Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome back to Drilled. I'm Amie Westervelt. This season,
Speaker 1: we are going through the book Climate Obstruction, a Global Assessment.
Speaker 1: You know that sounds very dry, but every chapter compiles
Speaker 1: all of the peer reviewed research on climate instruction of
Speaker 1: some kind or another. So we have gone through lots
Speaker 1: of examples. We've looked at media and the pr industry,
Speaker 1: and the psychology of misinformation and how this works at
Speaker 1: the local level and the global level, and what different
Speaker 1: industries do in particular, and how this shows up even
Speaker 1: in the UNF Triple C and COP and the IPCC
Speaker 1: and all of that. And today we are looking at
Speaker 1: how it shows up around adaptation. So this is really
Speaker 1: interesting to me because actually the bulk of the research
Speaker 1: on climate obstruction has really looked at how different industries
Speaker 1: and actors have blocked climate policy that gets at mitigation,
Speaker 1: so reducing emissions, getting off of fossil fuels, transitioning away
Speaker 1: from the things that generate greenhouse gas emissions. Adaptation refers
Speaker 1: to things like building sea walls, or feeding cows, seaweed,
Speaker 1: or any number of other things that people are looking
Speaker 1: at as ways that we can deal with the climate
Speaker 1: impacts that are already baked in, so whether it is
Speaker 1: moving people out of harm's way or it is building
Speaker 1: adaptations things like that, a lot of people are looking
Speaker 1: at how to protect communities from the extreme weather events
Speaker 1: that we know are coming no matter what. And you
Speaker 1: would think that that would be kind of a non
Speaker 1: controversial form of climate action, that you know, no matter
Speaker 1: what your disagreements might be about what's causing this problem
Speaker 1: or how to stop it, that shure, you would want
Speaker 1: to protect your community from severe weather events, fires, storms, floods,
Speaker 1: what have you. But in fact, no, there is obstruction
Speaker 1: happening at the adaptation level as well. So there is
Speaker 1: work that is going against efforts to make communities resilient
Speaker 1: to climate change as well. And today we are looking at.
Speaker 1: Those joining me to do that are Laura cule from
Speaker 1: Northeastern University and STACYN. Robinson from Emory University. They're going
Speaker 1: to walk us through what the research said so far
Speaker 1: and why there hasn't really been enough research on this
Speaker 1: subject as well. That's coming up after this quick break.
Speaker 2: I'm Laura Coole, and I'm associate professor in the School
Speaker 2: of Public Policy at Urban Affairs and the International Affairs
Speaker 2: Program at Northeastern University.
Speaker 3: I'm Staysan Robinson, Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences in the
Speaker 3: Department of Environmental Sciences at Emory University, which is in Atlanta.
Speaker 3: My research focuses primarily on climate adaptation and small eyelines.
Speaker 1: I have to say, I was like so excited when
Speaker 1: I read your chapter because it was shocking to me.
Speaker 1: There's been really way less research on obstruction of climate
Speaker 1: adaptation than climate mitigation. And it's one of those things
Speaker 1: where like I hadn't thought about it until I read that,
Speaker 1: and then I was like, oh my god. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: so obviously out of scale. So I would like to
Speaker 1: start there and have you guys kind of lay that
Speaker 1: out a little bit and also talk about why there's
Speaker 1: less attention paid to the obstruction efforts there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, just to get us started. This was
Speaker 2: a challenging chapter to write because we were trying to
Speaker 2: synthesize literature that really, honestly doesn't yet exist in this framework.
Speaker 2: And so we really see this chapter as kind of
Speaker 2: a first effort to explore this topic and hopefully it
Speaker 2: will pave the path forward for more research and exploration
Speaker 2: on obstruction for adaptation. But we were really struck by that.
Speaker 2: We thought there was some potential here, but really nobody
Speaker 2: had been talking about it yet, so I wanted to
Speaker 2: try it up.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's a great point, Lauren, but we're happy to
Speaker 3: hear amy that you were surprised that there isn't much
Speaker 3: out there on adaptation obstruction. And when we think of
Speaker 3: climate obstruction, before we got into writing this chapter, we
Speaker 3: just imagine ourselves and other people imagining that this is
Speaker 3: really probably more focused on reducing d missions or blocking
Speaker 3: actions that would reduce DCH missions. So that's what comes
Speaker 3: to mind when people think about climate obstruction. But we're
Speaker 3: happy to to put a focus on adaptation because we
Speaker 3: feel that, you know, an emphasis on investigating how communities
Speaker 3: are just the flood in or heat or sea level rise,
Speaker 3: that these actions can also be obstructed. So it's good
Speaker 3: to have some of that attention on this topic that
Speaker 3: we and our CO office feel is very important.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So when we're talking about obstructing climate adaptation, what
Speaker 1: kinds of things are being obstructed and then what are
Speaker 1: the different actors that are doing the obstructing.
Speaker 2: So this is I think part of why it's a
Speaker 2: little bit tricky because unlike mitigation where there's kind of
Speaker 2: a clear sort of object for what would be obstructed.
Speaker 2: We're obstructing reducing fossil fuel emissions, and so who benefits
Speaker 2: from that From the existing status quo is pretty obvious,
Speaker 2: it's fossil fuel companies and their associated interests. When we
Speaker 2: start to think about adaptation, it becomes much more complex
Speaker 2: because there are lots of different actors engaged in adaptation
Speaker 2: and there's lots of different ways that it benefits them.
