Stable Electricity and Political Trolls – 2/16/2021

Public policy is not developed nor implemented in a vacuum. Each policy or set of policies is developed with some mix of politicians, bureaucrats, technocrats, researchers, and the public at large (whether from government outreach to the community, or from community pressure toward government). The hope is always that each actor will operate in good faith and the team of good faith actors will develop policies that meet general policy goals, increase overall well-being, maximize equity and receive as much public support as possible. If there is ever a crisis or policy failure, we all owe it to each other to evaluate what went wrong, redesign the system so it is more resilient/cost-effective/equitable/etc. (depending on the policy goals) and stay vigilant as we learn more. We owe it to stakeholders in other areas to share our concerns, experiences and recommendations so those stakeholders don’t repeat our mistakes. Developing policy is also a serious matter and should be treated as such.

Unfortunately, there is a plethora of bad faith actors in the United States today that do not treat policy as a serious matter. If there is a crisis, these actors do not take it as a learning opportunity, propose concrete solutions, or even bother to do a balanced, apolitical analysis into what caused the crisis itself. Instead, they use crises to score political points, divert blame, attack their opponents, and shape disingenuous arguments to propose “solutions” that, if implemented, would be horrendous policy moves. At best, this slows down policymaking while the good-faith actors try to fix the problem at hand. At worst, this devolves into mocking people that are stuck in a crisis and blaming them for the emergency they are in, all as the wheels of fixing the crisis grind to a halt (or roll backwards).

Meanwhile, crises continue and people suffer. Oppressed and marginalized groups, including people with disabilities, are disproportionately affected. Those who try to speak up for justice and survival have their voices diluted by political trolls and bullies, all as the recovery process slows down as good-faith actors spend unnecessary time defending their policy choices from frivolous attacks. A controversy-seeking media (including the social media ecosystem) spends time on petty political battles instead of conveying the stories of those in need, explaining what went wrong, and exploring how to fix it. Political trolls use propaganda (including coordinated propaganda outlets and social media personalities) to delude their followers into believing up is down, harming our collective efforts to shape better policy going forward. Trolls and their followers often take to social media to mock people who are already in crisis and even blame them for their own suffering – turning a venue that could be used for outreach and help into a toxic stew that only makes the crisis feel heavier.

This is unsustainable. We cannot fix our ongoing policy problems unless we address the toxic nature of contemporary politics, media, social dynamics and public debate. In a time where adult politicians act like toddlers – and their followers emulate in kind – people need to grow up. Given the increasing intensity and frequency of crises, they need to grow up fast.


This has all come to mind because of the unprecedented winter freeze hitting nearly half the country, and the resulting energy and humanitarian crisis in the state of Texas. And for me, a Californian who admittedly spent too much of this summer doom-scrolling on Twitter, it’s a reminder of the politicization of a handful of rolling blackouts and the resulting harassment of Californians online. Finally, it’s a reminder of how our toxic political climate is hampering Americans’ ability to address the urgent issues facing our country.

California, where I live, had two days this summer with “rolling blackouts” as we had a “heat storm” that gave the Golden State 4 of its 5 hottest August days in the last 35 years. According to the Los Angeles Times, “just under half a million homes and businesses lost power for as little as 15 minutes and as long as 2½ hours on Aug. 14, with another 321,000 utility customers going dark for anywhere from eight to 90 minutes the following evening.” There were many reasons for the rolling blackouts. California is transforming its energy system to have more intermittent renewables, like solar and wind power, and is working to rely less on natural gas and other fossil-fuel products. An analysis by state agencies concluded that there wasn’t enough forward planning for so many extreme heat events (and higher power demand from air conditioning), which contributed to the crunch; some California power plants also agreed to send energy across state lines in the days before the heat wave, leaving us with less generation than we needed. The California Independent System Operator (ISO), which manages the electric grid and balances power generation with demand, sent out “flex alerts” for people to conserve power before the highest-demand timeframes (roughly 3-10 PM), but not enough people conserved energy and we ended up with a power crunch. After those two August days, Californians collectively responded to a couple more flex alerts to the point we saved the grid from being overwhelmed.

