Understanding Environmental Sociology: Society and Nature's Link
School
University of Oregon**We aren't endorsed by this school
Course
SOC 204
Subject
Sociology
Date
Dec 10, 2024
Pages
25
Uploaded by CommodoreKangaroo3010
Environmental Sociology (Fall 2020 Edition) INTRODUCTION [] Why should sociologists study the environment? How can sociology help us understand the complex relationship between society and the environment? The 2019-2020 bushfire season in Australia, which has been called Black Summer, was the worst ever experienced.! An extensive drought over much of Eastern Australia, combined with unusually hot dry winds and high temperatures exacerbated by climate change, meant that when the fires started earlier in the year than usual, they spread quickly. An area roughly the size of England burned, more than 3,500 homes were destroyed, and over a billion . e . Plane dropping flame retardant on a wildfire. (Source) animals died.2 Unfortunately, environmental destruction over the past year wasn’t limited to Australia. With 2020 on track to be one of the hottest years since record-keeping began,? it's not surprising that other parts of the world are also burning: in June 2020, the New York Timesreported that it was 125 degrees in Baghdad and 100 degrees above the Arctic Circle. These heatwaves, which are also exacerbated by climate change, are having numerous effects on society and social life and are contributing to “inequality at the boiling point.”4 In May 2019, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), which provides a global assessment of biodiversity (the variety of species in an ecosystem), reported that a million species are threatened with extinction if we don’t change the way we treat the natural environment.5 This alarming news comes at the same time as scientists report that plastic pollution is raining down in protected areas in the U.S., as well as clogging our rivers and covering the oceans.® While the earth burns, animals die, and pollution spreads, societies respond in varying ways, with some demanding policies that respond to these environmental crises while others deny that these problems even exist. As bad news about the state of our environment and non-human species has continued, environmental sociology emerged specifically to ask: What is the relationship between society and the environment? Sociology has often overlooked the ways societies affect the natural environment, as well as how the natural environment affects society. Perhaps the most well-known statement of this exemptionalist perspective, which assumes that humans are inherently different from other living beings, was made by sociologist Frederick Buttel. In a 1984 paper, he argued that due to the influence of Emile Durkheim’s founding work in the field of sociology, which proposed that only social causes Page 3
Environmental Sociology (Fall 2020 Edition) could explain social facts, “...a virtual taboo has developed against explaining social phenomena by means of nonsocial factors”’, including the physical environment. As a result, it was left out of most sociological research and theory. But if we ignore how societies and the environment interact, how do we explain the changing climate due to fossil fuel emissions, species extinction, the increased severity of hurricanes, and the impact of all of these trends on communities throughout the world? In this chapter we provide a brief summary of environmental sociology’s roots before it was formally recognized as a subfield of sociology in the late 1970s. We review major perspectives on the relationship between society and the environment, particularly focusing on economic development, environmental degradation, and environmental protection. We also provide case studies about common topics of interest in environmental sociology. Finally, we discuss the future of environmental sociology and its role in interdisciplinary research and educational programs, such as environmental studies and sustainability studies. HISTORICAL CONTEXT [1 How did environmental sociology emerge as a field of study? Before the field of environmental sociology was formally created in the late 1970s,8 some scholars, particularly in rural sociology and human ecology, were already studying how society and the natural environment were interconnected. Rural sociology focused on how people in rural areas, many living on farms and working in the agricultural sector, were directly connected to the environment and relied on natural resources. Coming from a very different perspective, scholars working within human ecology also connected their work to the environment. Rather than exploring life in rural areas,® human ecology largely looked at the social organization of urban communities.!® Some of the most notable work used environmental terms as a metaphor for social phenomena and looked at the city as an organism. Environmental sociology emerged in response to environmental problems in the U.S. and the citizens’ movement that was formed to address them.1! By 1970, environmental degradation was widespread across the United States. Major environmental disasters included a large oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara, California; the Cuyahoga River in Ohio catching on fire because of the flammable chemicals dumped into the water; and polluted air and poor water quality throughout the country. After substantial pressure from people involved in a growing environmental movement, the federal government passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1970. NEPA required Page 4
Environmental Sociology (Fall 2020 Edition) federal agencies to consider the environmental effects of all policies and legislation. This led to the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as numerous laws that protected the natural environment, including our air and water, from pollution. With growing attention to how humans interact with the environment and the sometimes dire consequences of those interactions, more sociologists began to study the issue. William Catton and Riley Dunlap called for a new paradigm for thinking about the society- EPA seal. (Source) environment relationship.? They argued that, although people have been living within a human exemptionalist paradigm that prioritizes economic growth, prosperity, and individualism, a shift to a more environmentally sensitive perspective, which they called the New Environmental Paradigm (now called the New Ecological Paradigm), was needed. This perspective considers potential limits to economic growth and encourages developing a stable economy that is balanced with nature. The New Ecological Paradigm has also been used to explore the relationship between environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behaviors. Since Catton and Dunlap’s call for a field of sociology focused on environmental issues,!3 environmental sociologists have studied a range of topics about the relationship between society and the environment. This work recognizes that there is a conjoint constitution between society and the natural environment: society affects the quality of the natural environment, and environmental change (both environmental degradation and protection) also has a clear effect on the quality and scope of society. 1* One of the most central questions is the relationship between social development, industrialization, and environmental protection, with a variety of theoretical perspectives influencing this research.1> Review Sheet: Introduction/historical context Key Points e Early sociologists often overlooked the natural environment, focusing instead on social issues and causes of behavior. e Inthe 1970s, environmental sociology arose as sociologists began to place more attention on how societies and the environment interact. e Public concern about the environment grew in response to a number of ecological disasters and growing pollution. e Societies have often treated the environment as though humans are exempt from any limits on our economic growth or use of resources. e Environmental sociologists called for an approach that acknowledges limits on available resources and the need to live in balance with the environment. Page 5