Speaker 2: So one of the ways that we kind of approached
Speaker 2: it in this chapter was to think about who is
Speaker 2: benefiting from the status quo, whose sort of existing power
Speaker 2: would be disrupted by adaptation actions, and kind of follow
Speaker 2: those threads to think about who might be doing the obstructing.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and when we're thinking about it in that way,
Speaker 3: it becomes easier to identify, you know, these actors and
Speaker 3: their alliances, etc. So some of the examples that we
Speaker 3: give in the chapter include real estate developers who might
Speaker 3: oppose zoning or building codes that limit coastal construction from
Speaker 3: a small island. You know, I'm always focused on tourism,
Speaker 3: so it was good that some of our co authors
Speaker 3: could bring in some tourism examples where tourism operators are
Speaker 3: resisting restrictions to be trund development. But even national governments
Speaker 3: oftentimes they are able to sideline adaptation in favor of
Speaker 3: other priorities. But one of the things that we try
Speaker 3: to emphasize is that when this is in defense of
Speaker 3: the lead and their objectives and their priorities, and that's
Speaker 3: what we call obstructure.
Speaker 1: Okay, so you talked about obstruction, barriers and resistance in
Speaker 1: the chapter, and I think this is really important, right
Speaker 1: because there are some community groups that might be opposed
Speaker 1: to an adaptation measure for some reason or another two
Speaker 1: And like where do we draw the line between an
Speaker 1: organized obstruction effort and like a community resistance thing that's
Speaker 1: going on. So yeah, I'd love to have you guys
Speaker 1: define those terms and then talk about how you navigate
Speaker 1: these great areas between them.
Speaker 3: Well, I think this is perhaps like one of the
Speaker 3: bigger contributions of our chapter, you know, conceptually trying to
Speaker 3: detangle these string terms, and believe me, it was challenging
Speaker 3: righting it in this way. But one of the things
Speaker 3: that we want to get across is that the concept
Speaker 3: of adaptation barrier is almost well defined in the adaptation literature,
Speaker 3: and when we think of an adaptation barrier, we're thinking
Speaker 3: about things like natural, technological, economic, social, or even institutional
Speaker 3: impediments to adaptation. So one of the most common examples
Speaker 3: is the lack of funding or limited funding or institutional
Speaker 3: luck in and these are the things that work to
Speaker 3: prevent the adjustment to new and expected climate realities. But
Speaker 3: one of the key differences with adaptation barriers is that
Speaker 3: they can be overcome. Right, if there's enough political will,
Speaker 3: you can do it. But the confusion, as from our perspective,
Speaker 3: arises when the term barriers is used as an excuse
Speaker 3: to limit action and adaptation, making it sound impossible, which
Speaker 3: is not right. In many cases, it's actually the interests
Speaker 3: of powerful actors that make adaptation more challenging. And for
Speaker 3: this reason, we think it's really helpful to draw like
Speaker 3: clear distinctions between the barriers that actors are in good
Speaker 3: faith working to overcome and resist dunce and obstruction. I
Speaker 3: don't know if Laura wants to take it over from there,
Speaker 3: you know, explain and how we're thinking about resist dunce
Speaker 3: and obstruction.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so just kind of building on that, we see
Speaker 2: kind of resistance as this broad category of sort of
Speaker 2: pushing back against adaptation action. And one of the things
Speaker 2: that we really struggled with, as you mentioned and kind
Speaker 2: of your introduction to this question, is that sometimes that
Speaker 2: can come from grassroots community groups or local organizations, and
Speaker 2: it might be from the very people or communities that
Speaker 2: are intended to benefit from adaptation, or it might be
Speaker 2: from elite actors or powerful groups that are trying to
Speaker 2: block adaptation. And those are pretty fundamentally different reasons for
Speaker 2: resisting adaptation action, and so we really wanted to sort
Speaker 2: of tease that apart, and to do that throughout the chapter.
Speaker 2: What we relied on, which was really helpful for our thinking,
Speaker 2: was a framework that we developed along with a number
Speaker 2: of the other co authors of this chapter, for thinking
Speaker 2: about justice and power in local adaptation. And so it's
Speaker 2: a paper on promises and pitfalls of locally led adaptation
Speaker 2: that's gotten quite a bit of attention in the adaptation space,
Speaker 2: but we also found it really helpful for thinking about
Speaker 2: teasing apart this distinction between resistance and obstruction. So, for us,
Speaker 2: obstruction is when power flactors are blocking adaptation, and resistance
Speaker 2: is when sort of our local groups are perhaps blocking
Speaker 2: or resisting an adaptation strategy that would lead to greater injustices.
Speaker 2: Got it.
Speaker 1: That's a nice simple way to think of it. Okay,
Speaker 1: So I want to talk about how this shows up
Speaker 1: in the IPCC.
Speaker 3: Well, I think for us, you know, laarnet or work
Speaker 3: is multi scale. So even though we focus on adaptation,
Speaker 3: we look at adaptation at the local level, at the
Speaker 3: national level, supernational, and at the global level. So when
Speaker 3: we're thinking about ways in which adaptation obstruction might show
Speaker 3: up at the global level, the two first cases that
Speaker 3: came to mind where the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel and
Speaker 3: Climate Change and the Unit Triple C the United Nations
Speaker 3: Framework Convention on Climate Change. So perhaps a little bit
Speaker 3: of background on the IPCC. It's that un organization that's
Speaker 3: really responsible for synthesizing the state of climate science, right.
