Tag: equality

White men dominate the environment sector – here’s how to encourage more diverse voices

Posted on by amanda.woodman-hardy
Bringing a diversity of people to the table and giving plenty of opportunities for everyone to have their say is key to ensuring real inclusivity. Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock

In early 2021, I observed a meeting of 25 people working on climate change policy in Bristol as part of my research into creating a just and fair climate transition. I was struck by how the conversation was dominated by one group: white men. From that moment, inequality in decision-making became a major part of my climate justice research.

I drew a table in my notebook with four headings: white men, white women, minoritised men and minoritised women. Every time someone spoke, I put a tick in the relevant column. By the end of that meeting, white men had three times as many ticks as the rest combined. I took a picture of the table and sent it to my research partner, Alice Venn.

“Should I keep recording this data?” I asked. Venn approved of this approach, so data on gender and race became central to our study.

We observed various meetings including steering groups, member consultations and board meetings for nine hours over the course of six months. During that time, white men spoke for 64% of the time and represented 40% of participants. A slightly higher percentage (41%) of white women were present in the meetings we observed, but they spoke for just 33% of the time.

By comparison, minoritised women made up 14% of participants in meetings and spoke 2% of the time. Minoritised men made up 5% of participants in meetings and spoke only 1% of the time.

This is no great surprise. The environment sector is notoriously one of the least diverse, with only 3.5% of people working in environmental jobs identifying as being from an ethnic minority. In the environmental charity sector, that figure is 6%. This compares quite starkly with an average across the UK workforce of 15% of employees from racial or ethnic minorities.

Diverse voices and critical discussions are key to making robust, inclusive and future-proof decisions. If a group of people who come from similar backgrounds (whether because of race, class or gender) assess a decision they are making for flaws, they are unlikely to find them because they are likely to agree with one another.

There may then be unexpected pushback against policies such as 15-minute neighbourhoods (where residents can reach all the facilities they need within a 15-minute walk, bike ride or journey on public transport), because groups who do not benefit from those schemes have not been consulted and their dissent has not been anticipated.

In Bristol, our observations of meetings found that participants showed very little critical engagement with existing policies, such as cycling route safety planning that centred around men commuting, or expansion plans for Bristol airport. Often, there was no space or time in meetings to be critical of existing ideas and narratives, or to challenge existing policy processes and systemic problems.

Climate justice was only mentioned in one of the nine meetings we observed. Climate vulnerability was not mentioned at all. Meetings felt very busy, filled with packed agendas, with little opportunity to make radical suggestions for change.

Changing the dynamic

Even with a mix of women and men or representative examples of minoritised people in the room, these people won’t necessarily speak up. Women are less likely to have influence in board meetings and struggle to be heard in online meetings.

A good chair will be aware of these dynamics and take steps to ensure inclusivity, perhaps by setting up small group tasks to build confidence or monitoring who is speaking and calling on quieter people directly.

Another technique, known as the “2-2 method”, involves asking “what are two reasons someone would agree, and two someone would disagree?” before opening the floor for critique. An open workplace culture where people feel they can trust leadership even if they are critical is also important, and will make more open and inclusive meetings easier to conduct.

From observations in our study, women tend to take longer to answer a question, which gives space for men to jump in or interrupt. One of the female participants told us: “I notice men tend to talk over me and interrupt me, a lot.”

Minoritised individuals may be more reticent to speak if they feel they won’t be listened to. Previous research shows that some board members worry they will be tokenised by being asked to represent huge groups – this puts undue pressure on them to be the spokesperson for their race or ethnicity, and does not treat them as an individual with worthy opinions. Being aware of these dynamics and getting it right as an employer or community leader is key to making change and ensuring everyone feels able to speak up.

A diversity redesign

As a follow-up from our study, we are training members of the environment sector in Bristol. We have been working with the UK-wide, equalities-led social enterprise The Diversity Trust and video production company Beeston Media to provide a series of workshops and videos about making more inclusive decisions, creating an open workplace culture, and recruiting and retaining diverse staff.