Environmental Sociology (Fall 2020 Edition) Key People e Frederick Buttel ¢ Emile Durkheim e William Catton and Riley Dunlap Key Terms e Biodiversity — The variety of species in an ecosystem. ¢ Human exemptionalist perspective - View that humans are different from other living beings and do not face environmental limits on our economic growth. e Rural sociology - Subfield focuses on people in rural areas and their connections to the environment and natural resources. ¢ Human ecology - Subfield that focuses on the social organization of urban communities and similarities to other organisms. ¢ National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) - 1970 law requiring federal agencies to consider the environmental effects of policies and legislation. e Environmental Protection Agency - Federal organization created to oversee implementation of NEPA. e New Environmental Paradigm (or New Ecological Paradigm) - Perspective that considers potential limits to economic growth and encourages developing a stable economy balanced with nature. e Conjoint constitution - Society affects the natural environment, and environmental change affects the quality and scope of society. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIETY AND THE ENVIRONMENT [1 How can the major perspectives in environmental sociology help us understand the relationship between society and the natural environment? [ How do these perspectives shape sociologists’ research and findings? Much of the work in environmental sociology has focused on the debate regarding the degree to which a society’s expansion and economic growth comes at the expense of the quality of the natural environment. Some of the perspectives are critical and believe that environmental protection and economic development can’t co-exist, while others are more optimistic and believe that the economy Page 6
Environmental Sociology (Fall 2020 Edition) can grow along with environmental improvement and protection. Like the rest of sociology, these perspectives look at the varying roles that the main social actors of the state (or government), the market (economic sector), and civil society (people working individually or collectively through community groups and social movements) play. Critical perspectives One set of perspectives tends to be critical of the notion that economic development can continue in a way that protects the environment. Critical perspectives generally expect that environmental interventions won’t be very effective, in part because governments often support relatively unregulated economies that don’t prioritize environmental protection. Critical scholars recognize that social movements will push for environmental protection, but believe those efforts will have limited success.1® - o0 % & “ One of the most well-known critical perspectives is the treadmill of production theory,l” which suggests that any society driven by economic expansion is stuck in a conflict with nature. The drive to expand the production of consumer goods and provide fuel to power machinery requires us to withdraw natural resources constantly from ecosystems while we also add pollution to our environment. This process of withdrawals and additions is seen as a never-ending treadmill where we remove so many resources that we often exceed the ecosystems’ ability to renew themselves and replace those resources. Think about logging. Whether trees are cut down from the old growth forests (those with mature trees that have been relatively undisturbed by human activity) of the Pacific Northwest or from the Amazon rainforest, the treadmill of production expects that the deforestation will not be sustainable: companies will cut Old-growth redwood forest, California. (Source; cC By- down the trees until they are gone or it’s too expensive S44.0) to continue extracting wood from that area; then they will move somewhere else and do the same thing. As trees are cut down and the wood is processed into lumber, the process generates a broad range of waste. Because companies move to increasingly isolated, remote forests (since they tend to cut down the most accessible wood first), the amount of energy and materials used to remove logs and the waste produced to access remote areas, transport the wood to where it will be processed, and then transport the finished lumber to market typically increases over time. Governments are often caught in contradictory positions between promoting environmental protection or promoting the interests of business. In the end, research from this Page 7
Environmental Sociology (Fall 2020 Edition) perspective finds that governments end up supporting economic expansion through international trade agreements, bailing out industries when they’re in crisis, and other measures.18 Like the treadmill of production theory, the metabolic rift perspective argues that capitalism drives a growth imperative, or necessity for continual economic growth. The focus of this view is on the interchange of matter and energy between human societies and the larger environment, describing it as a form of metabolism (just as the human body converts what you eat and drink into energy).1? Metabolic rift theorists argue that the social metabolism - the exchange of resources and material between society and the environment - of capitalism exceeds natural limits, which undermines ecosystem renewal and produces “metabolic rifts” (or breaks) in various cycles and processes.2? Metabolic theorists generally agree with treadmill of production theorists that the relationship between development and environmental degradation is strong and will continue to be as long as societies are tied to the growth imperative of capitalism. Consider, for example, the depletion of natural fish stocks in the world’s oceans. Our total consumption of seafood has grown over time as societies have become wealthier and populations increased. Humans came up with new methods to catch larger numbers of fish more quickly, which let them expand their profits. These methods include bottom trawls, large nets that are pulled along the ocean floor by boats, and gillnetting that catches fish in a wall of netting. Because of these new fishing practices, the rate of catching wild fish has far outpaced the ability of the world’s oceans and aquatic ecosystems to renew those fish populations, which disrupts their natural cycles. The consequences can be devastating to ecosystems and will also lead to the collapse of the world’s fish populations, which people around the world depend on for food.?! In contrast to the other critical theories, ecologically unequal exchange theory specifically focuses on unequal resource exchanges and ecological interdependencies within the global economy.22 The inequalities here are tied to global disparities in socioeconomic development and power.23 Ecologically unequal exchange refers to the environmentally damaging withdrawal of energy and other natural resources and the concentration of environmentally damaging production and disposal activities within less-developed, poorer countries. Like the treadmill of production and metabolic rift approaches, ecologically unequal exchange theory is relatively pessimistic about the relationship between development and the environment. It is distinct in its focus on inequality between societies that exacerbates the harmful impacts of development on the environment, especially in less-developed nations. This perspective is illustrated by the video “The Story of Stuff.”24 In the video, we see how environmentally unfriendly manufacturing, which is largely controlled by global corporations headquartered in wealthy countries, has become concentrated in less-developed countries. A good example of the role corporations play in ecologically unequal exchange is in sneaker production, which is located overwhelmingly in developing countries in Asia where environmental and labor laws are much weaker than in the U.S., while the sneakers are mostly produced for consumers in the wealthier nations where the major sneaker companies are headquartered.?> Page 8