Speaker 3: So it came about from you know, basically a project
Speaker 3: of the United Nations Environment Program and the World Lotroological Organization,
Speaker 3: and every five to seven years they put out like
Speaker 3: a big climate assessment, like here's what we need to
Speaker 3: know about the status of climate science. But one of
Speaker 3: the things that I think many people don't realize is
Speaker 3: that the eye in the IPCC does a lot of
Speaker 3: heavy lifting.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: It's the inter governmental body, right, not just an international body,
Speaker 3: which means that it's actually the countries that are the
Speaker 3: member states and the IPCC. And then you can think
Speaker 3: about just the very interests across various countries and how
Speaker 3: they can come together to really acknowledge, you know, the
Speaker 3: state of climate science. So when we were looking at
Speaker 3: the IPCC, we were thinking, essentially whole obstruction shows up
Speaker 3: for adaptation is a sidelining of knowledge in one of
Speaker 3: the ways is one of the ways where you know,
Speaker 3: powerful actors, and here we're thinking about countries primarily control
Speaker 3: action and adaptation. So as a pre eminent authority on
Speaker 3: climate science, we feel that this matters. But one of
Speaker 3: the things that we tried to do in the chapter
Speaker 3: was to look back at the previous assessment reports. Right now,
Speaker 3: the seventh assessment cycle just got started last year, so
Speaker 3: we've had six of these assessment reports. And one of
Speaker 3: the things that we notice is that, well, there isn't
Speaker 3: much dedicated focus on adaptation, right, And here we're thinking
Speaker 3: about dedicated chapters as there are for mitigation, and there's
Speaker 3: a whole working group on mitigation right, And within Working
Speaker 3: Group two, yes there's a focus on adaptation, but this
Speaker 3: has to be balanced with other folk I right, so
Speaker 3: impacts on vulnerability as well. So you have instances where
Speaker 3: member states block adaptation related findings because the assessment reports
Speaker 3: must go through line by line government approval, and I
Speaker 3: think that's one thing that's not really immediately obvious. And
Speaker 3: another way that this shows up is just the composition
Speaker 3: of authors, because over the years we've seen where a
Speaker 3: majority of the authors are from global North countries, and
Speaker 3: you know, many global North countries are not grappling with
Speaker 3: some of the impacts that global stealth countries are grappling with,
Speaker 3: so it's just not reflected in the assessment report. So
Speaker 3: those were I think the three things that we kind
Speaker 3: of grappled with in the platform.
Speaker 1: One of the things I thought was interesting in the
Speaker 1: most recent report, and you mentioned this in the chapter two,
Speaker 1: was the discussion of maladaptive things too. But I guess
Speaker 1: it's again to your point, It's true that I don't
Speaker 1: feel like I see as much about effective adaptation as
Speaker 1: I do about maladaptives in the report, which is like
Speaker 1: kind of an obstructive thing in its own way. I
Speaker 1: don't know, it's interesting.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, we don't cover this in a lot
Speaker 2: of depth, but there's been some really interesting work coming
Speaker 2: out recently thinking about actually how critical adaptation scholarship is
Speaker 2: perhaps acting almost as obstruction of adaptation action, or that
Speaker 2: could be an intervertent outcome er. It's particularly concerns that
Speaker 2: kind of these acknowledgments of the ways that adaptation hasn't
Speaker 2: always been successful might be blocking particularly flows of adaptation finance.
Speaker 2: And so I think it's kind of a critical moment
Speaker 2: for adaptation scholarship to be sort of reflecting, especially when
Speaker 2: we're in this sort of critical moment for climate finance
Speaker 2: in general and development finance where there's I think a
Speaker 2: lot of soul searching of kind of how best to
Speaker 2: move forward given kind of the pullback of donors, And
Speaker 2: is some of that scholarship actually contributing to those narratives
Speaker 2: around the lack of effectiveness of that funding.
Speaker 1: It makes me wonder too, because we're working on this
Speaker 1: other project where we're doing a big, like a long
Speaker 1: investigation into research funding and like how it tilts the
Speaker 1: scales in different directions, right, and like there's so much
Speaker 1: in the research realm around technological adaptation like you know,
Speaker 1: carbon capture, geoengineering, all that stuff, and then somewhat on
Speaker 1: the problems with those things do, but there's not a
Speaker 1: lot on like community adaptation efforts and what's working, what
Speaker 1: is in and all of that stuff.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I mean, I think part of that comes
Speaker 2: back to one of these fundamental power imbalances that we
Speaker 2: talk about throughout the chapter, of the difference between kind
Speaker 2: of the priorities of the global north on mitigation and
Speaker 2: the fact that adaptation, while obviously issues that affect everywhere
Speaker 2: in the world, does affect the most vulnerable the most
Speaker 2: and so we see that playing out in terms of policy,
Speaker 2: but also in terms of scholarship and funding for where
Speaker 2: the emphasis has been You.
Speaker 1: Mentioned the UNF Triple C, and you know, we have
Speaker 1: got another COP coming up, so I'm curious to have
Speaker 1: you guys talk about how it shows up there too,
Speaker 1: and especially how it might differ from maybe how it
Speaker 1: shows up in the IPCC.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think in our analysis these two are
Speaker 2: pretty tightly connected, the ways it shows up in the
Speaker 2: IPCC and the UNF Triple C, especially because of the
Speaker 2: ways that the findings from the IPCC feed into the
Speaker 2: UNF Triple C process. But it's pretty obvious if you
Speaker 2: look at the history of the UNF Triple C how
Speaker 2: sidelined adaptation has really been and when we think about
Speaker 2: what that means in terms of obstruction, if it's not
Speaker 2: on the radar for action, then it's effectively being left
Speaker 2: off the agenda. And so the Kyoto Protocol mentioned adaptation
Speaker 2: but really didn't have any concrete actions associated with that.