So far we’ve held three workshops, each attended by more than 25 people from a wide range of sectors and organisations. Three more workshops are planned for spring and summer 2024.

As a result, the Bristol Advisory Committee on Climate Change has already changed its recruitment policies. The committee has widened its definition of an expert, moving away from a research-based definition and explicitly noting that lived experience and community knowledge can be accepted as expertise.

Meeting space policies have also been redesigned at several organisations – for example, by implementing the 2-2 method and ensuring that chairs avoid tokenism and use micro-affirmations to build confidence.

We are monitoring the impact of these changes with one-to-one support calls, surveys and peer-to-peer support groups. One testimony stated that “the training you have been running has been so valuable in helping environmental organisations to develop better equality, diversity and inclusion practice”.

Improvements to embrace a more diverse and inclusive environmental sector are critical to ensuring a greener, fairer and more sustainable future for all. But this transition needs to be designed with people, rather than imposed on them. The shift can begin in a boardroom, steering group, or committee meeting. Any institution that pays attention to how it makes decisions, and who is consulted, will help to ensure the green transition is as inclusive as possible.

————————–

This blog is written by Dr Alix Dietzel, Senior Lecturer in Climate Justice, and Associate Director of Impact at the Cabot Institute for the Environment. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Dr Alix Dietzel
Dr Alix Dietzel

Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptations and Vulnerability – an IPCC lead author report summary

Posted on by janet.crompton

Professor Daniela Schmidt, a lead author of the recently published IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)  report, Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptations and Vulnerability, recently gave an internal presentation to University of Bristol staff to summarise the report’s findings.

Recent geo-political events have meant that this report has understandably been overlooked in comparison to its predecessor, however, at 3500 pages and being the product of analysis of 34,000 papers since 2014, it is certainly not light reading. This writing aims to pinpoint and amplify the key messages from Daniela’s summary of Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptations and Vulnerability, as the Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change report has been released this week.

Solutions

The key take home message, was that the report offers solutions, but they are needed now. Daniela explained that it is not all doom and gloom, and it is important for our survival not to take it that way. From the report itself, the key quote, which you have perhaps seen shared elsewhere, is

The science is clear. Any further delay in concerted global action will miss a brief and rapidly closing window to secure a livable future. This report offers solutions to the world.

Nature

One of the key solutions proposed in the report is nature, both in terms of its conservation and restoration and that it offers promising solutions to many of the threats we face. For example, the potential of natural carbon sinks, coastal protection, water management and urban cooling systems has been repeatedly evidenced, as well as the importance of integrating nature and natural solutions into urban spaces.

The report stresses that humans are part of ecosystems, not separate from them, and nature is crucial to our survival because of the essential and irreplaceable ecosystem services it provides. Fragmented, polluted and overexploited ecosystems are much more vulnerable to climate change, therefore, the report stresses it is therefore important to take a coordinated approach, with their protection and restoration in mind.

Interconnection

As well as the interconnectedness of humans and nature, the report evidences previously unrealised interconnections of climate risks. Risks are becoming more complex and there are compound and cascading risks through systems. For example, in terms of food scarcity, we need to consider that heat stress will not only reduce crop yields, but also the well-being and productivity of farm workers, further exacerbating the situation. There is an increased recognition of the interconnections between people, regions, society, ecosystems, biodiversity. This means that climate change cannot be seen as an individual problem, but as one intrinsically linked with natural resource depletion, ecosystem destruction, and growing urbanisation and inequity across the world.

Equality

Another key focus of the report was the importance of but lack of global equality, which will continue to be exacerbated in the face of climate change. 3.3  – 3.6 billion live in hotspots of high vulnerability to climate change, due to high levels of poverty, limited access to water, sanitation and health services, climate sensitive livelihoods and lack of funding and accountability in government. I would like to point out, that in the vast majority of cases, it is these communities whose carbon contributions are the least, which in my opinion strongly evidences to the fact that climate change is a political problem as well as a scientific one.