Environmental Sociology (Fall 2020 Edition) Optimistic perspectives In contrast to the critical theories, those coming from a more optimistic perspective tend to agree that economic growth can be associated with environmental protection, or at least reductions in environmental degradation. They expect an environmental state to emerge — that is, governments will begin to include environmental protection “as a basic state responsibility.”26 Optimistic theories see the economy playing a hybrid role in society: businesses and financial institutions work effectively in collaboration with government and community actors, such as nongovernmental organizations (non- profit groups that work independently of governments) to bring about more environmentally friendly outcomes. Ecological modernization theory argues that the dynamic nature of capitalism allows economic growth and related technologies to be directed toward environmental reforms. Change comes from collaboration among people working within the government, science, and economic sectors to create policies. At the same time, civil society, including social movement organizations and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), helps to facilitate environmental improvements and policy reforms. Instead of focusing on cleaning up environmental “bads” after they are produced or Solar panels. (Source) letting them become a common problem for society to address, supporters of ecological modernization theory expect innovations in production processes to reduce the production of environmental bads from happening in the first place.?” The transition to renewable energy is an example of ecological modernization. Instead of burning fossil fuels to generate electricity, which emits numerous pollutants into the atmosphere, clean and renewable energy from wind, solar power, and hydropower (generated by water) make it possible to produce energy without creating pollution. As the technologies get better, the government works with businesses to encourage the spread of these more sustainable technologies. For instance, to encourage a more environmentally sustainable transportation system, Norway’s government is encouraging a move away from fossil fuel-based transportation to electric vehicles powered by the nation’s electric power grid, which relies almost exclusively on hydropower. To push faster adoption of electric vehicles, the government taxes cars with higher pollution emissions. This tax encourages consumers to buy cleaner low- or zero-emissions vehicles.28 In contrast to ecological modernization’s focus on technological innovation, world society theory looks to global institutional structures to shape social change and bring about environmental protection.2? At the center of world society are international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs), which include environmental groups like Friends of the Earth.3? Much of this work focuses on international organizations, like the United Nations, and treaties that coordinate national responses to environmental issues, such as the Paris Climate Agreement. Scholars find that ties to the pro- Page 9
Environmental Sociology (Fall 2020 Edition) environmental world society, usually in the form of a larger presence of environmental INGOs, are associated with improved environmental conditions, including lower growth in carbon emissions and less deforestation.3! Like other optimistic theories that emphasize the emergence and role of the environmental state, reflexive modernization focuses on development as a process through which environmental protection becomes more common.32 Reflexive modernization is a two-step process. The first step— the risk society phase—involves a universalization of risk, spreading it across the globe and throughout society, which leads to a breakdown in the general functions of society. The COVID-19 pandemic provides an example of this phase: risk of the virus spread across all sectors of our social lives and efforts to slow transmission had a huge effect on all aspects of society, from the economy to education to sports to family life. The second step in reflexive modernization is driven by a new type of solidarity. People no longer feel connected by social class, race, gender, or type of employment; instead, they feel connected to one another by risk. Groups that have not historically worked together collaborate in response to their feelings of being at increased risk. The political change described in reflexive modernization is driven by “citizens, the public sphere, social movements, and expert groups”33 rather than by governments or elites. Reflexive modernization could occur as nations respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic crisis it caused. Although the virus has had unequal health effects on different social groups, with rates of infection much higher in the Black, Latinx, and Native American communities;34 the risk of disease is experienced by everyone and experts predict that climate change and human migration into animals habitats will lead to more spread of disease as viruses jump from other species to people. If some nations end up responding to the COVID19 pandemic and the economic crisis that it has instigated by implementing policies in line with a just transition to address climate change and racial inequalities—Ilike the proposed Green New Deal3>—the outcome would be consistent with Reflexive Modernization. Such a response involves collaborations among groups that historically do not work together, including those within the climate movement and the movement for Black Lives. Bridging perspectives with the anthro-shift So who is right? When we look at a society’s relationship to the natural environment, which perspective wins, the critical perspectives or the optimistic ones? Well, perhaps neither. Instead, the anthro-shift proposes that the society-environment relationship is a dynamic system determined by how governments, the market, and civil society interact and how much they prioritize environmental issues by regulating environmental “bads” and protecting environmental “goods.” The anthro-shift has two distinctive features: 1) risk affects the relationship among states, markets, and civil society; and 2) the relationship between society and the environment can move in multiple directions—toward what the more critical perspectives might expect or toward more effective environmental protection and a stronger environmental state. Risk as the pivot. Risk—both the perception of it and the actual experience of risk—serves as a pivot to reorient individuals and groups, and how they interact with one another and the natural Page 10
Environmental Sociology (Fall 2020 Edition) environment. As we previously noted, COVID-19 provides a clear example of a risk event that has been experienced globally. In the past twenty years, we have seen other risk events with large-scale implications, such as 9/11 in the U.S,, the tsunami that led to the Fukushima nuclear plant melt-down in Japan, and Hurricane Katrina that destroyed New Orleans. These events represent moments of risk- motivated pivots in society. The general sense of risk among the population leads to changes in how the government, businesses, and civil society work together, or don’t, in each situation. \ - Damaged reactor in Fukushima, Japan, after a tsunami caused a nuclear meltdown in 2011. (Source; CC BY-SA 2.0) As risk permeates society, portions of government, the economy, and civil society are reorganized: governments become stronger or weaker, economic markets become more or less collaborative, and civil society becomes either more individualized and disengaged or more engaged and collectively oriented. A government’s strength determines its level of autonomy in relation to the other social actors. A strong government has more ability to implement policies; a weaker one is more likely to collaborate and engage in cooperative arrangements, such as working with utility companies to encourage people to increase the energy efficiency of their homes. In addition to reducing a consumer’s monthly energy bill, more efficiency can reduce the demand on a utility, and might reduce energy consumption overall. Scholars working from the critical perspectives in environmental sociology tend to expect a strong, independent government and a less regulated economy, which is generally much less supportive of efforts to protect the environment. For example, the U.S. government has been very strong since the 2016 election: The Republican Party won the White House and held the majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives for the first two years of the Trump Administration, and Republicans continued to hold the majority in the Senate along with the White House during its second two years. Because of this distribution of power, the Trump Administration has been able to act autonomously in many areas, including rolling back numerous environmental policies during its Page 11