Speaker 2: It was very much a mitigation focused agreement, and we've
Speaker 2: seen that shifting over time. There's certainly more attention. The
Speaker 2: Paris Agreement sort of made statements that these should be
Speaker 2: equal priorities, mitigation and adaptation, but sort of current negotiations
Speaker 2: are still trying to figure out exactly how we're measuring
Speaker 2: a global goal on adaptation, and so we're still kind
Speaker 2: of grappling with some pretty basic questions at the international
Speaker 2: level of how we're prioritizing adaptation.
Speaker 3: Well, just to add to that, it may find me
Speaker 3: like one of the metrics that we use is how
Speaker 3: much space is it taken up? How much space is
Speaker 3: it allowed. So that's why within the context of the IPCC,
Speaker 3: we can look back at the Assessment report, how many chapters.
Speaker 3: Is adaptation a focus of right and the same thing
Speaker 3: for the multilateral agreements that come out of the unetriple
Speaker 3: C Right. As Laura mentioned, within the original Framework Agreement,
Speaker 3: there are only you know, a few references to adaptation,
Speaker 3: and in fact, the article that outligns the objective of
Speaker 3: the convention clearly states that it's for the purpose of
Speaker 3: stabilizing GHG emissions.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: So this is like a sharp shift to the Paris
Speaker 3: Agreement where adaptation has its own article. Right, So there's
Speaker 3: dedicated attention. I mean, as adaptation scholars would love to
Speaker 3: see more attention, but we have to recognize that we've
Speaker 3: gone from a situation where we had like a few
Speaker 3: scattered references to a dedicated article on adaptation. So we're
Speaker 3: willing to acknowledge that there's progress, right because it's now
Speaker 3: taken up more space, But we'd like it to take
Speaker 3: up more space just because of how critical the issues
Speaker 3: are for you know, countries, especially those in the global self.
Speaker 1: That's a great point and interesting to keep an eye on. Okay,
Speaker 1: so we kind of touched on this talking about funding
Speaker 1: of research, but you get into a broader conversation about
Speaker 1: how donors obstruct and otherwise influence adaptation approaches, And I'd
Speaker 1: like to have you guys unpack that a little bit.
Speaker 1: Who are these donors? What are they doing?
Speaker 2: Yeah, so, I mean our focus on donors is really
Speaker 2: driven by kind of this overarching framework of thinking about
Speaker 2: who are the powerful actors that have an interest in
Speaker 2: shaping adaptation and therefore, if they're powerful, what might they
Speaker 2: be doing to obstruct And donors are a really interesting
Speaker 2: example that we explore in the chapter because they're very
Speaker 2: clearly powerful in the context of kind of adaptation. They're
Speaker 2: providing the funding and the resources to implement adaptation actions,
Speaker 2: and so it makes sense to look at how they
Speaker 2: might be shaping the agenda and what they might be
Speaker 2: supporting or not supporting. It's also a really interesting example
Speaker 2: because it really shows how complex this issue of obstruction
Speaker 2: is in the context of adaptation. These are actors who
Speaker 2: are supporting adaptation, they're funding it, and yet we still
Speaker 2: can see the ways that the power that they have
Speaker 2: is shaping what types of adaptation receives support, whose adaptation
Speaker 2: gets supported, who's getting ignored or left off, And so
Speaker 2: we're really thinking about kind of not just adaptation as
Speaker 2: a whole, but the specific ways that adaptation gets implemented
Speaker 2: on the ground when we're thinking about obstruction in this context.
Speaker 3: Well, if I could just add quickly and this this
Speaker 3: is the point that Laura raised earlier, but I think
Speaker 3: it's worth like emphasizing. It's also about the volume of flows. Right,
Speaker 3: So adaptation currently accounts for ten, maybe depending on the source,
Speaker 3: of the twenty percent of all climate finance flows. Right,
Speaker 3: that's a really small percentage of a pie that's already small,
Speaker 3: you know, for all intents and purposes. So one of
Speaker 3: the ways that the international community can signal their support
Speaker 3: for adaptation is increasing the flows the adaptation. And Laura
Speaker 3: has some really great work on the Green Climate Fund.