Due to inequality being a big problem, the report places an emphasis on the importance of promoting equality in the solutions and with this the need to listen to marginalised voices. Daniela explained that of global climate funding, 80% goes to mitigation, or reduction of emissions, while only 20% goes to adaptation, which is likely to be what is most consequential to more vulnerable communities.

After lack of action on deals made at COP26, which scientists have already argued at best would not be sufficient to solve the problem, a continued lack of action following these urgent messages will be deeply concerning for the fate of the planet, and especially for its most vulnerable communities.

Watch Daniela’s presentation to University of Bristol staff.

 

——————————
This blog is written by Cabot Institute for the Environment member Hilary McCarthy, University of Bristol.
Hilary McCarthy

 

Equal partnerships in creating an African-centred WASH Research Agenda

Posted on by janet.crompton

Towards the latter part of 2021, I was approached by the Perivoli Africa Research Centre (PARC), to support the process of ‘developing an African WASH (Water, Sanitation, Hygiene) Research Agenda’.  One could say that I wear a couple of ‘hats’ within the African Higher Education Sector and thematic research networks such as water, sanitation, disaster risk reduction and science, technology and innovation (STI). Primarily, I’m the Director of the Centre for Collaboration in Africa at Stellenbosch University, South Africa where we create an enabling environment for Stellenbosch University to partner and collaborate with other African institutions.

In addition, I’m the Programme manager of the Southern African Network of the African Union Development Agency (AUDA)-NEPAD Networks of Water Centres of Excellence and the Lead-Expert of another AUDA-NEPAD Centre of Excellence in Science, Technology and Innovation (STI). In addition, I am also the Director of the PERIPERI-U Network – a network of 13 universities across Africa focusing research and capacity development in the field of Disaster Risk Reduction. It might seem diverse, but this portfolio gives me broad insight into the African Higher Education Sector and various related thematic research topics such as water, sanitation, and STI which could contribute towards a process in developing an African WASH Research Agenda.

With his writing I would like to highlight key aspects I believe we have to consider in our approach in developing and Africa WASH Research Agenda.

‘Africa is not one country’

In a post-colonial era, Africa is too often referred to as one country where problems are generalized and where solutions are proposed as a ‘one size fits all’ approach without considering that local contextualization is required. At a national level, most African countries do have their developmental priorities clearly defined, but it would be impractical to attempt the development of any African Research agenda at this level considering each of the 54 African countries. Over the years, I have had the good fortune to travel to 33 other African countries, and have I experienced a level of regional homogeneity in, first, diversity in climate, topography, precipitation and furthermore diversity in languages, cultures, believes in different regions of the African continent.

To thus attempt a single African WASH Research Agenda would be futile, and could one, as a starting point, consider the delineation of countries within the five regions of the African Union (North, West, Central, East and Southern Africa). This delineation would however be limited, as one should also consider Regional Economic Communities (RECs) and specifically the 13 major trans-boundary River Basins, as many inter-governmental governance arrangements, strategies and implementation plans are coordinated through the RECs and River Basin Organizations (RBOs) across the continent.  One should never forget that for millennia, Africans were connected by waterways and rivers that cut across the continent and transcend national boundaries set during the colonial era.

Indeed, one could argue that there are deficiencies in the functioning of different RECs and RBOs, and the need continue to strengthen and build the capacity of these institutions across the continent. Here, partnerships with institutions in the Global North have played an important role to support RECs and RBOs along with the African Ministers’ Council on Water (AMCOW) – a specialized Committee for Water and Sanitation in the African Union to promote “cooperation, security, social, economic development and poverty eradication among member states through the effective management of the continent’s water resources and provision of water supply services”.

However, it must be said that often inequalities exist in partnerships between African institutions and institutions in the Global North, specifically in relation to research and human capacity development where African institutions often do not reap the full benefits of such partnerships. This debate is nothing new with African institutions often exclaiming how they draw the short straw.