Of course, some of the most marginalized Californians were the ones who bore the brunt of those rolling blackouts. The hottest areas in the state often had high poverty rates, such as in the San Joaquin Valley (Southern Central Valley), poor areas of Los Angeles and San Diego Counties with urban heat-island effects, and the high desert areas of San Bernardino County. While people with air conditioning could cool their homes earlier in the day and make it through a 2-hour blackout without overheating, those who use fans can’t pre-cool their homes and might struggle with just a brief outage. Seniors and people with certain disabilities can be at higher risk of heat exhaustion or heatstroke should they lose fans or air conditioning, creating significant equity issues. And people with disabilities who use electric power equipment for survival (e.g. plug-in ventilators for folks with tracheostomies) are placed in possibly-mortal-danger should an outage last longer than their backup battery. Needless to say, the August rolling blackouts represented a troubling crisis and Californians – heck, the entire country – need to take it seriously and work to prevent future similar crises.

If only it were that easy.

Instead, bad faith actors on the political right immediately used two days of rolling blackouts to attack California’s Democratic leadership and renewable energy goals in general. They didn’t even wait until the crisis was over – the attacks started on August 14. The Governor, Gavin Newsom, and California’s most prominent Democratic representatives in DC, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and then-VP-candidate Kamala Harris, became political punching bags. Political trolls mocked California as a failed state, pointing to an exodus of residents over recent years (which is partly due to spiking housing costs from the perverse incentives of the Prop 13 property tax scheme, plus NIMBY obstruction of new housing). They claimed that California was an example of how the Green New Deal, a policy framework that hadn’t even been implemented, was a failure.

On August 19, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) quote-tweeted California Governor’s Office’s request that people scale back energy use that day, commenting that “California is now unable to perform even basic functions of civilization, like having reliable electricity. Biden/Harris/AOC want to make CA’s failed energy policy the standard nationwide. Hope you don’t like air conditioning!” Texas Lieut. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) linked to a Forbes article about why California’s climate policies are causing electricity blackouts (a complex issue), saying “this is what happens when the Democrats are left in charge… #KAG.” Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) retweeted on September 8 the Los Angeles mayor’s plea to his residents to save energy so others wouldn’t suffer, commenting “Alexa, show me what happens when you let Democrats control energy policy.” Other prominent political trolls and propaganda artists (I’m not shy with calling networks like Fox News and Newsmax propaganda outlets) piled on, with easy-to-remember talking points and slogans and attacks instead of actual political debate or journalism.

No policy analysis. No recommendations. No empathy for the people of California who were doing their best to team up and limit their energy use. No empathy for those who had power outages just days or weeks earlier and struggled through extreme heat. No consideration of people using life-saving electric equipment who weren’t sure if they would survive the rolling blackouts. Just mocking, trolling, and attempting to score political points.

The political trolling metastasized in the modern hellscape that is social media. As I said earlier, I spent more time than usual on social media over summer – using it as a bit of a canvassing-from-home opportunity during the election. A good amount was engaging people in serious political discussion, albeit with limited success given our country’s stark divisions. Like clockwork, the occasional online bully, emulating prominent political trolls, would notice my location (Berkeley, CA) and use it as an opportunity to attack me personally. The refrain about California was predictable and toxic. There were generic insults about how liberal policies were making California go down the drain (without any actual explanation of our policies or their outcomes), and that smart Californians were leaving en masse to lower-tax states because the Golden State is such a horrendous place to live. Homophobia and Ableism (especially using slang around developmental disabilities) made the occasional appearance as well. Again, predictable.

During the power outages, the rhetoric shifted to the emotionally-abusive tactic of blaming the victim for their abuse: “those power outages serve you right for voting in Democrats! Stupid libs!” No analysis, no recommendations, no knowledge of policies and outcomes in California – just toxic, online bullying that wasted my own time and forced me to take a moment to collect my emotions, asking “how can so many people act this way?” I was not alone: other connections received similar harassment online, even from old high school friends on Facebook. People they knew personally were mocking them during a time of suffering and need and insulted their home state (many of us have real affection for California), just to score political points and revel in others’ pain. It seems that, for some Americans, politics had switched from a means to improve public welfare to an opportunity to revive a middle-school level of bullying, harassment and even emotional abuse – whether to strangers or old friends.

Now, some social media trolls lived in California and decided to use this crisis to attack policymakers in Sacramento. I tried to implore a couple conservative Californians online to limit their energy use between 3-10 PM, as the ISO requested, and several shot back saying that the state should know better and other people who lose power should just deal with it. So, they kept running the AC in the evening and did laundry at dinnertime (some said they planned to do that just to rub my request back in my face). The toxic rhetoric, the blame-shifting, and the growing sense of entitlement and narcissism in a not-insignificant chunk of our country likely made those outages more widespread than they otherwise would be.