Speaker 3: I don't know she wants to just mention that in passing,
Speaker 3: because we weren't able to get into a lot of
Speaker 3: the you know, nitte gritted details in the chapters, but
Speaker 3: we do have some great evidence and I think that
Speaker 3: could help answer your question about who are these donors anyway,
Speaker 3: And you know, one of the donors that we focus on,
Speaker 3: I mean, donors do pass money through the dcs, so
Speaker 3: technically we're not thinking about it as a donor, but
Speaker 3: you know, just the facilitator of adaptation flows.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, we're really interested in the ways that
Speaker 2: these kind of power dynamics are shaping who's who gets
Speaker 2: to make decisions about adaptation, and so we see that
Speaker 2: that often can be sort of UN Climate funds, which,
Speaker 2: as Stace was just mentioning, the Green Climate Fund is
Speaker 2: the largest of the funds under the UN Framework Convention
Speaker 2: on Climate Change. But we're also thinking about sort of
Speaker 2: bilateral donors. Until very recently, USAID as a major player
Speaker 2: in kind of an adaptation space, and perhaps in some
Speaker 2: ways some of the ways that those power dynamics and
Speaker 2: obstruction play out are most with bilateral donors, because we're
Speaker 2: very attuned to the fact that those are political relationships
Speaker 2: between donors and recipient countries, and that there's a lot
Speaker 2: of interests of donors that are shaping the types of
Speaker 2: investments that they're willing to make and what they might
Speaker 2: not be willing to support. But what some of the
Speaker 2: research that I've done and done with colleagues, many of
Speaker 2: whom are authors on this chapter, is really also thinking
Speaker 2: about even in these kind of seemingly neutral spaces like
Speaker 2: the Green Climate Fund, where it's a technocratic process of
Speaker 2: writing proposals, and that the investment criteria and the narratives
Speaker 2: that are acceptable in these international frameworks play a really
Speaker 2: important role in shaping what kinds of adaptation is acceptable.
Speaker 2: And therefore, what we're arguing here is that that obstructs
Speaker 2: other types of adaptation that might not fit the logic
Speaker 2: of these funders. Even though it's still funding adaptation, there
Speaker 2: are still things that are being left out.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that makes sense. And again it's like that whole
Speaker 1: systemic global North domination all the way down that's really
Speaker 1: keeping stuff out. Interesting. All right, So you talk about
Speaker 1: these three types of obstruction, I want to kind of
Speaker 1: like go through each of them and have you explain
Speaker 1: what they are and maybe give an example. So the
Speaker 1: first one you talk about is obstruction through decision making
Speaker 1: or what you describe as direct conflict. So what is
Speaker 1: this type of obstruction and how does it kind of
Speaker 1: show up?
Speaker 3: Thanks for the question, Amy, you know, just to emphasize
Speaker 3: again that you know, this typology of adaptation obstruction that
Speaker 3: we're able to develop was really based on that earlier
Speaker 3: article that we wrote upbout locally led adaptation. So one
Speaker 3: of the types of obstruction that we're able to identify
Speaker 3: was the obstruction through decision making or direct conflict, right,
Speaker 3: And you know, since we've been in this conversation, you've
Speaker 3: heard us use the word power and powerful, you know,
Speaker 3: very often. And this is like a defining feature of
Speaker 3: adaptation obstruction because within this context, sometimes powerful actors actively
Speaker 3: work to obstruct adaptation strategy. So you know, this can
Speaker 3: happen via exploitation or exclusion or dehumanization. And when this happens,
Speaker 3: you know, marginalized groups lose options as the adaptation intervention
Speaker 3: is designed for elites and not for the most vulnerable countries.
Speaker 3: So that's what we you know, mean when we say,
Speaker 3: you know, obstruction through decision making or direct conflict. And
Speaker 3: within the chapter we give some examples. We have a
Speaker 3: great example from Fiji where you know Manager Tree, it
Speaker 3: has displaced marginalized groups and sometimes it's in favor of
Speaker 3: elite investment interest. We also have a great example from
Speaker 3: the Mohawk community in Canada where there were instances where
Speaker 3: it was difficult for them to relocate despite flooding because
Speaker 3: they lack legal land rights. So we see this constant,
Speaker 3: you know, dispossession of the most vulnerable people in our
Speaker 3: two examples. We have, you know, coastal communities in Fiji,
Speaker 3: and we have indigenous communities in Canada.
Speaker 1: Super interesting, Okay, So let's talk about the next one,
Speaker 1: obstruction through non decision making. So agenda setting. How does
Speaker 1: this happen? How does it show up?
Speaker 2: Yeah, so we argue, and we've kind of talked about
Speaker 2: agenda setting throughout this conversation, but we're really arguing that
Speaker 2: even when this obstruction isn't as direct as in the
Speaker 2: previous examples, prioritizing the needs of some actors over the
Speaker 2: interests of others acts to obstruct certain types of adaptation.
Speaker 2: So the conversation around donor priorities would be part of
Speaker 2: that agenda setting type of obstruction. But when a couple
Speaker 2: other examples that we talk about in a chapter include
Speaker 2: the ways that urban elites might prioritize city adaptation while
Speaker 2: sidelining rural communities and pushing for migration to urban settings
Speaker 2: instead of thinking about adaptation directly in those rural contexts.
Speaker 2: So again it's not so much of a direct kind
Speaker 2: of limiting adaptation for in a specific context, but by
Speaker 2: choosing to prioritize something else, it leaves adaptation off the
Speaker 2: agenda in that ural context. Similarly, going back to the
Speaker 2: small island contexts that Stacey was talking about and the
Speaker 2: last examples, we also see the ways that patroon client
Speaker 2: politics mean that adaptation decisions often reflect really really interest
Speaker 2: instead of vulnerable population needs. And so this sometimes shows
Speaker 2: up a direct conflict, but sometimes it's a lot more subtle,
Speaker 2: just in terms of whose priorities are pushed to the
Speaker 2: top of the agenda.