Inequality persists

At a recent webinar hosted by the African Climate Development Initiative (ACDI) at the University of Cape Town (UCT) and the School for Climate Studies (SCS) at Stellenbosch University (SU) the implications for Southern African of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, titled ‘Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’ were discussed (see https://www.sun.ac.za/english/Lists/news/DispForm.aspx?ID=8959 for detail of the webinar). During the webinar, Dr Chris Trisos, one of the coordinating lead authors on the Africa-chapter, indicated that between 1990 and 2020, “78% of funding for Africa-related climate research flowed to institutions in Europe and the United States – only 14.5% flowed to institutions in Africa”. Moreover, “not only are research agendas shaped by a Global North perspective, but African researchers are positioned primarily as recipients engaged to support these research agendas instead of being equal partners in setting the agenda.” Moreover, an analysis of more than 15 000 climate change publications found that for more that 75% of African countries, 60-100% of the publications did not include a single African author and authorship dominated by researchers from countries beyond Africa.

There are many examples where phrases such as ‘research tourism’ and ‘he who holds the purse is setting the agenda’ are reluctantly whispered in the corridors of African research institutions where partners from the Global North are involved. In addition, local researchers are often left to manage expectations and the associated disappointment of communities in the aftermath of ill-implemented research projects where the promises of a better life did not realize within the communities. Often, research projects land in the lap of many African researchers, knowing that their academic aspiration of promotion and stature lies in the anticipated publications resulting from the research projects, and not necessarily in what benefit the project might have to the societies where they operate in. Moreover, how often do we see how the majority of research funding emanating from institutions in the Global North are allocated to a Principal Investigator at an institution in their backyard, and where the partners in the African countries receive very little of the total funding of projects – often under the guise that the funds will not reach its intended purpose due to corruption and maladministration. Yes, there are improvements where African partners are co-designing research projects and indeed, there are many examples of institutions with challenges, but there are also many African research institutions that have repeatedly shown that they have the capacity to manage large research projects and have the leadership and will to continue improve Research Development Offices and financial controls within their institutions – not to appease partners in the Global North, but out of pure home-grown leadership and good governance.

So, in conclusion, I am of the firm belief that we can create an African WASH Research Agenda, and that we can, through true multi-stakeholder engagements identify, prioritize and create research projects which we can successfully implement that are for the benefit of our societies in which we live. This can only be achieved through true partnerships with the Global North where mutual trust and respect are earned. Personally, I have experienced such partnerships, and do I also realise that we can do so much more.

——————————

This blog is written by Dr. Nico Elema is the Director of the Centre for Collaboration in Africa at Stellenbosch University, South Africa. Read more about his collaborative sustainable water services project with the University of Bristol.

Dr Nico Elema

Black Lives Matter

Posted on by janet.crompton

Diversity is an issue that the Cabot Institute team discuss a lot. Out of a concern for the lack of inclusion in Bristol’s ‘green scene’, we awarded Innovation Funds to the brilliant Green and Black Ambassadors’ project to support two black women to develop their (already inspiring) leadership and begin to build a more inclusive environmental community. We’ve refused to participate in, or cancelled, events that didn’t have diversity in the speaker list. And we feel proud to have the first female president of the Royal Meteorological Society as the Chair of our Board.

Whilst small, these actions require individual and collective consciousness embedded in everyday decisions.

But for all our caring and progress to date, we know we have not done enough. Not nearly.

The past few weeks have, in honesty, left us reeling. The tragic death of George Floyd, and the widespread #BlackLivesMatter activism that followed have served as a critical and hard-hitting reminder of just how far we have to go – as a society but also as a research Institute. We also know that however much recent events have floored us, it is just a fraction of how our friends of colour, but particularly our black friends, must feel. As an all-white team, we can never fully understand the toll these everyday aggressions and acts of discrimination have. But we can turn our passion and attention to the issue, we can listen and learn, and we can work in earnest to be part of the solution.

First steps

On #BlackoutTuesday we posted the following message on social media.