Environmental Sociology (Fall 2020 Edition) time in office. In a July 2020 summary, the New York Timesreported, “The bulk of the rollbacks...have been carried out by the Environmental Protection Agency, which repealed and replaced the Obama-era emissions rules for power plants and vehicles; weakened protections for more than half the nation’s wetlands; and withdrew the legal justification for restricting mercury emissions from power plants.”36 In contrast, studies within the optimistic perspectives of environmental sociology have noted that weaker governments work in more collaborative ways with civil society and economic actors to bring about better environmental outcomes. The economy can shift from a command-and-control, or a neoliberal orientation, to having more hybrid and collaborative arrangements with other social actors. All of these differences have an effect on the ways environmental decision-making takes place and, as a result, the success or failure of both the decision-making process and how environmental policies are implemented and enforced. Multidirectionality. In the anthro-shift, even though risk can drive social change, the process does not necessarily lead to a specific configuration among social actors or a more environmentally- friendly outcome. A society could have an environmental state: the government is relatively weak, collaborating with both civil society and economic actors to include environmental protection as a state responsibility. Increasing uncertainty due to a major “risk event,” such as a terrorist attack, an environmental disaster, a financial crisis, or a pandemic could lead to changes in the arrangement of social actors that then changes the relationship between society and the natural environment. This reconfiguration may involve the government becoming stronger and the economy functioning more independently and with less regulation, which is more consistent with the critical perspectives. In this case, environmental protection would not be as effective. Similarly, a risk pivot can lead to a reorientation in the other direction, and a more collaborative and environmental state might emerge. This relationship goes back and forth; understanding when risk leads to societal changes that are more consistent with the critical perspectives and when it leads to arrangements that are more consistent with the optimistic perspectives is a key task for environmental sociologists. Given that the relationship between society and the environment changes, how do we study it in a meaningful way? Research testing different theories about the relationship between the environment and economic development use a variety of research designs, ranging from in-depth case studies of factories, corporations, and communities to statistical analyses of the relationship between forms of environmental pollution, such as carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, and measures of economic growth. Review Sheet: Theoretical perspectives on society and the environment Key Points e There are multiple ways to think about the relationship between societal development and environmental protection. Page 12
Environmental Sociology (Fall 2020 Edition) Pessimistic theories see economic growth as in conflict with environmental protection. Optimistic theories think economic growth is possible with environmental protection. The anthro-shift argues that the relationship between economic growth and environmental protection changes based on other social characteristics. The anthro-shift says that the relationship between society and the environment is determined by risk and perceptions of risk. The anthro-shift is multidirectional; it can move toward both more and less environmentally friendly configurations of actors. Key Terms Civil society - People working individually or collectively through community groups and social movements. Treadmill of production theory - Suggests that societies driven by economic expansion are in conflict with nature. Old-growth forest - One with mature trees that have been relatively undisturbed by human activity. Metabolic rift perspective - Theory focused on the interchange of matter and energy between human societies and the larger environment as economies grow. Growth imperative - Need for constant economic growth. Social metabolism - Exchange of resources and material between society and the environment. Ecologically unequal exchange theory - Focuses on unequal resource exchanges and ecological interdependencies within the global economy. Environmental state — Governments include environmental protection as a basic responsibility. Nongovernmental organizations — Non-profit groups that work independently of governments. Ecological modernization theory - View that the dynamic nature of capitalism allows economic growth and related technologies to be directed toward environmental reforms. World society theory - Perspective that global institutional structures bring about environmental protection. Reflexive modernization - View that through development, environmental protection becomes more common. Risk society — Risk is spread broadly throughout a society. Green New Deal - Proposed legislation to address climate change and racial inequalities. Page 13
Environmental Sociology (Fall 2020 Edition) e Anthro-shift - Sees the society-environment relationship as dynamic, determined by how governments, the market, and civil society interact and how much they prioritize environmental issues. e Risk - Actual and perceived exposure to environmental dangers and natural disasters. CLIMATE CHANGE [ How does sociology help us understand climate change? [1 What are the different ways that sociologists look at responses to this global environmental problem? Temperature change in the last 50 years 2010-2019 average vs 1951-1978 baseline (°C) T T o -1.0 -05 -0.2 +0.2 +0.5 +1.0 +2.0 +4.0 (Source: NASA, public domain) Climate change (warming of the Earth and increases in extreme weather events) provides a great example of the conjoint constitution between society and the natural environment: it’s a human-caused environmental crisis that also has tremendous consequences for people. According to the United Nations, “One of the most pressing issues of our time, climate change threatens the lives and livelihoods of billions of people. Natural disasters, environmental degradation and extreme weather patterns disrupt harvests, deplete fisheries, erode livelihoods and spur infectious diseases. Some effects come on suddenly, as when a typhoon of unprecedented force destroys entire communities. Others unfold over time."37 Page 14
Environmental Sociology (Fall 2020 Edition) Given that climate change is affecting all levels of society—from the local to the global—and addressing the problem requires substantial changes to the energy infrastructure our economy relies on, environmental sociologists have used a variety of research methods to study it. Measuring and interpreting our contributions to climate change While analyses are conducted using different methods at different scales, including the individual energy or manufacturing plant level, the city level, and the state level, research often focuses on nations, looking at how the majority of the world’s countries contribute to climate change by emitting carbon dioxide and through efforts to respond to this environmental problem. This type of analysis is used by governments to negotiate and assess international agreements to address climate change. One challenge is deciding how to measure the amount of carbon emissions each nation produces. There are three common measurements: total emissions, per capita emissions, and emissions per unit of Gross Domestic Product (that is, emissions per unit of production in a nation). Total emissions focus on the scale of environmental damage: how much carbon, collectively, are we adding to the atmosphere each year? This is the most important measure when considering the climate, given that it's the overall accumulation of emissions in the atmosphere that contributes to global warming and climate change. The second measure, per capita emissions (the amount of emissions per person) assesses international inequalities in carbon emissions, where the atmosphere is viewed as a global commons, a resource available to everyone. From this perspective, every person in the world has equal rights to the atmosphere, and the amount of allowable pollution should be determined per person. The third measure, emissions per unit of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), is widely used to quantify relative levels of carbon efficiency or eco-efficiency, since we can compare how much carbon each nation emits to create the same amount of value. Figure 1: U.S. and China Total Emissions, 1960-2015 Total Carbon Dioxide Emissions 10000000 8000000 6000000 4000000 2000000 O O 4% O P O P O H O o D R LA QAT O O CRNPRARIRC LR LI LG g L g o N Wo \q\ e=@==China e=@==nited States Page 15
