossil fuel industry, but also to fix and upgrade infrastructure like housing that's been neglected due to the legacy of racist policies like redlining. So I think it's really just investments to ensure that communities are starting from a place of strength that we're not making these investments in technology. It's kind of a band aid on top of all these underlying challenges that communities of color and low income communities are experiencing. So I know there's a lot more to unpack as a part of this big concept of a just transition. And so, as Lani alluded to, we'll definitely have more time to talk about this in a few future episodes. So if you really like kind of getting into the weeds into what this just transition piece will look like, make sure to stay tuned because we'll be talking about it some more. So, yeah, so that's my answer to your question, Lonnie. I don't know if that makes sense, but any thoughts about that or other things that you wanted to reflect on?
[00:22:24] Speaker A: No, I think that was a great way to kind of, in that piece, there is this idea of invest in people, not profits, kind of, right. You know, the goal should be to actually make people's lives and communities lives better, not how much profit can we get off of this thing or this commodity or this technology? And I think if we start from there, from that framework, that's really putting us on the right path to adjust.
[00:22:50] Speaker B: Transition in the right direction.
[00:22:53] Speaker A: In the right direction. Are we teasing? Are we teasing? A little something of next year.
Thanks for listening. If you liked this episode, make sure to rate and review the show on whatever platform you listen on. If you have thoughts about the show, we encourage you to reach out to us with your thoughts and
[email protected].
[00:23:17] Speaker B: Dot check out weact on Facebook.
That's w e a C t f o R E J on Instagram X and YouTube at weact four, EJ. That's weact number four, EJ. And check out our website, weact.org, for more information about environmental justice.
Until next time.
[00:23:42] Speaker A: Bye.
