This is Democracy – Episode 173: COP26 and Environmental Political Economy

This is democracy, a podcast about the people of the United States, a podcast about citizenship, about engaging with politics and the world around you. A podcast about educating yourself on today’s important issues and how to have a voice in what happens next.

Welcome to our new episode of this is democracy. This week, we’re going to discuss a set of events and negotiations that I think many of us have been watching closely, or at least paying some attention to, uh, the United nations climate change conference. This is the 26th meeting of this truly remarkable multinational collection of virtually all the countries in the world coming together.

To talk, maybe not always to act, but to talk about addressing the pressing crisis of climate change in our world. And this last meeting, uh, has been characterized by some observers as a particularly important meeting because of the challenges our world is facing, but also because of some of the topics and proposals that were on the table, we’re very fortunate today to have with us, a colleague friend, and really fantastic.

Uh, scholar and public intellectual, uh, Andrew Waxman. Uh, thanks for joining us, Andrew. It’s supposed to be. Andrew is an assistant professor of economics and public policy at the LBJ school of public affairs at the university of Texas at Austin. Uh, and he does research that really bridges, uh, the world of environmental and urban economics, uh, looking at the intersection between the two issues that are often seen as contradictions in our world, the pressures for economic growth and economic management and the pressures for environmental management and, and Andrew does really some of the most innovative work.

In this area. So we’re really fortunate that we will have his observations at analysis today, before we turn to our discussion with Andrew, of course, we have our scene setting poem from Mr. Zachary Siri. What is the title of your poem? Today’s Zachary as if looking backwards through a telescope. Wow. I liked this.

I liked that title. All right, let’s hear it. Okay. It has an epitaph. Okay. I am my father’s father. You are your children’s guilt from dumb wars. As if looking backwards through a telescope as if believing the whole world could be held in a plastic bag as if realizing nothing except the softness of our own sand.

Here standing on a hill, maybe it’s in Glasgow or maybe it is already underwater and you are looking up. It should be clear to you that we are not only lying, but soon to be proven liars, it should be clear to you that we are not only selfish, but soon to be selfless. It should be clear to you now that we are not only in decent, but soon to be dealt with.

It is not so far away. That day. When you wake up to realize you are underway. It is not so far away that day. When you look up and see a wildfire, it is not so far away that day when clouded with shadow and stocking hollow streets, like a private eye out of a cartoon, you will find a plastic bag or an old shoe and solve it.

You will solve the crime. Our who done it on a global scale, except it’s more Colombo than Sherlock Holmes. The ending is already no. Justice isn’t swift, but slow and savoring its own way. A lot of preferences, there’s equity from, uh, plastic and waste to, uh, TV shows, old TV shows, Colombo and Sherlock Holmes.

W what is your, my poem is, uh, really about, uh, the, the, the contradiction that we’re now really just trying to, we’re really just starting to try and solve climate change as a, as a world. When, when the outcome at this point is, is almost inevitable, or at least, uh, it can only be, it can only get. There’s no way that it can be good.

That’s a pretty dismal prognostications, Zachary, Andrew. Um, do you see optimism in this most recent meeting? What, what makes this meeting of the cop 26 so important for you and for so many who are. Yeah. Um, as an economist, I get accused of, of representing the dismal science, but I think there is, there is an opportunity for optimism.

Um, there was some commitments made around fossil fuels, um, particularly among some of the major players, particularly United States and China, but as you’ve already hinted at there, you know, commitments, um, and in some cases not very clear commitments. And so the question is, are they able to follow up on them and fall through?

And do you think there’s reason to believe that that people will follow through that this is more than empty, right? Um, you know, I I’m hopeful that people will follow through, um, you know, it’s, this has been a long process it’s as, as you pointed out the 26 meeting of the conference of parties and, uh, you know, I’m, I’m hopeful that as people realize.

The Zachary poems. So rightly kind of made a visceral that the costs and the suffering is not often the distant future, but it is coming to rear its head sooner and sooner that people will realize. And, and, and it will become an issue that is, uh, more center in. Politicians and everyday people’s, um, sure, sure.