Speaker 1: Would you put the sort of emphasis on market friendlier
Speaker 1: market based solutions as an example of that type of
Speaker 1: I don't know, like framing of adaptation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we don't actually get into there's not a lot
Speaker 2: of examples of market approaches to adaptation in our chapter,
Speaker 2: but one that we do talk about is around sort
Speaker 2: of water policy and the ways that sort of pricing
Speaker 2: mechanisms for water policy can shift sort of vulnerabilities. And
Speaker 2: while overall it might be addressing concerns about water efficiency
Speaker 2: and increasing drought conditions, it's also an approach that perhaps
Speaker 2: doesn't pay attention to who's going to bear the costs
Speaker 2: and the burdens of that adaptation strategy, and so it
Speaker 2: can actually end up causing more harm and obstructing justice.
Speaker 2: For some actors.
Speaker 1: It makes me think of the abundance thing that we're
Speaker 1: seeing right now, this idea of like framing adapting to
Speaker 1: climate change as I don't know, like as a market
Speaker 1: opportunity and a job creator and this and that and whatever,
Speaker 1: and this like framing of you know, if it's not
Speaker 1: something that does that, then it's bad. So I'm curious
Speaker 1: what you guys think about that. This is like a
Speaker 1: whole I don't know. Maybe you're not as online as
Speaker 1: I am, but I feel like I'm constantly being fed
Speaker 1: abundance bros. Content, and I wonder what you guys think
Speaker 1: of it.
Speaker 2: I'll take a first stab in the passage to you, Stacy,
Speaker 2: But I think this goes back to our fundamental starting
Speaker 2: point of why obstruction for adapt hasn't been recognized for adaptation.
Speaker 2: I think part of that is this kind of sense
Speaker 2: that adaptation is a normative good. And of course we
Speaker 2: all want adaptation and adaptation benefits everybody, but we know,
Speaker 2: particularly as critical adaptation scholars, that it's not that simple.
Speaker 2: We know that at its core, adaptation is about addressing vulnerabilities,
Speaker 2: and vulnerabilities are socially constructed, and they're highly political and
Speaker 2: so adaptation strategies that are attempting to address those vulnerabilities
Speaker 2: are also necessarily necessarily going to be political. And when
Speaker 2: things are political, there are winners and there are losers,
Speaker 2: and so paying attention to who's going to lose matters
Speaker 2: a lot. And particularly when we're thinking about the ways
Speaker 2: that adaptation strategies might be redistributing power or shaping of paradynamics.
Speaker 2: That's exactly why we start to see obstruction for adaptation happening.
Speaker 2: And so for me, the abundance conversation kind of glosses
Speaker 2: over all of that potential conflict.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it assumes that, like there's one type of adaptation
Speaker 1: that's good for everyone and that there's no conflict there
Speaker 1: at all.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Well, it's hard to follow Laura on that, but just
Speaker 3: to emphasize one thing that she said is that adaptation
Speaker 3: is deeply political, right, And I think many people who
Speaker 3: don't study adaptation or just have, you know, our cursory
Speaker 3: interest or understanding of adaptation don't necessarily realize that. But
Speaker 3: Laura and I and maybe even all the authors on
Speaker 3: our chapter, we're very much focused on equity and justice,
Speaker 3: and this is why we could apply our framework that
Speaker 3: intersex power and injustice to really understand adaptation and obstruction you.
Speaker 2: Know a little bit better.
Speaker 3: But one of the things that al is that adaptation
Speaker 3: justice is not just doing more adaptation, right, it's also
Speaker 3: asking those very hard and uncomfortable questions, right, whose interests
Speaker 3: are serve? Who is left behind and in what condition?
Speaker 3: And one of the you know, context in which we
Speaker 3: have this discussion and it gets very lively, is on
Speaker 3: you know, manager treat and coastal relocation, where you know,
Speaker 3: some scholars would probably question why should FEMA, for example,
Speaker 3: keep on rebuilding you know, beachfront properties. But I think
Speaker 3: in many of those instances they don't acknowledge agency of
Speaker 3: these people. And I think as adaptation scholars were very
Speaker 3: focused on people, were very focused on their livelihoods and
Speaker 3: their agency. And this is why a focus on adaptation
Speaker 3: obstructure is really critical because once we are just heavily
Speaker 3: focused on mitigation, where essentially just you know, on the
Speaker 3: score in the interests of the most powerful people. Because
Speaker 3: when you're thinking about mitigation obstruction, perhaps the first thing
Speaker 3: that comes to mind is the oil companies. Right, they're powerful,
Speaker 3: they're rich, you know, but what about the vulnerable communities,
Speaker 3: And this is why we're hoping that our chapter will
Speaker 3: you know, introduce this topic to persons who may not
Speaker 3: have thought about it before, and you know, encourage them
Speaker 3: to explore some of the lines of research that we
Speaker 3: have identified in our chapter.
Speaker 1: It totally did that for me. So focus group of
Speaker 1: one success starting place. That's a good segue actually into
Speaker 1: the third type of obstruction that you talk about, which
Speaker 1: is obstruction through hegemony or ideological control. So what are
Speaker 1: we talking about there? And then I want to talk
Speaker 1: about some of the specific tools that you mentioned that
Speaker 1: come into for ideological control too.