Environmental Sociology (Fall 2020 Edition) Figures 1, 2, and 3 provide examples of these measures of carbon emissions for the United States and its largest trading partner, China, from 1960 to 2015. They present data on carbon emissions from burning fossil-fuels and manufacturing cement, which is essential for construction.38 For total emissions (Figure 1), which are measured in metric kilotons, we see that emissions were much larger for the U.S. than for China in 1960, before China opened its economy to foreign trade and implemented free-market reforms in 1979.3° The difference between the two nations increased in the 1960s, remained fairly stable in the 1970s, and then began to shrink as total emissions for the U.S. started to flatten out while total emissions for China increased dramatically. By 2005, total emissions for China was larger than for the United States, and the gap between the two nations grew substantially until 2015, when the graph ends. The Paris Agreement, a global climate effort, was negotiated in 2015 and committed all countries to take steps to address climate change.40 Figure 2: U.S. and China Per Capita Emissions, 1960-2015 Per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emissions 20 M 15 10 5 - 0 H—o-—o-'-é--..a-o-uw/ Q QO 9 0O 9% 0 5% O AP O & b o A N RO QOO SRR AP UNFCUC LR SRC S St 5 |\ S w===China ==@==United States Figure 3: U.S. and China Emissions per Unit of GDP, 1960-2015 Carbon Dioxide Emissions Per Unit of GDP 7 6 & i “;'fi g.ll.l-l;‘} 3 L D ..; 2 "1;~ r N 1 — 0 _ =0 Q o) ) Q o} Q s} QO » Q ") \9) ] ’\ A QD° 7 L Q 0 0 \ a2 a0 gl el o q\qq RS MIPISNIPAN e=@==China ==@==United States For per capita emissions (Figure 2), measured in metric tons per person, we see an enormous gap between the United States and China, with per capita emissions in the U.S. more than ten times Page 16
Environmental Sociology (Fall 2020 Edition) higher than in China in 1960. The gap between the two countries got larger in the 1970s and then began to decrease as China’s per capita emissions gradually rose, while per capita emissions for the United States remained relatively stable in the 1980s and 1990s, then began to decrease after 2000. So while China now emits much more carbon overall than the U.S. (Figure 1), per capita emissions in the U.S. were more than twice as large as in China in 2015. For emissions per unit of GDP, measured as kilograms per 2010 U.S. Dollar (Figure 3), both nations experienced decreases from 1960 to 2015, but the decrease was much more substantial for China than for the United States. On the surface, this trend suggests that China and the U.S. became more carbon-efficient over time, even though both nations increased their fota/emissions (Figure 1). Comparing these measures provides important insights about climate change. Even with moderate differences in the results of analyses these kinds of data, the general findings of sociological research on carbon emissions and other greenhouse gases tend to support the arguments of the critical perspectives, suggesting that economic growth and inequalities between nations are fundamental causes of the climate crisis.4! How should we address climate change? Beyond the U.S. and China, carbon emissions continue to be high across countries.4? Unfortunately, nations are producing rising levels of greenhouse gases even though they negotiated international agreements to cap emissions and then reduce them. Based on the current scientific consensus, we should stabilize the Earth’s climate to limit global warming to an average increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). An increase above this point would lead to lasting changes that cannot be stopped or reversed. To halt global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius, scientists have determined that carbon emissions must be lowered overall and carbon removal technologies will be needed to reduce carbon that has already accumulated in the atmosphere. Figure 4 is from a 2018 special report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of the top natural scientists and social scientists from around the world who are working on this issue.*3 The report provides scenarios for governments to consider as they try to limit climate change so it does not pass this important point of 1.5 degrees Celsius limit for warming. The report presents four pathways that will reduce carbon concentrations in the atmosphere enough to stay within this limit. They range from Pathway 1 (P1), an accelerated pathway to reduce carbon emissions by shifting away from carbon-based fossil fuels quickly, to Pathway 4 (P4), which involves economic growth and development that leads to the most “greenhouse gas intensive lifestyles” for the longest period of time. Technological innovation plays a role in all four scenarios. It is necessary to develop sustainable and affordable energy supplies that aren’t based on fossil fuels, and to develop ways to capture carbon in the atmosphere and store it so we can substantially reduce global concentrations. Pathway 4 is the closest to a business-as-usual perspective where we don’t take steps to reduce carbon emissions; instead, it relies on technological innovation to remove carbon after it has been released into the atmosphere. The two technologies that are used in these pathways are: bioenergy with carbon Page 17
Environmental Sociology (Fall 2020 Edition) capture and storage (BECCS); and agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU). Both involve removing carbon that has already been emitted into the atmosphere, in some cases creating carbon sinks by planting forests or agricultural products that capture carbon. Each pathway involves the various social actors—governments, citizens, and businesses, including the fossil fuel industry—working together to reduce carbon concentrations in the atmosphere. Governments would play a big role in determining which path each country chooses to respond to climate change. However, as we've discussed, each country’s response to the climate crisis will be determined by its particular configuration of social actors, and these configurations can change. While scientists have created these possible pathways to limit climate change to 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming, progress toward an international response that effectively implements a plan that will actually reduce carbon emissions has been limited. All of the pathways involve changes to the economic system in terms of which fuels are used to generate electricity, for transportation, and to manufacture products. Currently, we are not even close to following any of the four pathways outlined by the IPCC that would keep warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius, and data from 2020 indicate that the planet has already warmed an average of 1.3 degrees.*4 Figure 4: Pathways to Combat Climate Change Characteristics of four illustrative model pathways Different mitigation strategies can achieve the net emissions reductions that would be required to follow a pathway that limits global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot. All pathways use Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), but the amount varies across pathways, as do the relative contributions of Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) and removals in the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) sector. This has implications for emissions and several other pathway characteristics. Breakdown of contributions to global net CO2 emissions in four illustrative model pathways ! Fossil fuel and industry @ AFOLU BECCS Billion tonnes CO, per year (GtCO2/yr) Billion tonnes CO, per year (GtCOz/yr) Billien tonnes CO, per year (GtCOa/yr) Billion tonnes CO, per year (GtCO:/yr) ‘0 = P1 0y P2 ‘Omm P3 P4 2021 2001 2100 2020 2060 2101 2020 204 P2: Ascenario with a broad focus on P3: Amiddle-of-the-road scenario in P1: Ascenario in which social, business and technological innovations result in lower energy demand up to 2050 while living standards rise, especially in the global South. A downsized energy system enables rapid decarbonization of energy supply. Afforestation is the only CDR option considered; neither fossil fuels with CCS nor BECCS are used. sustainability including energy intensity, human development, economic convergence and international cooperation, as well as shifts towards sustainable and healthy consumption patterns, low-carbon technology innovation, and well-managed land systems with limited societal acceptability for BECCS, which societal as well as technological development follows historical patterns. Emissions reductions are mainly achieved by changing the way in | which energy and products are produced, and to a lesser degree by reductions in demand. Source: IPCC P4: Aresource- and energy-intensive scenario in which economic growth and globalization lead to widespread adoption of greenhouse-gas-intensive lifestyles, including high demand for transportation fuels and livestock products. Emissions reductions are mainly achieved through technological means, making strong use of COR through the deployment of BECCS, Page 18