And it certainly seems that among young people, this has become a much more important issue, I guess, as an economist, you more than anyone, right. Focus on this problem of the collective action, right. It’s not so much. People have to recognize it’s important. It’s actually getting them to take responsibility and not leaving responsibility to others, uh, avoiding the free rider problem.

Why is that such a difficult problem to solve with this particular issue with climate? Yeah, w usually to help illustrate it. We contrast this with the Montreal protocol, which was put into place to deal with Clara floral carbons. Um, typically, you know, people are aware of this is these are the chemicals that, uh, contribute towards the ozone hole.

Um, and you know, that was, uh, you know, um, done quite effectively, um, starting in 1970s into the 1980s. And it was an international framework that, you know, there are some enforcement challenges here and there, but largely was able to get governments around the world to coordinate and reduce the missions to, to, to address that particular problem, which had to do with, you know, this ozone layer that protects, uh, protects us from UV light, uh, light from the sun.

Um, climate change is, is much more difficult because, uh, number one, you know, um, the sources of greenhouse gas emissions, which lead to climate change and, and all of its subsequent costs, it comes from everything. It comes from things that we do. It comes from, um, you know, transportation from providing electricity, um, from agriculture.

And it’s hard, uh, overnight to just stop doing these things in the case of, of the, you know, chlorofluorocarbons. A few large producers around the world, uh, where they could invest some money and, and, and sort of the problem was largely, uh, you know, go wait or diminish. Um, here, we’re talking about, you know, much larger costs, um, uh, in order to address climate change stuff.

Um, much smaller costs than the accumulated costs that we have and expect to see in the future from climate change. But, um, you know, like anything that is, that feels far off in the distance and requires lots of planning and sacrifice. It’s really hard to get people to commit particularly internationally.

Uh, you know, when coordination among governments is, is really critical to. And Andrew, there’s also the issue of the historical timing, right? So even though China emits more of these harmful chemicals into the air than the United States does right now, historically the United States has done more of this.

Right. And the Chinese would argue, well, it’s not fair for us to try to curtail their growth. Now, after we’ve already gone through those phases. And of course, India and other countries make the same argument. How, how do you as an economist, think about that historical. As a, as a human being, as a person, I, I take the moral responsibility seriously.

Um, as an economist, you know, I’m concerned with what are the tools, what are the mechanisms that we can use to address that? And I think it’s going to take everybody at the table. That’s what I, you know, uh, economics, uh, would suggest is that we need policies. Uh, and, and, and even, you know, in some cases, market mechanisms to address this, uh, in, in, in wealthy countries, like the United States, the European union in Fastly growing countries like China, India, Brazil, and, uh, you know, particularly as we, as we look towards the second half of the, of the current, um, central.

Uh, in, in, in countries that are, that are started out, uh, lower income, but are expected to grow quite rapidly in, in Sub-Saharan Africa, in parts of, uh, uh, Southeast Asia and in south America. Um, and so, um, you know, um, planning for that and, and, and finding ways to address that, I think are, you know, what we should be focusing on.

We hear a lot nowadays about, uh, the economic opportunities, um, that countries and companies have in trying to come up with new innovations to prevent the release of greenhouse gases and other such efforts to reduce the effects of climate change. But it seems to me at this point, at least that a lot of what we have to think about now is mitigating.

Um, is, are there the same sort of economic opportunities in, in mitigating this crisis? Yeah, so it’s funny that, you know, I think the, the language of climate change has its own, you know, um, you know, vernacular. So, so people, um, within the field talk about mitigation in terms of reducing emissions, you know, from where they are down to some future level.

And they think about this in terms of the trajectory. So. Um, you know, carbon dioxide gas, it goes up in the atmosphere and something like 200 years, it takes for, you know, the single molecule to then, uh, no longer be up there and providing sort of global greenhouse, uh, you know, gastric or climate change type effects.

Um, and so we think about mitigation. We’re thinking about. You know, avoiding the accumulated effects of all of those CO2 molecules are men, you know, a large proportion of which have been put up by the United States and wealthy countries over the last 170 some odd years. Um, uh, there’s other things like methane, but we can talk about that as needed.

Um, the other piece of that I think is, is adaptation, which, uh, hopefully we can talk about as well, which is, um, you know, planning and providing resources. So. Uh, countries and places, even the United States where people are expected to be disproportionately affected by climate change. Um, we can protect them.