Now, this wasn’t the first time Californians experienced harassment for living in California this year. Similar rhetoric happened during our devastating wildfires, blaming Democratic leadership for not properly raking forests (even though only 3% of California’s forest land is state-owned; 57% is federal and 40% is private land). Never mind the fact that thousands of people lost their homes, far more had to evacuate in the middle of a pandemic, respiratory issues went through the roof, and nearly every impact disproportionately hit already marginalized and oppressed groups. A good amount of our state was dealing with some level of trauma, on top of the existing pandemic and economic catastrophe, and political trolls and online bullies decided to hit us while we were down. (Similar attacks happened to New Yorkers while they were in a horrendously traumatic stage in the pandemic, given NY is another favorite punching bag of political trolls on the right). It was emotional sadism.


So here we are, almost exactly 6 months later, and the Texas electric grid has been in freefall for at least a day and a half due to an unprecedented cold spell that has brought snow to the Gulf Coast and well-below-freezing temperatures statewide. Tens of gigawatts of fossil fuel and nuclear power have been rendered unusable because the extreme cold interfered with fuel supply, operating equipment, or other key systems. Several wind turbines stopped spinning because they were not properly weatherized for extreme cold, partly due to lax oversight and cost-cutting at the state level. A large swath of Texas is covered by its own independent electric grid, simply to avoid federal oversight and regulation, so the state cannot easily import energy from other regions. Over 70 different residential utility service providers create a complex set of business models and fee structures, making it extremely difficult to coordinate during a crisis and sending some customers’ bills sky-high. The Washington Post notes that “[in] the name of deregulation and free markets, critics say, Texas has created an electric grid that puts an emphasis on cheap prices over reliable service.”

The humanitarian toll is larger than California’s August 2020 rolling blackouts. Instead of a maximum 2.5 hours of downtime, some homes have so far spent almost a full day without power. Disadvantaged groups are taking a huge toll as seniors, people with disabilities, the homeless population, and people in poverty with poorly insulated homes face even colder conditions and/or are not as physically able to manage the extreme cold. A lack of running water raises dangers for health and hygiene. People with disability-related power needs may be at risk of medical emergencies or death. Wide areas of Texas don’t have snowplows or the ability to put salt on icy roads, so transportation is nearly shut down – again disproportionately harming already-disadvantaged groups.

The failure of the Texas electric system is largely due to the state leaders’ extreme embrace of “states’ rights” policies, conservative deregulation, ignoring climate trends and dangers (including an erratic jet stream), and plenty of hubris. Many Californians, who dealt with what was essentially emotional abuse from political trolls and online bullies during our times of crisis, understandably are feeling a bit of schadenfreude (aimed at the political trolls and online bullies, not the general Texan public). Liberals on news programs and social media are understandably calling out politicians such as Ted Cruz, Dan Patrick and Dan Crenshaw for their horrendous early behavior and hubris. They are also, for the most part, correctly digging into the cause of this blackout and what kinds of actions could prevent it in the future.

Of course, you’d hope that the political trolls might take a step back and focus on fixing the logistical and humanitarian crisis in a red state. But instead, they seem to be doubling down. Fox News propaganda artist Tucker Carlson made a whole segment on how this proves wind turbines and green energy are a colossal failure, while trolls across the right wing extended that narrative to attack the Green New Deal. It even seems like some are blaming this power failure on the GND – a policy framework that has no bearing in law, and certainly didn’t influence the Texas electric grid. The trolls and propaganda artists are using a crisis caused largely by free market deregulation to score political points against Democrats and progressive energy policies. One Mayor in Texas wrote a since-deleted Facebook post that essentially told the public to pick themselves up by their bootstraps – while the entire electric grid was down and out of their control. The son of the former president tweeted “I know someone who used to talk about how overrated wind turbines are. He said they do the most when you need them least and do the least when you need them most… That and they kill a lot of birds.” A poor-taste attempt at a joke from a prominent public figure amid a humanitarian crisis.

The Texas Governor even visited Sean Hannity to place blame on wind turbines and attack progressive climate efforts.