Speaker 3: This is always a big one for us, right because
Speaker 3: you know, here at Emory it environmental policy. I teach
Speaker 3: internet environmental law, and hegemoney is a word that comes
Speaker 3: up a lot, but sometimes it's not easy to understand, right,
Speaker 3: And one of the ways that I try to explain
Speaker 3: it is who's the boss? Right, So a more formal
Speaker 3: definition is where we see powerful groups who are dominating
Speaker 3: or powerful cultures that are dominating and setting their agenda
Speaker 3: or setting the tone, and in this case for adaptation,
Speaker 3: so it's looking at the ways in which that might
Speaker 3: privilege their own interests. So specifically, in terms of adaptation obstruction,
Speaker 3: Hegemoney manifests when marginalized groups are included only in a
Speaker 3: non threatening way, right, in non threatening terms, when they
Speaker 3: internalize their own marginalities. I think the phrase that we
Speaker 3: use in the chapter, and this is really about being
Speaker 3: pushed to the edges of power, or when dominant groups
Speaker 3: exert control through money, resources and cultural authority. So related
Speaker 3: to that, you know, the ideological control is a form
Speaker 3: of obstruction when the ideas and norms the values are
Speaker 3: shaped to support these dominant interests and you know, suppressing
Speaker 3: those alternative or marginalized voices or the visions that those
Speaker 3: persons have for their own adaptation. So in these context,
Speaker 3: adaptation can be co opted and marginalized groups can you
Speaker 3: be excluded in very very subtle ways. But one of
Speaker 3: the things that we try to place emphasis on in
Speaker 3: the chapter is that this really shapes what is seen
Speaker 3: as legitimate adaptation. And that's a point that would really
Speaker 3: want to emphasize because it protects dominant interests and it
Speaker 3: silences the alternatives. So some of the examples that we've
Speaker 3: given the chapter include infrastructure, which was quite interesting for
Speaker 3: us to explore. We've mentioned, for example, coastal developers in Barbados,
Speaker 3: how they obstructed like coastal setback laws to protect beach tourism.
Speaker 3: And we have, i think an example from the US
Speaker 3: Farm Bureau that really long denied climate change right because
Speaker 3: they wanted to love before crop insurance policies that would
Speaker 3: lock farmers into this kind of carbon intensive monoculture. So, Laura,
Speaker 3: I don't know if you have anything to add to that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, I mean, I think you mostly covered it.
Speaker 2: But I think one of the points to emphasize here
Speaker 2: is that these are operating at a systems level that
Speaker 2: they're often not visible, and so a lot of times
Speaker 2: marginalized groups are their actors are complicitly part of the
Speaker 2: substruction because the systems are employe that exert that hegemonic control.
Speaker 2: And so this is I think why it's often hard
Speaker 2: to see adaptation obstruction, because even those actors that might
Speaker 2: be advocating have a more limited view of what might
Speaker 2: be possible because because of the ways that these systems
Speaker 2: of control shape the shape the discourse.
Speaker 1: Okay, you mentioned infrastructure there, and I thought this section
Speaker 1: on infrastructure as a tool of obstruction was so interesting,
Speaker 1: So I want to have you explain what you mean
Speaker 1: by that and how that happens, maybe give an example
Speaker 1: of how it becomes a tool for obstruction.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I think this really builds on a
Speaker 2: long sort of history of literature thinking about the role
Speaker 2: of infrastructure as its relationship with power. Again, and this
Speaker 2: is the themes throughout our chapters, how power is exerted
Speaker 2: and the ways that that infrastructure can be used to
Speaker 2: enable certain priorities to become sort of the top of
Speaker 2: the list and others to be sometimes literally taking off
Speaker 2: the agenda. I think sort of hydro dams and flooding
Speaker 2: is a great example, where you have communities and villages
Speaker 2: that are literally flooded to make way for infrastructure. That's
Speaker 2: a pretty extreme example, but we also have a lot
Speaker 2: more subtle examples of the ways that they can undermine
Speaker 2: indigenous knowledge systems and livelihoods that not only shape what's
Speaker 2: happening now, but limit adaptation options into the future for
Speaker 2: those communities. And so that's kind of a way that
Speaker 2: that infrastructural choices and those investments are exerting kind of control.
Speaker 3: In the chapter we took their approach to infrastructure that's
Speaker 3: more physical, right, So, as Laura mentioned the case of
Speaker 3: the dums or you know, coastal defenses. You know, you
Speaker 3: could also think about it in the context of roads
Speaker 3: and buildings as well. I mean, we do acknowledge that,
Speaker 3: you know, there's quite a bit of literature and soft infrastructure.
Speaker 3: We didn't get a lot into that, but maybe you know,
Speaker 3: we could see information flows as as soft infrastructure as well.
Speaker 3: So that's probably another framing that might be worth discussing
Speaker 3: alongside infrastructure.
Speaker 1: Awesome, And you do mention information itself as a tool
Speaker 1: of obstruction too, so can you talk about what that means?
Speaker 3: Well, I think the flow of information and you know
Speaker 3: the result in disinformation. Misinformation is really a focus of
Speaker 3: the Climate Social Fends network. So all these scholars from
Speaker 3: across the world have come together to really analyze this
Speaker 3: in the context of climate change and any resulting climate denial.
Speaker 3: One of the things that we try to do in
Speaker 3: this chapter is to show how information is a political
Speaker 3: tool and that information can reinforce or hierarchies through One
Speaker 3: example that we gave is scientific uncertainty, where in the
Speaker 3: context of the unit triple C, scientific uncertainty is often
Speaker 3: used as a tool to stall climate policy negotiations so
Speaker 3: we can't do anything about this now because we don't
Speaker 3: know enough, right, and that really ties into concerns about
Speaker 3: maladaptation that you brought up before, which is probably worth
Speaker 3: mentioning here as well. We had a great example from
Speaker 3: California in the chapter where realtors had in fact distributed
Speaker 3: flowers to oppose retreat policies, which really stoked property value fairs.