We can plan for extreme weather, sea level rise, et cetera. Um, you know, now we’re, we’re really in a, in a reality where we need to do both of those things because it’s Zachary, you know, made very patently clear earlier. We’re going to see, uh, you know, costs from climate change in our, in our own lifetimes.

Um, and so doing both of those things important, and the last thing you mentioned, which is sort of the role of private companies or investment, I think we’re seeing. Um, to varying degrees, country companies increasingly step up, but I think, um, there’s still an overarching role for national governments and international organizations.

Um, you know, like the UN through its, its um, convention on climate change. Uh, Uh, you know, to, to get into, to, to be responsible basically for making sure that the, um, you know, that that mitigation happens and that this is playing for accordingly. So if I understand you, right, Andrew, you, you are saying that, although there are there have to be market adaptation.

Pricing in the, the, the costs that come with climate change, for example, that there also, it can’t be left to the market alone that, that this is a case also of market failure, even though the market must be part of the solution. Is, is that a fair character? Yeah. I mean, I think it’s actually quite fundamental.

So, so, you know, when, when we, when we teach students about, um, you know, uh, in, in environmental externalities costs that people’s behavior impose on the environment and on others, uh, we pros is a fundamental problem where it’s very difficult, just, um, almost from a psychological level for people to fully understand the consequences of their actions, not just on themselves, but on the rest of society.

So. You know, thinking about decisions about whether to use, uh, an internal combustion engine, a gasoline powered engine, um, you know, people are not necessarily taking into account the impacts in climate change or air pollution. And, you know, a very vivid illustration of that is, you know, the challenges of getting people to mask up and vaccinate and distance during the pandemic.

Um, you know, when a lot of the costs are borne disproportionately by, by other people is a real challenge. And so. Uh, a lot of folks thought that this experience as a pandemic would help, uh, help, help to make people realize that their, their actions have a larger consequence beyond themselves. Um, uh, you know, economists and, and environmental policy makers for a long time, they said, well, this is fundamental and government needs to step in specifically to do Jeremy, what you just said, which is to think about policies that will help internalize those external costs.

You know, from an economics perspective, the classic example of this is something like a carbon tax where you would charge a emitters of carbon dioxide, gas, some amount, uh, you know, per, per ton of carbon dioxide that goes into the atmosphere. Um, and this is a real policy that’s been discussed, uh, in, in the halls of Congress.

Um, uh, even this. And we’re the leaders who met at CA in Glasgow at cop 26 at all successful in, in pushing for policies like that, or I guess in some cases, trying to limit those policies. Yeah. Um, so, you know, one of the big focuses of the car there’s many different objectives is just to, to get commitments from countries, which is less about specific policies and, and more about commitments on.

You know, levels of emissions, like, uh, you know, to the trajectory for different countries of where they expect their emissions to go to. So under the byte administration, we’ve committed to something like end of the decade, having greenhouse gas emissions and, and by 2050 net zero greenhouse gas emissions.

But, um, you know, getting to those, those levels is a different question, right? Those that involves the kind of policies that we’re talking about now. Um, and things that are involved in current legislation being discussed and just recently passed in Congress, like incentives for, um, you know, uh, renewable.

Uh, energy or, or electric vehicles. Um, and so, you know, at the, at the, the conference of parties, um, uh, there is discussion of policy specifically, but also a lot more discussion on commitments. And I think what was most notable about cop 26 was. This was, um, you know, perhaps surprisingly to those non-involved the first time that like fossil fuels as the term, and specifically in the, in the text of, uh, of, of what came out, uh, was named as something that is, is gotta be phased out.

That that was this explicit goal. Phasing out fossil fuels. Um, and that was supported even by India. For example, who’s a big, um, you know, a lot of their economy and energy production depends upon, uh, uh, coal fired power plants. And so, um, I think people see that as a kind of symbolic, uh, um, uh, accomplishment.

Um, but, but you’re right to ask, you know, how do we then connect these symbolic accomplishments to, to real action. Andrew I’ve I’ve long been puzzled actually as to why we haven’t implemented a carbon tax in the United States, because it seems to me that, you know, we, we do have tax consumption taxes and all kinds of other things.