Meanwhile, people across the state are freezing and the costs of this disaster will almost surely be well over $1 billion. The political trolls are taking a humanitarian catastrophe and using it to attack their enemies for something the enemies did not cause. Or simply to make juvenile jokes about the very types of renewable energy that we need to limit climate catastrophes like California’s heatwave and Texas’s winter storm. These are not statements or jokes sent into the ether – they are sadistic online bullying of people already traumatized and struggling during horrible crises. And the prominent politicians and propagandists will lead their followers to act in kind, pushing them down a rabbit hole of harassment instead of lifting them up to address the urgent issues at hand.


Honestly, I’m a bit at a loss for how to overcome this widespread trolling and childishness from people in positions of power and responsibility. I’m not sure how, if, or when we will be able to turn around the culture of bullying that has become so pervasive in the past 5 years. I’m not sure how well we’ll be able to wake people up, get them to grow up, and work as a whole society to ensure our safety into the future. It may be a numbers game, and all we can do is enlighten some of the trolls and bullies while de-platforming or otherwise shunning those who are not serious about real-world problems.

Because darn it, people have to grow up or we are all pretty screwed.

The Importance of Economic Empowerment during Climate Change – 1/22/2021

I started working on financial literacy for people with disabilities (PWDs) in 2014 or so. It was when my climate-related research, which I called “New Earth Disability,” became part of the World Institute on Disability’s portfolio. When it comes to nonprofit life, you often work on grant-funded projects and we were still shopping around for climate projects – so in the meantime, I worked on other funded efforts, some of which were around financial literacy and empowerment. One was a revision of EQUITY: Asset Building Strategies for People with Disabilities, a full PDF book on financial literacy that covers topics from budgeting to credit scores to navigating the income and asset rules of government benefits. The clear lesson I learned (which I already knew to a large extent from personal experience) was that PWDs are financially disadvantaged compared to the able-bodied population, must navigate complex income and asset rules, and may not have the financial literacy they need. Supports like EQUITY and Disability Benefits 101 (DB101) were incredibly valuable for our community and PWDs seeking financial empowerment.

Over the following years, I learned another lesson: the financial work on EQUITY and DB101 was clearly related to the climate work of New Earth Disability. In many ways, financial empowerment builds climate resilience, and it’s especially important for the disability community.

If you’re scratching your head, I understand. Most people don’t think of finances when they discuss climate change. When we talk about storms, we consider evacuation and shelter; when we talk about migration, we consider mobility and immigration policies; and when we talk about general weather changes, we think about infrastructure and agriculture. Yet climate change has huge connections to personal finance and the economy at-large. For example:

  • The effects of climate change will shrink GDP, with consequences including fewer jobs, fewer goods and services, lower pay, and shrinking government budgets. A 2019 Working Paper from the International Monetary Fund estimates that by 2100, per capita GDP, compared to 2100 GDP if we stay at current temperatures, could be reduced between 1.0% and 2.8% lower in a lower-emissions scenario (RCP 2.6), and between 6.7% and 14.3% in a higher-emissions scenario (RCP 8.5).
  • Acute disasters, like storms and forest fires and extreme heat events, have direct economic damage. For example, the economic impact of Hurricane Harvey in 2017 – which largely includes home repairs and replacements, rebuilding or reinforcing infrastructure, emergency services like evacuations and shelter, and putting a value on lives lost – was a full $125 billion. The 2020 California wildfires season caused over $10 billion in property damage and increased health-related costs from wildfire smoke (e.g. exacerbating asthma); California spent more than $2 billion fighting fires that year.
  • Climate change raises risks of invasive diseases, and epidemics or pandemics can upend economies. The COVID-19 pandemic was partly due to cities and towns becoming increasingly close to forests and other wildlands, which makes it more likely that humans encounter animals and a virus jumps species. Climate change will also lead to more mosquitoes, with expanding diseases like malaria, dengue fever and Zika. As we’ve seen with COVID-19, an out-of-control pandemic can devastate economies and government budgets along with them; it can also reduce the supply and raise the cost of medicines and personal protective equipment (PPE), affecting insurance coverage and out-of-pocket expenses.
  • Adaptation, from reinforcing infrastructure to relocating coastal communities, almost always carries a price tag. We may need to simply abandon some homes or infrastructure, meaning the original investment won’t give as much return as planned (and may be a net loss, depending on when it was built and how it was used). Adaptation may require significant government funds, leading to austerity in other areas (including social services).
  • Individuals may bear some financial burden from climate change. Personal costs come from things like evacuation; securing temporary shelter; replacing damaged or destroyed property (including homes); shrinking or lost income streams (including supplemental income if there are government budget cuts); and costs of building personal climate resilience (such as buying a car for evacuation or installing an air conditioner for increasing heat waves).
  • The costs of climate change are not evenly distributed, and some are better positioned to handle those costs than others are. The Brookings Institute notes that “[s]truggling U.S. counties will be hit hardest by climate change” and “[g]lobally, low-income countries will lose larger shares of their economic output.” The same holds true for already-disadvantaged population groups, including people of color (POC) and people with disabilities (PWDs).

