Adams, Emily C. Lyon, Christopher. Hughes, Sara. Frontiers in Climate. (2021, September 6). 3 Challenges, 3 Errors, and 3 Solutions to Integrate Frontline Communities in Climate Change Policy and Research: Lessons From California.
Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fclim.2021.717554/full
This article discusses the challenges and solutions regarding the underrepresentation and unawareness of environmental injustice, as well as the unequal access to common resources. The article is organized into three sections, discussing challenges, errors, and solutions to these issues in California. The article criticizes certain California policies that contribute to environmental injustice, one being providing English-only plans in communities of non-English speakers. However, the article also presents several solutions, some being partnerships between climate scientists and underrepresented communities to ensure more communication, physical barrier construction focused on supporting communities of color, and proposals for new projects that would benefit the environment for communities who need it. The article’s main theme suggests that California’s policies and communication systems about the environment towards marginalized and underrepresented communities are flawed, thus hurting those communities and causing confusion and underpreparedness for environmental issues.
I was pleasantly surprised that this article provided specific steps for solutions towards environmental equity. Normally, articles simply discuss the many environmental injustices that occur in our communities, and fail to provide specific enough solutions that we can implement to help those communities. I also thought it was very helpful that the article was organized in such a way where there was a clear distinction between the challenges, errors, and solutions. This made the article easy to navigate and understand, and it was also not as overwhelming to read. Furthermore, the article included many citations to back up the evidence provided, thus can be considered credible. Overall, I am in favor of this article as it was helpful, concise, organized, and easy to comprehend.
Even before reading your well put follow up paragraph, I was thinking the same thing. Sounds like this article was focused on action and solutions. I remember working in San Francisco and being in an area where it really wasn’t safe to eat fish caught from the Bay. The big warning signs were all in English and then there were tiny one in other languages. Like really tiny. I think that’s the kind of thing this article is referring to. Did the article give you the sense that things were improving? I would like to think that we are getting better at this… especially in CA. But I can be a little too optimistic at times. And what do you think? Is this issue something that happens at the local level, or does it begin with CA law? (Excellent post, btw.)