It felt essential to publicly stand with our black colleagues, friends and role models and note our solidarity. However, we were well aware that this might be perceived as tokenistic, or worse, hijacking a sincere campaign with insincere ‘marketing’ if our statement was made in the absence of action. In posting this, we also committed to discussing what practical steps we might take to make real progress.

Actions, not words

The result of our conversations have now been released in a public statement outlining some of the steps we commit to taking in pursuit of a more diverse, inclusive, and equitable environmental research community.

Read our public statement on Black Lives Matter.

We will soon issue a formal invitation for individuals to join our working group, to which we will particularly encourage participation of BAME, LGBTQ+ and other underrepresented groups. However, we recognise that in doing so we are calling on the time and emotional resources of underrepresented communities to fix a problem that should be ‘owned’ by others. We will strive to get the balance right.

We invite anyone who wants to support our review, or the actions resulting from it, or even to offer feedback, to contact us at cabot-enquiries@bristol.ac.uk.

Let’s not wait

Whilst a measured review will provide the most sensible starting point for meaningful action, we were keen to set a number of balls rolling as quickly as we could. To date, members of the team have:

  • Contacted the leads of the Cabot Project, who have very helpfully sent us some resources on the history of John Cabot.
  • Identified other papers which shed light on John’s history and the implications for environmental justice.
  • Identified scholarships which could specifically support BAME candidates to join our Master’s by Research programme and begun promoting these.
  • Initiated a review of our online communications materials to explore how many projects or news items profile people of colour.
  • Contacted UoB Business Analysts to assess the diversity of our environmental community and provide crucial analysis to inform the working group once established.
  • Our theme leaders for Natural Hazards – Dann Mitchell and Ryerson Christie – have confirmed their support of the ‘Statement on Systemic Racism and Disasters’ from the North American Alliance of Hazards and Disaster Research Institutes (NAAHDRI) condemning violence and systemic racism
  • All University Research Institute Directors have signed an email to the University leadership in addition to the broader ‘decolonise the University’ campaign, calling for a change to the University logo.

We have only just begun, and there will be many holes in the plans we have laid out. Many nuances missed. Many opportunities for us to improve. We welcome feedback and critique from you all to help guide and shape our efforts. With many minds, and many perspectives, we can and will make a difference.

In closing, I want to say two things. First, an enormous thank you to the Cabot Team. Whilst we are realistic that we have a mountain to climb and much to learn, the intense debate and discussion catalysed with you all in these past weeks gives me hope. I’m so incredibly fortunate to work with a team who care deeply about inclusion. Your willingness to be vocal about the need to change, to openly and kindly challenge one another to be better, and proactively consider how you can help build a better and more inclusive research Institute inspires me no end. It has also taught me the importance of that crucial ‘first conversation’. It was Mand (Amanda Woodman-Hardy) who sent an (possibly out of hours) email to the team noting her discomfort with our silence on #BlackLivesMatter that kick-started a sincere and engaged conversation.

So to the second point – be the person who starts the conversation in your team, in your family, in your friendship group. These conversations can be emotive, challenging, and uncomfortable, but they can also be energising and hopeful. Either way, they are crucial, and I for one, will be challenging myself to #BeMoreMand* in the months and years ahead.

*Edit: After reviewing this blog post, Mand noted her discomfort at making this about her – a white person. We do need to value the personal leadership of white colleagues in being vocal & challenging the status quo – after all, we simply cannot expect those most affected to be the ones forced to speak up. However, I recognise this discomfort. It is essential that the voices of people of colour are elevated at this time. It is these perspectives that matter, these perspectives we should hear. As such, I include below (with thanks to colleagues at the Centre for Black Humanities for sharing on twitter, and to colleagues at the School of Geographical Sciences for emailing) a small list of inspiring and important resources developed/ written by people of colour. We will aim to share a much wider list of resources in a separate thread.