So, it’s clear that climate change will take a huge hit on our economy and marginalized groups. This will disproportionately affect economically disadvantaged groups. PWDs are clearly economically disadvantaged and have extra disability-related costs throughout their lives. They also utilize government programs and supports throughout their lives, so any disruption to government budgets and operations can be dangerous. A few important financial issues for PWDs include:

  • PWDs are already economically disadvantaged compared to the able-bodied population. 2018 United States census data shows that, for non-institutionalized people age 21-64: the average income for PWDs is $40,500 compared to $49,200 for those without disabilities; poverty is 26% compared to 10%; and the employment rate is 37.8% compared to 80.0%. 19% of non-institutionalized PWDs age 21-64 are on Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which is an extremely modest monthly payment: for an individual with a disability, the federal benefit rate is $794/month and some states add an additional supplement (usually maxing out around $400, depending on the state). (data from Cornell University’s Disability Statistics site)
  • PWDs almost always have disability-related expenses that able-bodied people do not. Disability-related expenses include things like durable medical equipment (DME), disposable medical equipment, specialized transportation (e.g. adapted vehicles), adaptive equipment and technology, personal attendant care, housing modifications, acute medical needs (e.g. medication or treatment), and more. Depending on the individual and their circumstances, expenses may be covered out-of-pocket, by family members, by private health insurance, government programs, or nonprofits.
  • PWDs are sometimes virtually forced into poverty to qualify for life-sustaining government benefits, which in some cases can be worth well over $100,000 per year (from a combination of healthcare, personal attendant care, medical equipment, subsidized groceries, and more). For example, in the United States, an individual can have no more than $2000 in assets to be eligible for SSI, which means that PWDs must stay poor to get starvation-level financial support. Even generous Medicaid programs have limits, such as the 250% Working Disabled Program that puts PWDs’ maximum annual income at just under $64,000.
  • Discrimination, stereotyping and a lack of accommodations from childhood onward affect PWDs’ employability and job options. PWDs are often held back or put in special education classes when it is not needed, simply because of educators’ preconceptions. Students may be denied accommodations in school (including medication for learning disabilities), affecting their learning and success. Because of this, PWDs are already at a disadvantage in the job market when they search for work. Employers may consciously or subconsciously discriminate against disabled applicants, or may shirk the need for reasonable accommodations. There are also practical constraints to some PWDs’ job options (for example, I’ll never be a car mechanic because of my limited mobility, but I can still do computer-based work just fine). Of course, many PWDs still land jobs – but the confluence of discrimination, stereotyping and the lack of accommodations leads to higher unemployment and lower average income for the disability community relative to those without disabilities.
  • PWDs who are unable to work (e.g. because of severe chronic pain & fatigue) or cannot land a job often survive with the support of government benefits, which in many countries are meager or insufficient to support a decent quality-of-life. Governments that reduce public benefits put these PWDs in even more precarious situations.
  • In general, the disability community does not have adequate financial literacy and experience necessary to navigate these circumstances in the best way possible. PWDs without enough knowledge about budgeting, managing their credit, or earning money while keeping government benefits will be in a more difficult situation than if they had more knowledge about how to be financially stable and successful.