Environmental Sociology (Fall 2020 Edition) Although almost all countries signed onto the Paris Agreement by 2016, the agreement itself doesn’t commit countries to emissions reductions that keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. National responses to this environmental crisis have been diverse and change as governments change, which frequently leads to reorientations of social actors who choose different paths to address climate change, including choosing not to address the issue at all; for instance, the Trump Administration decided to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement in 2017.45 Different cultural and historical contexts that involve varied natural resources affect a country’s specific response and trajectory. Japan, for example, has limited natural resources to fuel its energy sector while the United States has more coal and natural gas than it uses and is able to export both fossil fuels to other countries.46 Social responses to climate change are especially difficult because this environmental problem involves gradual changes to the entire planet. Because climate change is caused by concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere affecting various natural systems around the world, there is no immediate, clearly observable effect of a specific policy; we can’t directly see climate change happening, or see if we’re slowing it down. Change will be slow, and the pathways identified by the IPCC would limit change to a manageable level, not to stop t « TT 5 - _.‘4- _ .«}\ g it entirely. If we’re successful, it doesn’t mean the earth won’t warm at all; it means we would avoid changing the climate so much that we surpass a “point of no return” where drastic changes threaten entire societies. Whether we manage this or not, there’s little question that climate change will lead to all sorts of environmental changes, including melting the polar ice caps, sea levels rising, S Pt % S R Y o Y L CASICC AN YN desertification (When fertile land becomes desert), Drought and desertification affect farming. (Source: extreme weather (including hurricanes and heatwaves), USDA, public domain) and the extinction of some plants and animals. These changes will have clear effects on society, including where people can live and how they live there. Determining how to respond to climate change is a challenge among countries, and has also created tensions between people within the same nation. Regions within nations that have lots of natural resources—such as the province of Alberta in Canada, which is home to petroleum deposits known as the Tar Sands—generally resist measures to address climate change.*” A battle over how to address climate change and the political power to make those decisions has been documented in multiple countries and regions. The anthro-shift framework can help us understand these battles and what determines their outcomes across regions, countries, and the world as a whole. Climate denial Promoting scientific uncertainty is a tactic in the battle over how to respond to the threat of climate change. The overwhelming majority of scientists around the world agree that climate change is happening and is caused by human activities.*® But powerful interests have waged a war to miscommunicate the scientific consensus and confuse people about the level of certainty. Intentionally Page 19
Environmental Sociology (Fall 2020 Edition) promoting scientific misinformation about climate change is called climate denial. At this point, it is well documented that the tobacco and fossil fuel industries use the same scientists and publicists to downplay the risks of smoking and climate change.#® Multiple studies have shown how fossil fuel industry interests, including some of the biggest oil companies in the world, contributed to this war over the science of climate change and how the science is communicated to the public.>? Figure 5: Climate Misinformation by Source Figure 5 presents some of the findings from analyses of ] 8 "4 N resE A ess=l documents generated by ExxonMobil from 1977 to 2014. Red s : represents material expressing mostly unfounded doubts E : (misinformation) about climate change; turquoise sections % represent documents that acknowledged that climate change g : was happening (even if they included reasonable doubts ': among scientists about it that still existed at the time); the black sections represent discussions that both acknowledged (o - = climate change and discussed unfounded doubts. ExxonMobil presented misinformation about the scientific certainty of climate change to the general public through paid editorial- style advertisements (advertorials), even while their own scientists’ research (the internal documents) was much more Percentage of documands (%) o o 88888 B 8SE likely to acknowledge (indicated by the turquoise sections) e Pese | nenewen Aswcorss that human-caused climate change was occurring.! On the QL) Revwenwoes {c) 100 — v v v other hand, the scientific papers (peer-reviewed and non-peer- Or :Af'-mwos;e (nch. reascrable doubt) s . . . 5 20| @ ASnowiedpe ana Doubs | reviewed) overwhelmingly acknowledged that climate change L ) Ressonatie Doute . g 7O W Douee | was real, caused by people, and would have serious effects. If &0k ? 8 sof you read an advertorial placed by ExxonMobil, you got a very g :: different idea of the science on climate change than if you read 20} e the science itself. ’z ___n Looking beyond this one fossil fuel company, research Mo~ Peer- Avdvertonals Feer- Roveis Fasiowed has also documented how corporate funding of science about Merat . - INC sy BCCEs S climate change has contributed to polarizing views and creating conflict around the climate issue.>? As special interest Source: Supran and Oreskes 2017 (CC BY 20) groups push climate denial, the message that the science is uncertain leads to confusion among the general public, who then support policymakers and policies that don’t address climate change even though the science about it is clear.>3 Not only can climate misinformation confuse people and encourage us to believe there is uncertainty about the science of climate change; climate misinformation has also been used by political elites to support specific political perspectives and agendas. Instead of policymakers using Page 20
Environmental Sociology (Fall 2020 Edition) science to make decisions about how to address climate change, perspectives aboutthe science (some based on the information generated by companies with fossil fuel interests) are trapped in echo chambers, or groups of ideologically similar policy actors who amplify and distort climate misinformation.>* In other words, the politics of climate change drives the science more than the science drives the politics. Disproportionality and hyperpolluters In 1968, Garrett Hardin published an article about the tragedy of the commons.>> His paper highlights the ways that many common pool resources - those available to everyone, like air or water — are being polluted due to self-interest, or what some scholars have called the “free-rider problem.”>6 From this perspective, since everyone has access to the common resource, individual people may act selfishly and use too much of it, thinking that if they don’t, someone else will. Since we're afraid of missing out personally, we behave in ways that don’t benefit the common good. More recently, William Freudenburg responded to this view of resource use with a sociological lens.57 Instead of viewing most environmental damage as the result of the overuse of common resources, Freudenburg concludes that there is disproportionality - inequalities in the production of environmental harms - in environment-economic relationships. Looking at toxic releases by facilities in the U.S., Freudenburg found that the majority of industrial facilities are not free-riding when it comes to environmental pollution. Instead, most pollution comes from a relatively small number of facilities. Other analyses have also found disproportionality in environmental degradation. In their recent book Super Polluters, Don Grant and colleagues discuss hyperpolluters across a range of industries and sectors that are disproportionately responsible for environmental harms, including contributing to climate change.>8 These findings have been replicated with data from households, electrical energy producers, and fossil-fueled power plants in most nations around the world, including the United States. Why does disproportionality matter? Although addressing climate change and other environmental problems can feel overwhelming, given the enormous number of polluters around the world, understanding disproportionality reveals that we could make significant improvements in the quality of the environment if just a small proportion of companies - the worst actors in their industries - reduced their pollution levels.>? Review Sheet: Climate change Key Points e (limate change is a key example of how societies and the environment affect each other. e Different measures of carbon emissions highlight different relationships. Per capita emissions focus on inequality and how much carbon is produced by each person in a Page 21