You may also wish to begin following the those on the ‘powerlist’ of Bristol’s most influential Black and Minority Ethnic individuals (as voted for by the people of Bristol), or connect with the following organisations: Stand Up To Racism, Black Lives Matter UK @BLMUK , Black Lives Matter @Blklivesmatter, Southall Black Sisters, The British Blacklist, Show Racism The Red Card, Runnymede Trust, Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust, SARI: Stand Against Racism and Inequality, 4FrontProject @4FrontProject , Inquest @INQUEST_ORG, The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants @JCWI_UK, United Friends and Family Campaign @UFFCampaign, Black South West Network @BlackSWNet.

I add this edit to reflect the way we are all challenging and learning in real time. We won’t get it right all the time, but through discussion, we will get it right more of the time.

——————————-
This blog is written by Hayley Shaw, Manager of the Cabot Institute for the Environment at the University of Bristol.

Quality through Equality – tackling gender issues in hydrology

Posted on by janet.crompton
Quality through Equality organising committee (l-r Dr Francesca Pianosi, Dr Valentina Noacco, Sebastian Gnann, Lina Stein, Dr Maria Pregnolato, Elisa Coraggio, Melike Kiraz, Lina Wang)

Results of a 1-day workshop organised by the Bristol University’s Water Engineering Group

A professor asked our group of PhD students last year, “Who here thinks of staying in academia after finishing their PhD?” Of the 10 male students present, 4 or 5 said they could imagine continuing in academia. None of the 5 female students raised their hand. When asked for their reasons for not wanting to stay in academia, some of the things mentioned were the challenge of combining family and academia, a lack of role models or different career aspirations.

This experience started the idea of organising a workshop on gender issues in hydrology, with the aim of raising awareness of unconscious biases, offer role models and discuss ideas on how to make the hydrologic community more diverse. Although the focus of the workshop was on gender diversity, most things we learned apply as well to issues related to misrepresentation of ethnic minorities or disabled scientists.

To achieve the aims mentioned above, the workshop included: three invited speakers (Prof Hannah Cloke, Dr Joshua Larsen, Prof Elena Toth) who shared their experiences regarding gender issues in hydrology; a talk and a training on unconscious biases (Prof Havi Carel); and a group discussion. The workshop was attended by 44 hydrologists, mainly PhD students, of which 28 were female and 16 were male.

One highlight of the day was the presentation of Hannah Cloke talking about her career progress to full professor while at the same time raising four kids. Together with Elena Toth and Joshua Larsen, she agreed that combining academia and raising a family is possible, because academia offers one of the most flexible work environments possible. However, it does need a supportive stance of the university to enable that flexibility (flexitime working hours, childcare facilities, flexible childcare support for conferences) and supportive colleagues. Hannah finished with good advice for all PhD students, but especially women or members of minorities: A work-family-life balance is essential. Say no before you are overwhelmed and exhausted, but: be brave! Say yes to opportunities that scare you and do great science! And encourage each other to be brave. This is definitely advice I will try to implement in my life.

The afternoon included an unconscious bias training by Professor Havi Carel (watch her TED talk about unconscious bias) and group discussions around how academia can become more diverse and how we can create an enjoyable academic environment.

Some of the topics we discussed were:

What can senior and peer colleagues do?

Often postgraduate and early career researchers suffer from lack of communication at their institutions. Peer-to-peer mentoring or senior-to-junior mentoring may offer opportunities for discussion to take place, particularly about equality/inclusion/diversity issues. When exclusion/discrimination problems are experienced/witnessed, having a range of peer and senior people to discuss with becomes very important, and facilitates reporting to leadership if needed. These meetings and discussions will also give opportunities to people who may otherwise feel their problems are overlooked, to find support, be empowered and build up their self-confidence.

What can leadership do?

To specifically include researchers with caring responsibilities some attendees mentioned that it would be helpful if institutions could improve access to affordable childcare – this may include nurseries at University as well as more flexible reimbursement for childcare during specific events, such as conferences, where children cannot be brought along by parents.

What is the role of role models?