Right. And so I don’t, I don’t understand why you think that we’ve always had trouble putting taxes on businesses, but we’ve never had trouble as a society putting taxes on. I mean, we pay a sales tax in pretty much every state in the United States. We pay a tax on, uh, various things. When we build a house, why is it that we’ve had trouble with a carbon tax?

It’s a, uh, it’s a great question. It’s something that economists political scientists, policy scholars have been debating for for a couple of decades now. Um, you know, the, the most, the closest we got to was it very early of the Obama administration, the Waxman Markey act, uh, or bill, which, um, the name has no relation to myself.

Just a coincidence that. Uh, representative from, from, um, from California has the same last name, but, um, uh, w was, it was, uh, a bill put forth, which would have, um, you know, it was not explicit carbon tax and it basically would have put forth, um, you know, a series of policy measures that would have, would have done something like a comprehensive climate policy and, um, under.

The Obama administration, there was initiative to try and push forward the clean energy policy, which was basically meant to focus on the electricity sector. It was called the clean power plan. Um, and, um, you know, I think, uh, Economists put forward. The carbon tax is a good option in part because, um, you know, it balances the need to address climate change with the concern on, you know, one that’s expressed a lot by conservatives, but also by it by moderate Democrats that.

Um, you know, it needs to be cost-effective right. We, we, um, we need to address climate change, but we need to be thoughtful about a way to do it, that doesn’t impose, um, too much of a burden. And I think the concern is really, um, you know, if, if we think about what produces carbon dioxide, you know, a lot of it comes from the electricity sector and from the transportation sector.

And so this cost thing is not just a, you know, a hypothetical that, you know, somebody can go pay for it. Um, it’s lower income folks who pay a larger proportion of their budgets. Um, as, uh, as, as transportation costs is filling up their car with gasoline to go to work or, uh, covering their utility bill is, um, in Texas, you know, we just had this, this big, uh, electricity, uh, challenge that happened last in February, and it’s having major repercussions for our bills in the state.

And. This is something that hits people, um, in, in their pocketbook. And, um, you know, an example of, you know, popular unrest in response to these kinds of policies is something like Francis yellow vest movement. And so there’s a, uh, an attempt to pay attention to. Um, you know, not just the aggregate costs, but, but who these costs impact on.

And, you know, I think this is, you know, some of the logic going into things like the green new deal, which are attempting to be simultaneously a comprehensive kind of, uh, climate agenda as well as a social program. So the idea is that you can address both at the same time in part to try and address some of these.

Uh, affects that increasing the cost of energy and transportation might have on people who have tighter budgets. So that’s interesting. So you think the resistance to a carbon tax is because it would be too regressive, which I’m sure it would be, but this is in light of our whole tax system that is regressive actually in the United States that I would have thought that would have in the political economy been actually what might have.

Fire-able in a way that a progressive tax that would have taxed large, powerful political entities, more that that would have been. Yeah. I mean, well, so you’re absolutely right. So, I mean, from a political perspective, it’s not necessarily the regressivity, that’s the only reason something like this hasn’t gone forward.

So, um, you know, um, my understanding is that, you know, a lot of lobbying, um, has from, from the energy sector is, is part of the challenge. Why, you know, more recent efforts to incorporate climate. Uh, policy into the infrastructure bill or the build back better act. Um, currently under negotiation in Congress, um, you know, has, has, has forced all this from happening.

So there are also sort of larger, uh, particularly energy sector, but private interests at stake. Um, I think, you know, an economist would say that, uh, first of all, a carbon tax helps to. Um, it is a mechanism to help to make sure that that, uh, addressing climate change and reducing carbon emissions has done cost-effectively it’s also, um, a tax.

So it generates revenue. And, you know, with that pot of revenue, you can do a lot of things. Right. You could address the regressivity or you could make investments. In, um, you know, uh, renewable energy or new technology that would help to make the transition to a more decarbonized economy, uh, smoother, faster, and, and even potentially lower costs.

Um, or you could use it to offset taxes elsewhere in the, in the, uh, the fiscal, you know, in the government’s budget. Um, if we have, you know, particular members of Congress who don’t like certain types of taxes, like, uh, you know, uh, uh, corporate corporate taxes or taxes on. On capital gains, for example. So that could be used as, as leverage to try and get a carbon tax through Congress.