Environmental Sociology (Fall 2020 Edition) country. Emissions per unit of GDP measure how much carbon a nation produces for the value it creates in its economy. Total emissions allow us to see our overall impact on the atmosphere. Scientists agree that we should limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius to avoid devastating impacts on societies around the world. We are not currently on track to stay within this limit. To reduce climate change, societies could follow a number of pathways, focuses more on reducing use of fossil fuels (to limit emissions of carbon) or relying on technologies to remove carbon after it’s released. While countries signed on to the Paris Agreement, it does not enforce any specific limits on carbon emissions or commit nations to reducing carbon emissions. Climate denial involves intentionally spreading misinformation so people are unsure about the severity of climate change or whether humans cause it. Climate change represents a tragedy of the commons, as every nation has access to the atmosphere and releases carbon, even though the overall result hurts everyone. A small group of hyperpolluters in any industry are often responsible for a large proportion of all pollution. Key People Garrett Hardin William Freudenburg Don Grant Key Terms Climate change - Warming of the Earth and increases in extreme weather events) Total emissions - How much carbon we add to the atmosphere. Per capita emissions - Carbon emissions per person. Commons - Resource available to everyone. Emissions per unit of GDP - Eco-efficiency, or carbon emitted to create economic value. Paris Agreement - Global agreement to take steps to address climate change. 1.5 degrees Celsius - Scientific consensus of amount of global warming societies can adapt to. Desertification - Land turns into desert. Climate denial - Intentionally promoting scientific misinformation about climate change. Echo chamber - Ideologically similar groups who amplify and distort climate misinformation. Tragedy of the commons - Since everyone has access to the common resource, individual people may act selfishly and use too much of it. Disproportionality - Inequalities in the production of environmental harms. Hyperpolluters - Those disproportionately responsible for environmental harms. Page 22
Environmental Sociology (Fall 2020 Edition) ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE [ What is the relationship between the environmental movement and the environmental justice movement? How are they different? [J What have sociologists learned from studying these different movements? While corporations continue to pollute and create climate misinformation designed to confuse the public and support policymakers who are funded by the fossil fuel industry, social movements have emerged to respond to these challenges. On April 22, 2020, the world commemorated the 50th anniversary of Earth Day. The original event, held in 1970, turned out 20 million Americans to protest environmental pollution and celebrate the planet,%® and the anniversary event was expected to engage people across the U.S. and around the world in teach- ins, climate strikes, and concerts. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic the in-person event was converted into a digital event coordinated by local leaders on every continent (for a map, visit the Earth Day website). (S;;ce) | As we discussed, environmental sociology emerged during the 1970s after the first Earth Day, when the environmental movement become very active in the U.S. Research on social movements discusses the diverse tactics that groups and individuals use to pressure economic and political actors from both inside and outside the system. When social movements work inside the political system, they tend to be much less confrontational than when they work outside it through protests, strikes, and other disruptive tactics. Most contemporary social movements use a combination of insider and outsider tactics to achieve their goals. (For more information on social movements, see the Politics chapter).t! Groups and individuals involved in the environmental movement work inside the political system to pressure businesses and political actors to protect the environment; they lobby elected officials and business representatives, work as shareholders to change the policies of companies, vote for candidates who support stronger environmental policies, buy products that are more environmentally sustainable, and avoid products that are known to damage the environment. They also use tactics that work outside economic and political systems to encourage environmental change. The most common outsider tactic is protest, which can be more or less confrontational. Protests have become very common in the U.S., with some of the largest demonstrations focusing on climate change. Protests frequently have various economic and political targets. For example, the 2017 People’s Page 23
Environmental Sociology (Fall 2020 Edition) Climate March targeted the federal government, pressuring it to rejoin the Paris Agreement and encouraging Congress to pass legislation to reduce carbon emissions. The environmental movement in the United States grew out of efforts to conserve pristine natural areas. With this focus on conservation, rather than protecting people from environmental harms like pollution, it's not surprising that the movement has a history of concentrating on issues of and supported by people with privilege.62 More recently, the environmental justice movement, which focuses on the unequal distribution of environmental harms and environmental goods by race and class, emerged outside of this movement.63 The environmental justice movement has been more focused on the ways that people in low-income communities and communities of color have less access to environmental goods like parks and are disproportionately exposed to environmental bads, like polluted air and water. These groups are frontline communities, those that experience environmental pollution and harm first and most severely. As consensus has grown that climate change is one of the most pressing problems of our time, social movements have focused on mobilizing activists around this particular issue. New social movement organizations have been formed to focus on climate change. One of the most well-known is the U.S. Climate Action Network (the U.S. branch of an international network of activists), which was founded in 2006 and coordinates a large network of local groups that work to support the U.S. in meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement.®* More recently, Sunrise Movement, formed in 2017 to build “an army of young people to make climate change an urgent priority across America, end the corrupting influence of fossil fuel executives on our politics, and elect leaders who stand up for the health and wellbeing of all people,”¢> gained national notoriety for occupying House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office in 2018 to demand that Congress pass a Green New Deal, an environmental priority of newly-elected Congressional Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. At the same time, many environmental groups that have been around for decades have shifted much of their attention to climate change. For example, one of the oldest environmental groups in the U.S,, the Sierra Club, started their Beyond Coal campaign in 2002. The goal of the campaign is to replace coal, the most carbon-intensive of all fossil fuels, “with clean energy by mobilizing grassroots activists around the country to advocate for the retirement of coal plants and to prevent new coal plants from being built.”¢¢ As of the summer of 2020, the campaign reported that it had helped lead to the retirement of over half of all coal-burning power plants in the United States. Activists working to fight climate change and the various groups that coordinate their efforts have also integrated the notion of justice into their efforts. As the world responded to the murder of George Floyd by a police officer in Minneapolis in May 2020 with protests across the U.S., conservation and climate-focused groups called for solidarity with the protesters and their concerns. For example, Sunrise Movement encouraged its network of thousands of members to join the Black Lives Matter movement in their protests against systemic racism and police brutality.6? Even with these recent efforts, conflicts still exist. The protests against systemic racism led many organizations and institutions to consider how they are contributing to the problem. A number of environmental groups were pressured to reflect on their pasts and address inequities in their Page 24