The attendees agreed that role models can be vital in shaping career pathways as they inspire, work as advisors and can start or change career aspirations. Role models should be relatable (by gender, ethnicity, etc.) and are thus not always available in less diverse environments. However, if role models do not exist new ways to develop them can be used and should be encouraged. For example, Twitter or other social media can offer a great selection of diverse role models from all over the world.

What is success in academia (or in life)?

Success can be defined in many ways. Some people want to make a difference, some want to publish high quality material, some want a good work-family-life balance, and some want all of those together. This highlights how important it is for line managers, supervisors, and colleagues to accept and nurture this diversity. A redefinition of success should be flexible and shaped according to the people in a certain work environment. This will hopefully lead to a more enjoyable and a more productive work environment.

The feedback we received from the day was overwhelmingly positive. This includes both talking to attendees and evaluating questionnaires people filled out at the end of the day. The discussions about the topics and the opportunity to share experiences with others were found the highlights of the workshop. A large part of the participants felt more aware about biases and more empowered to tackle them. Some changes are already happening as a result of the workshop, for example our research group is diversifying social activities to be more inclusive, and both the British Hydrological Society as well as the Young Hydrologic Society have appointed EDI (Equality, Diversity & Inclusion) champions now! With one third of the 44 attendees being male, the workshop demonstrated that not just women are interested to learn about biases and discuss their experiences.

We thank the GW4 Water Security Alliance, the Cabot Institute and the School of Engineering of Bristol University for funding this event. A big thank you to our three speakers and Havi Carel who conducted the training, and to all attendees for creating an inclusive and productive atmosphere. Now it is our task to implement what we have learned and communicate the results as widespread as possible. And on a personal note, I definitely feel there is a future in academia for me now.

If you are interested in organising a similar event at your institution and have any questions, feel free to contact us: hydro-equality2019@bristol.ac.uk

Further information and material can be found on our website.

Some further reading about the topic of diversity and bias in STEM, including a list of scientific literature documenting the challenges women and minorities face in STEM subjects.

———————————-
This blog was written by Cabot Institute member Lina Stein and other members of the organising committee, a hydrology PhD student in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Bristol.

Sharing the world’s natural resources

Posted on by janet.crompton
In discussions about climate justice, one particular question that receives a lot of attention is that of how to share the global emissions budget (that is, the limited amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that can be released into the atmosphere if we are to avoid ‘dangerous’ climate change). A popular proposal here is ‘equal shares’. As suggested by the name, if this solution were adopted the emissions budget would be shared between countries on the basis of population size – resulting in a distribution of emission quotas that is equal per capita. Equal shares is favoured not only by many philosophers, but also a wide range of international organisations (it is the second essential component, for example, of the prominent Contraction and Convergence approach).  
 
I became interested in the equal shares view because it is often put forward with very little argument. Some people seem to think it obvious that this is the best way for parties to the UNFCCC to honour their commitment to deal with climate change on the basis of ‘equity’. But can things really be so simple when this budget must be shared across countries and individuals that differ greatly in terms of their needs, wealth and – arguably – contribution to climate change?
 
When you look more closely at the arguments that are actually given for equal shares, it turns out that many people claim this to be a fair solution to a global commons problem (for a quick introduction to commons problems, listen here). They argue that distributing emission quotas equates to distributing rights to the atmosphere. The atmosphere, however, is alleged to be a global commons – or shared resource – that no individual has a better claim to than any other. Therefore, rights to this resource – in the form of emission quotas – should be distributed to all human beings globally on an equal per capita basis.
 
The major problem underlying this argument is its restricted focus on fairly sharing the atmosphere. What many defenders of equal shares neglect to realise is that the atmosphere does not actually act as a sink for carbon dioxide (CO2) – thought to be the most important anthropogenic GHG – which is instead assimilated by the ocean, soils and vegetation. Whilst the argument for equal shares might seem plausible in the case of the ocean – a resource that is also often described as a global commons – it is much harder to carry it over to terrestrial sinks (soils and vegetation), which lie for the most part within state borders. This leaves the equal shares view open to objections from countries like Brazil, which could argue that they should be allocated a higher per capita CO2 allowance on the basis of their possession of a large terrestrial sink (in the form of the Amazon rainforest). Furthermore it seems that Brazil would have backing in international law for such a claim.
 