Um, and also, you know, another, uh, you know, advantage of, um, you know, climate policy more generally is, you know, green jobs and green firms and technology are not a hypothetical anymore. They’re, they’re a growing, um, you know, set of, uh, employment and investment in U S economy. And so using that as a political tool, um, you know, is also potentially at the time.

On that note. I want to bring us back a little bit to cop 26. Um, how much value really is there in, in these big international meetings? When it does seem like so much of that innovation is coming at a local level or even even a, a market level, um, how, how valuable are they? Is that where we should expect the solutions, uh, to come.

Uh, you know, I think they are valuable. I think it’s important to understand that their role in particular context. Right? So first of all, you know, just to point out the obvious climate change is a global phenomenon, so, um, it’s not possible to address it, um, adequately for a single country, even, you know, just the United States.

Um, it’s, it’s not adequate for, you know, a few states to address it or even a small group of countries. Right. It kind of requires everybody to work together. Um, and you know, part of the reason for that is that we live in a global economy and, and climate policies. They tend to make producing goods more expensive.

So if one country or one state sort of unilaterally pursues, a climate agenda, It’s just going to increase the cost of what that, that country produces. And it’s going to move trade to a different country with lower costs and potentially, you know, less, um, strong environmental and climate policies. And, and so, so you might not expect to have real impacts on emissions and you know, this is particularly relevant for this year’s talks because.

Um, you know, the, the U S and the EU have historically been the biggest producers of greenhouse gases as we discussed earlier. Um, uh, and you know, like, you know, 12% of the gold population comes from, you know, the richest countries, but they’re responsible for about 50% of, uh, greenhouse gases over the last 170 years.

And so coordinating between. Wealthy and, and growing or lower income countries is, is really important. One, um, in a way to think about this, um, is, um, that, you know, it’s not just a question of, uh, you know, wealthy countries, not pulling their weight in terms of reducing their emissions, which is certainly true.

Um, uh, it’s, it’s also the case that, um, you know, rather than, um, uh, uh, having lower income countries that are growing much faster, um, just industrialize and not control their emissions. There’s a, there’s a, there’s a potential for transfer from wealthy countries of technology, uh, expertise. Uh, and, and financial capital to help make, uh, the development of their economies, more, uh, environmentally sustainable.

And so things like the UN’s clean development mechanism, which provides sort of carbon offsets. So that wealthier countries basically get a kind of credit for reducing emissions that come in another country. Uh, through technology transfer, whatnot can be a part of that. And there’s a lot of challenges with implementing that mechanism.

Um, so it’s, it’s certainly not perfect, but that is one of the, the, the roles of things like the conference of parties. Um, another thing that these, these large meetings create an opportunity, uh, for is, uh, you know, uh, other, uh, uh, groups that are not government. So, um, non-governmental organizations, activists, journalists in the broader public to actually participate to advocate for things that.

Important and maybe not being discussed and to ask tough questions, um, about what’s being done and what’s not being done and why it’s not being done. And we see that more, more now than ever, um, with, um, you know, over it. And sometimes, you know, sort of somewhat subtle, you know, confrontation between. Uh, activists like Rita thunbergii and, uh, you know, asking about why more is not being done.

Uh, yup. No, it certainly provides a space for activists that makes, that makes a lot of sense. And I think what you’re saying is so important, Andrew, right? That, that these were not either. Right. We need local regional, national, uh, innovation, and then we need international cooperation, uh, particularly to help to transfer the technologies and transfer the resources and manage them across, across space.

Right. I think that’s a really, really important point. A city like Austin, Texas can actually have a very, a forward looking climate policy, but that’s not really going to even solve the problems around Austin and in a global and in a global environment. Yeah, that’s right. That’s right. Um, yeah. And, um, you know, the other piece of this, that our colleague, Josh, Josh Busby has worked on and is continuing to work on is the piece on security because climate change is increasingly going to, um, cause.

Migration conflict, uh, competition over resources and making sure that countries are having these conversations to try and avoid conflict, manage resource scarcity, manage migration is just going to be so much more important as time goes by. Right? So, so Andrew, as someone who watches this closely and brings a sharp, analytical set of tools to examining these questions, what do you expect going forward in the next few years?