Speaker 3: And because of this that also, you know, led to
Speaker 3: some obstruction because in many instances, you know, the homeowners,
Speaker 3: they're wealthy, they're well connected, and they have the power
Speaker 3: and power again to really delay any adaptation that might
Speaker 3: be possible on the cost. So for us, within the
Speaker 3: context of our chapter, we really wanted to show how
Speaker 3: information is weaponized to either delay or delegitimize adaptation, and
Speaker 3: that in itself is obstruction.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think that that pretty much covers it.
Speaker 2: But just to go back to it, we do consider
Speaker 2: this in that category of kind of the sort of
Speaker 2: hegemonic control, and that it is through controlling those flows
Speaker 2: of information and the framing of adaptation that obstruction is
Speaker 2: enabled in a lot of these cases. And so those
Speaker 2: examples I think really show how that can go from
Speaker 2: something really abstract to like, oh, you control the information.
Speaker 2: That's like, actually, it's about controlling the information about how
Speaker 2: adaptation would shape property values on the coast, that that
Speaker 2: information is actually utilized to obstruct adaptation strategies.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Interesting, Okay, I know there's the answer to like,
Speaker 1: what are the research gaps? Is like, there's lots of them,
Speaker 1: but what are the things that you is particularly like
Speaker 1: to see more research on, or maybe even to see
Speaker 1: attention from outside the research realm with respect to this issue.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think really building on what we struggled
Speaker 2: with in this chapter, one of the things is really
Speaker 2: continuing to tease a part this distinction between obstruction and
Speaker 2: resistance and sort of the conditions under which something counts
Speaker 2: as obstruction and when is it legitimate resistance and how
Speaker 2: do we tell the difference, especially if we're starting to
Speaker 2: think about, like how do we act to counter obstruction,
Speaker 2: we don't want to end up in a situation where
Speaker 2: we're also countering all legitimate resistance by martialized groups SETI
Speaker 2: adaptation action and so getting a lot more clear on
Speaker 2: not just conceptually what does that look like, but from
Speaker 2: a practical standpoint, how do those show up on the ground.
Speaker 2: I think it's one of the things that really stood
Speaker 2: out to us from this structure.
Speaker 1: I feel like that's such a recurrent theme in the
Speaker 1: renewables conversation right now, where you have like some very
Speaker 1: legitimate community concerns about certain approaches to industrial renewable development,
Speaker 1: and then you do have you know, like vested interest
Speaker 1: engaging in instruction too. It's hard on my side of
Speaker 1: the fence. It's hard to tell that story because people,
Speaker 1: you know, are more and more allergic to nuance. So stuff. Yeah, Stacey, again,
Speaker 1: what about you, is there anywhere else you really want
Speaker 1: to see more focus or more research.
Speaker 3: Well, I like the examples that Laura gave, and I
Speaker 3: know sometimes you know, scholars want to hear so specifically,
Speaker 3: what research question are you thinking about? Right? So, when
Speaker 3: Lara mentioned, you know, just clarifying that distinction between obstruction
Speaker 3: and resist stunts, would be very interested in that. But
Speaker 3: you know, what could a research question there look like?
Speaker 3: So something along the lines of, you know, when farmers
Speaker 3: delay the implementation of DONA driven like climate smart agriculture,
Speaker 3: is that resistance or is it obstruction? So identifying these
Speaker 3: very specific examples I think would be good. Laura did
Speaker 3: mention you know, just where and when does obstruction occur? Right?
Speaker 3: So for us, because our scholarship has a very large
Speaker 3: focus on you know, countries and conditions in the global celf,
Speaker 3: perhaps a specific research question there is do conditions differ
Speaker 3: in the global north where obstruction you know tends to
Speaker 3: come from you know, wealthy property owners or industries or
Speaker 3: donas from the conditions and the global sealth where obstruction
Speaker 3: reflects like these power symmetries with donors or elites. I
Speaker 3: think the only other thing that I might add here
Speaker 3: is something that we've mentioned before is you know, mitigation
Speaker 3: obstruction and adaptation obstruction, Like what are the intersections, right,
Speaker 3: how do they relate? If we can get more scholars
Speaker 3: who probably up to this point dar almost exclusively focused
Speaker 3: on mitigation, just sensitized to some of the new ones
Speaker 3: with respected adaptation and adaptation obstruction, just to highlight, you know,
Speaker 3: what the overlaps are and if there are any feedback
Speaker 3: loops between these two domains, I think that could be
Speaker 3: really helpful in you know, just countering the kind of
Speaker 3: obstruction that we've been able to document. In a chapter.
Speaker 1: That's it for this time. Make sure you're subscribed so
Speaker 1: you don't miss an episode. You can find more on
Speaker 1: this season, including transcripts and lots of related articles and
Speaker 1: background information, on our website at drilled dot Media. You
Speaker 1: can also sign up for our newsletter there. Our producers
Speaker 1: for this season are Martin Saltz, Oustwick and Peter Duff.
Speaker 1: Our theme song is Bird in the Hand by Foreknown.
Speaker 1: Our cover art is by Matthew Fleming. Our First Amendment
Speaker 1: Attorney is James Wheaton with the First Amendment Project. The
Speaker 1: show was created, written, and reported by me Amy Westervelp.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening and see you next time.