Environmental Sociology (Fall 2020 Edition) leadership and membership. The Sierra Club, for example, has reflected on the fact that its founder, John Muir, was a noted racist,%® while the Union of Concerned Scientists was pressured to think about how it has treated its Black workers over the years.6? Youth climate strikes On August 20, 2018, Greta Thunberg participated in the first-ever climate strike. Inspired by the national school walkout against gun violence in the U.S. that was organized after the Parkland School Shooting in Florida, the 15-year-old decided to spend her Fridays sitting with a handwritten sign in front of the Swedish parliament. Since that Friday in 2018, Fridays for Future - the group coordinating this tactic of skipping school on Fridays to protest inaction on climate change - has spread around the world. In March 2019, the first global climate strike took place, with more than 1 million people around the world taking part. Six months later, in September 2019, young people and adults responded to a call by young activists to participate in climate strikes as part of the Global Week for Future surrounding the United Nations Climate Action Summit; the number of participants jumped to an estimated 7.6 million people globally (Figure 6).7° Figure 6: Growth in Global Climate Strike Participation, 2018-2019 Countries Participating Individuals Participating 000 - 00 5000 4000 1C] 19 Source: Fridays for Future public data In early 2020, organizers of this movement were planning for even larger strikes and demonstrations throughout the year. However, with the global spread of COVID-19 and the enforcement of social distancing, climate activists called off the in-person protests and moved their activism online.”! In April 2020, as part of the celebration of the 50th anniversary of Earth Day, the organizers for the climate strike hosted a 3-day digital event called Earth Day Live.”? As part of the event, they encouraged activists to participate in numerous activities including virtual protests, tweet storms, hashtag activism targeting specific corporations, and posting selfies with signs. Page 25
Environmental Sociology (Fall 2020 Edition) The aim of the digital strike was to maintain the momentum of the movement while in-person activism was seen as too dangerous due to the pandemic. Although digital activism makes it easier to connect with people in different locations, it’s unclear how these changes will affect the youth climate movement. Organizers and activists in this movement report that their environmental activism is directly connected to issues of equity and racial justice. Now that many young people in the youth climate movement have participated in in-person protests in support of Black Lives Matter, it’s likely that the climate strikers will go back into the streets even during the pandemic. In fact, the next global climate strike has been called for September 25t, 2020.73 CONCLUSION In this chapter, we discussed how sociologists think about the relationship between society and the natural environment, the questions they ask, and what their research tells us about some of the most pressing issues of our time. Although the field of environmental sociology emerged relatively recently, especially compared to other areas of sociology, there’s no doubt that its importance will grow as the interactions between social change and environmental change become increasingly apparent. We have only discussed a small number of environmental issues in this chapter, but the relationship between societal development and environmental degradation contributes to numerous environmental problems that are interrelated, including water depletion, sea level rise, and threats to biodiversity around the world. Sociologists can help us understand the complex relationship between society and the environment, looking at how our communities can protect the environment so people grow up with clean air and water and green space to explore, as well as how battles at the local, state, national, and international levels over access to environmental goods and where to locate environmental bads are fought and resolved in environmentally sustainable and socially equitable ways. Although some people think of the environment as outside of society and unconnected to how society functions, one of the main goals for this chapter was to highlight the clear connections between society and the environment. As the conjoint constitution stresses, society has an effect on the quality of the natural environment; environmental change, in terms of environmental degradation and protection, also has a clear effect on the quality and scope of society.”* Decisions about how to treat the environment or respond to the unintended consequences of societal development are not made in a vacuum; they are the outcome of configurations of social actors from the government, the economy, and the public who compete to have their perspectives heard and negotiate actively for a successful outcome. We hope this chapter helps you think in a more sociological way about environmental change, environmental problems, and environmental solutions. Another goal of this chapter has been to stress the role that environmental sociology can and will play more broadly in the future. While environmental sociology is a relatively young field, it has Page 26
Environmental Sociology (Fall 2020 Edition) grown very quickly. At the same time that interest in environmental sociology has expanded within sociology, programs in environmental studies and sustainability studies have also grown worldwide. In many of these programs, environmental sociology courses are considered foundational parts of the curriculum. Besides the growing presence of environmental sociology in higher education and published research both within and outside of sociology, environmental sociology has experienced a growing presence in policy. Within the U.S,, sociological studies have influenced decisions at the Environmental Protection Agency and efforts of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which coordinates research on climate and other environmental changes. Environmental sociology is also increasingly present at the international level, where researchers contribute to policy discussions and to international scientific assessments, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Review Sheet: Environmental movements and environmental justice & conclusion Key Points e Inrecentyears, social movements have introduced protest campaigns to bring more attention to climate change. Participation has grown rapidly. e Activists use a mixture of insider and outsider tactics to influence government environmental policy. e Environmental justice activists emphasize that race, ethnicity, and class affect who experiences the most severe effects of environmental degradation. e Young activists have been at the center of recent climate change movements. e Environmental sociologists continue to influence government policy by studying how societies and the natural environment affect each other and how environmental destruction will impact different communities and nations. Key People e Greta Thunberg Key Terms e Earth Day - Annual event to protest environmental pollution and celebrate the planet. e Environmental justice movement - Focuses on the unequal distribution of environmental harms and environmental goods by race and class. ¢ Frontline communities - Those that experience environmental pollution and harm first and most severely. e Fridays for Future - Group coordinating tactic of skipping school on Fridays to protest inaction on climate change. Page 27