What are you looking to see? Positive and negative. Uh, maybe just let’s, let’s focus on us policy now because U S policy is most important or most significant, but because it’s maybe the thing that’s easiest for us to talk about as citizens of the United States. No. I think us is this week critical because this week is when the, the build back better act is getting debated in Congress.

And the question is what is going to go into the bill? Right. Um, and we know Senator Joe mansion is a key linchpin in the Senate. Uh, ability to pass that. And, um, you know, the, the infrastructure bill was supposed to have, um, particular credits towards, uh, particularly clean energy. And those didn’t make it into the final bill because of the negotiation negotiation process.

Um, the administration, the, the Biden ministration has been advocating, keeping a number of key clients. Um, aspects, uh, you know, um, incentives, particularly for things like electric vehicles, um, uh, some, some pools of money to help, um, manage, uh, environmental justice or in the disproportionate impact of pollution and climate change costs on uh low-income and, and, and communities of color.

Um, and, and, uh, you know, a number of other initiatives in, in as part of this, this new piece of legislation. Um, for the moment, you know, this, uh, this week, and I think we’ll find out tomorrow what the, um, the congressional budget office rules on in terms of its, its uh, fine financial standing, um, and expect to vote on Friday.

That that is the critical sort of us piece here. Um, beyond that, it really depends upon the midterm elections. It depends upon the. The majority that the Democrats wheeled in Congress, I, you know, I would love to see a bipartisan climate bill, um, behind something that like, like a carbon tax that, you know, in principle should balance both, you know, liberal and conservative objectives.

But I don’t know that, you know, in the United States, right now we have a climate or a, you know, really momentum for something like that. But, but, but it’s certainly worth holding out hope. The other piece of this is what’s done, you know, we touched on it earlier at a, at a local or state level, right. Um, states are, you know, pushing an agenda, you know, in various places like Washington state in new England doing con has Reggie, which is a, a regional greenhouse gas.

Uh, uh, you know, um, uh, uh, program, which is, you know, meant to, uh, incentivize, uh, renewal increased, renewable penetration, um, uh, you know, we see increasing investments in electric vehicles and in, uh, in Texas here, you know, in, in, in, in orienting towards solar and wind. So there’s a potential to move towards this, um, last piece in the U S that I’ll I’ll mention is, uh, related to work that.

Uh, our colleagues she’ll Olmstead and I are doing along with a colleague in, in, in the engineering school and, and some folks at university of Wyoming looking into carbon capture and storage. Um, I think before I sort of got into this field, I sort of thought of this technology as being science fiction, but I didn’t quite realize that it’s sort of well-developed has been done.

Yeah. Um, including at the university of Texas, among our, our research teams for, for several decades now, um, which is to, you know, take capture carbon dioxide gas from large emitters things like coal or natural gas, power plants, or even large industrial, uh, emission sources, like the Ethan crackers that are produced precursors to plastics, um, capture those, those, those, those greenhouse gasses, and then put them underground into Wells where they can be stored indefinitely and, you know, And initially without knowing much about the science said, well, how indefinite is indefinitely?

And actually, you know, the science seems fairly convincing that they can keep them stable, underground, uh, you know, for, for, you know, you know, the foreseeable future. Right. Um, and as long as those are maintained, Uh, and, and, and security on the Wells is maintained. It’s not a problem. And so this is something that, um, there was already federal legislation.

Um, there’s a tax credit, the 45 Q tax credit that’s meant to incentivize this. Um, there was, uh, uh, a hub that was announced in Houston. That’s going to be done as, as part of the, uh, you know, industrial and winery and power plants. And so this is, uh, Somewhat not highlighted, but it is, it is a key component of what’s underlying even Biden’s approach to, to climate, um, uh, policy.

And so I think we’re going to see the rise of, of reliance on carbon capture. And so, you know, I’m not advocating necessarily for, I think the jury is out and, and, and our team here at the university of Texas and at university of Wyoming, we’re trying to be. I have a better understanding of is, is, is how should we think about this?