The question of whether countries with large terrestrial sinks should have full use rights in these resources – and should therefore be allocated a greater share of the emissions budget – leads us into an enquiry about rights to natural resource that has occupied philosophers for centuries. Roughly speaking, the main parties to this debate are statists – who often deny the existence of significant duties of international justice and attempt to defend full national ownership over natural resources – and cosmopolitans – who hold that justice requires us to treat all human beings equally regardless of their country of birth.
 
Cosmopolitans often argue that one’s country of birth is a ‘morally arbitrary’ characteristic: a feature like gender or race that shouldn’t be allowed to have a significant influence on your life prospects. They believe it is clearly unfair that a baby lucky enough to be born in Norway will on average have far better life prospects than a baby that happens to be born in Bangladesh. Because of this, cosmopolitans are often opposed to national ownership of natural resources, which they take to be a form of undeserved advantage. 
 
Cosmopolitanism can be used to defend equal per capita emission shares because according to this view, rights to natural resources – whether gold, oil, or carbon sinks – shouldn’t be allocated to whichever state they just happen to be found in.
 
This cosmopolitan interpretation of fairness has a certain intuitive plausibility – why should claims to valuable natural resources be based on accidents of geography? On the other hand, there are a number of arguments that can be given for taking some people to have a better claim than others to certain carbon sinks. It seems particularly important, for a start, to consider whether indigenous inhabitants of the rainforest should be taken to have a privileged position in decision-making about how this resource is used. We also need to acknowledge that preserving forests will often be costly in terms of missed development opportunities. Why should everybody be able to share equally in the benefits of forest sinks, if it is countries like Brazil or India that must forgo alternative ways of using that land when they choose to conserve? This question is particularly pertinent given that land devoted to rainforest protection cannot be used for alternative – renewable – forms of energy production such as solar or biofuel.
 
In addition, if cosmopolitans are correct that use rights to terrestrial sinks should not be allocated on the basis of their location, then we need to question national ownership of other natural resources as well. If countries are not entitled to full use of ‘their’ forest sinks, then can we consistently allow rights to fossil fuels – e.g. the shale gas below the British Isles – to be allocated on a territorial basis? This is how rights over natural resources – forests and fossil fuels included – have generally been allocated in the past, with many resource-rich countries reaping huge benefits as a result. If national ownership is a rotten principle, is rectification in order for its past application? And what should we then say about the natural resources that can be used in renewable energy production? Why should the UK alone be allowed to exploit its territorial seas for the production of tidal energy? Or Iceland claim rights over all of its easily accessible geothermal sources?
 
Commons arguments for equal per capita emission quotas go astray when they claim that the atmosphere is the sole natural resource that assimilates our GHG emissions. Once we recognise this, we should appreciate that the problem of the fair allocation of the global emissions budget cannot be dealt with in isolation, but is instead tied up with broader, difficult questions regarding how the natural world should be used and shared. The answers we give regarding each individual’s claim to use GHG sinks need to be rendered consistent with our judgments regarding the justice of the past and current allocation of rights over other natural resources – resources including fossil fuels and renewables – if we are really to deal with climate change on the basis of equity.
 
This post was written by Megan Blomfield, a PhD student in the University of Bristol philosophy department. It is based on her paper, published in the latest edition of The Journal of Political Philosophy, titled ‘Global Common Resources and the Just Distribution of Emissions Shares’.
 
Megan Blomfield, University of Bristol
 
 
Sign up to our weekly newsletter for all the latest news, events and opportunities at https://bristol.ac.uk/cabot/news/subscribe. Find out more about our unique Master's by Research in Global Environmental Challenges at https://bristol.ac.uk/cabot-masters.