What are the costs and benefits? What are the implications for environmental justice, for frontline communities who might be near some of these facilities? Um, and, and what’s the role of policy, right? That that’s, that’s so fascinating and exciting. Uh, Andrew, um, that, um, there’s, there’s both a new technological breakthrough.

And then some really innovative conceptual thinking about how it can be used to help, but also recognizing that there are in a sense, new requirements for mitigation that will come if this is implemented in the way you’ve described it. Uh, I think that’s really, really exciting. And, and that I think brings us to our final question.

The question we always really like to turn to, which is where we can find optimism and even some activism in this, uh, scholarly and historical perspective, you. You’ve given us here, you know, what should ordinary citizens who care about this? Uh, be doing so many of our listeners, uh, place environmental justice and climate change mitigation at the top of the list of their priorities.

Um, They often indicate they don’t know what to do. And there’s a kind of, um, pessimistic fatalism. Some of that was in Zachary’s poem also that that, that can wash over us in the world. We’re in today. What’s your advice for our listeners? What can they do to make it through. Yeah, get involved, um, you know, write to your local congressperson or Senator, tell them you’d like them to vote to, to, to support climate legislation.

Um, you know, there are more, um, volunteer opportunities, both at the local level and working with national groups like the Sierra club or the Nash, natural resources, defense council. Particularly for young people to get involved. Um, you know, whether it’s on the policy piece or on the, on the politics piece.

Um, I think, you know, uh, w we’re in a, in some sense, a, a scary point where the cost of climate change are very real. Um, and, and the younger generation is aware that, that they’re going to be around to see some, some of these major costs. You know, for, for someone like me just means that the stakes are even higher to try and do something in that mitigation and really paying attention to adaptation is super important.

The other thing that I’ve tried to focus more on as time goes by, is to listen for the voices that aren’t being represented at the table. Um, and you know, you saw this, uh, starkly contrasted at the cop 26, where, um, you know, people pointed out quite rightly that the faces at the table were male and older and the.

The, uh, you know, uh, protestors and, and representatives of advocacy groups were disproportionately younger and had a much higher proportion of females. And so, you know, um, you know, really trying to pay attention, um, to, to, to the voices that are not at the table. And do something I think is more important now than ever Zachary does that call to arms, um, and the, um, emphasis upon not just political activism, but also, uh, conceptual innovation thinking through, uh, carbon capture and other, other, uh, elements of adaptation.

As well as mitigation. Um, does that, does that resonate with you and other young people? I think it does. And I think what’s particularly powerful about our moment is that it’s finally becoming almost entirely undeniable, even if you don’t pay attention at all to the science, that climate change is, is, and will continue to have a huge impact on our lives.

And hopefully that can finally galvanize a widespread support for policy change and for acting. And did cop 26 do that Zachary for young people. I think it highlighted the ways in which what we have now is not working at at the very least. Okay. So at least the status quo doesn’t doesn’t persuade people anymore.

I guess that’s that’s progress. Andrew, Zachary, thank you so much for joining us, Andrew Waxman. I think you you’ve offered us today. Not only an economist point of view, but a, a really thoughtful analysis of the intersection between policy, economy and politics around these issues and understanding those streams.

I think offers many opportunities for, for action that, that. That can push the ball forward. I don’t, I don’t think you offered any silver bullet solution, but that’s because there isn’t right, Andrew. I mean, it’s more than things we can do incrementally to make a difference. I think that’s really your, your argument in the end, right?

Yeah. It’s, it’s a struggle, but. I couldn’t agree more. And in some ways that’s the theme of our podcast. Democracy is a struggle. Democracy is never perfect. Democracy is always about trade-offs and it’s a struggle, but we have to do it. Or another way of putting it. It’s the, it’s the worst system, but the best that we’ve got, so we have to somehow make it work.

Uh, and, uh, that should be an inspiration for action as much as anything else. Uh, again, Andrew, thank you for joining us today is that. Thank you for your wonderful poem as always. And thank you most of all, to our listeners for joining us for this week of this is democracy

This podcast is produced by the liberal arts its development studio and the college of liberal arts at the university of Texas at Austin. The music in this episode was written and recorded by Harris. Stay tuned for a new episode every week you can find this is democracy on apple podcasts, Spotify, and Stitcher.

See you next time. Uh,