It’s clear that climate change will affect the economy, and that PWDs have unique financial circumstances, needs and barriers. What are some of the intersections we should care about? Here are a few examples:

  • PWDs may have unique or extra needs in the face of acute climate stressors. For example, some disabilities interfere with people’s ability to regulate their body temperature, so during heat waves, those PWDs may need extra access to air conditioning; however, installing A/C units is expensive and electric bills may go up. During acute disasters, people often evacuate to makeshift “congregate shelters” like high school gymnasiums; these sometimes have limited access and privacy for PWDs, so PWDs may prefer to find an accessible hotel that they pay for out-of-pocket (if they can afford it). Other examples abound.
  • In the case of climate migration, accessible travel and shelter will carry extra costs, as will securing healthcare en route and at the destination; meanwhile, PWDs who cross international borders may need large sums of money to overcome disability-related immigration barriers (such as “public charge” rules). In some cases, they may be unable to relocate safely or at all.
  • PWDs’ financial limits manifest in lower personal vehicle ownership and a higher use of public transit. (This is also partly related to higher costs of accessible vehicles, such as modified minivans). This raises serious barriers to safe evacuation and adaptation in general.
  • Austerity in the face of shrinking economies and tax revenues will almost certainly affect PWDs’ health, safety and well-being. This will especially affect PWDs with higher disability-related expenses and those who do not earn enough from work to cover those expenses. Steep budget cuts leading to reduced services and tightened eligibility rules can endanger lives.
  • Contracting economies and limited job opportunities disproportionately affect PWDs for several reasons. For example: PWDs’ already-disproportionately-low income means that any reduction in earnings is that much more precarious for the disability community; PWDs with limited skills, training or abilities (e.g. around physical labor) have fewer job opportunities, which is troubling in a down job market; and employers in shaky markets (especially where there is high unemployment) may be more averse to hiring PWDs due to preconceptions about job performance or from wanting to avoid the expenses of reasonable accommodations.
  • The “asset limits” tied to many benefits programs artificially force many PWDs into poverty. In the case of an emergency, PWDs may not have enough money for emergency supports like transportation, hotel rooms, or backup caregivers. PWDs who lose homes or property in disasters may find it difficult-to-impossible to afford a new home or replace lost property.

So, that’s a lot to digest. And these are just a few of the examples of how climate change, disability and economic issues come together. Luckily, financial empowerment for PWDs will provide a huge amount of personal climate resilience:

  • Increasing one’s financial stability takes a whole suite of strategies and activities – not just saying “get a job and save more cash.” This requires “financial empowerment,” a multifaceted approach that includes: growing one’s income and savings; understanding how finances affect government benefits (including trade-offs and potential courses-of-action); budgeting; managing credit; increasing one’s employability through education and training; and so on.
  • Savings are critical to managing climate-related events and stresses. Savings help with things such as: securing transportation or shelter during/after a disaster; purchasing items that can help with climate stressors, such as buying air conditioners for heat waves or air filters for wildfire smoke; replacing lost or damaged property; paying for medical items out-of-pocket if conventional supports aren’t available; and finding new housing, including making modifications like ramps or bathroom remodels.
  • PWDs who receive benefits are often better off if they work part- or even full-time. Most benefits programs allow for modest income, while programs like the 250% Medicaid Working Disabled Program lets many Americans with disabilities earn nearly $64,000 per year while keeping healthcare, dental and even personal care attendant services. PWDs who can save money (without jeopardizing benefits) will benefit from more work and income, as they can stash away some of that paycheck for a rainy day. Even PWDs on programs with savings limits can take higher income and spend it immediately on climate resilience, such as by purchasing a stash of emergency supplies or affording higher air conditioning bills.
  • Building good credit and having an active credit card can help PWDs in emergency situations. Ideally, PWDs will not have to borrow money due to climate change – but a credit card can be a lifesaver during a crisis. Building good credit scores also reduces interest rates and the likelihood that someone will need to take out a high-interest loan, like from a payday lender.
  • Education and training make people more employable, which is especially useful in shaky economies. PWDs can pursue education and training that is dynamic, so they can more easily find jobs if their job disappears and there are not similar opportunities around. Employability is also helpful if people need to relocate due to climate stressors.
  • PWDs with high enough income can sometimes get by without government benefits. For those who can, making the jump to economic self-sufficiency opens more opportunities to invest in personal climate resilience. PWDs in this situation will also have fewer worries about surviving and succeeding in the face of austerity, should climate change threaten government budgets.

It’s abundantly clear that climate change presents major challenges to the economy at-large and individuals’ finances. PWDs have extra financial considerations compared to those without disabilities, especially if they want to receive government benefits. Because of this, PWDs are at a disadvantage because they have lower average income, assets and resources than the able-bodied population; they may have specific disability-related expenses, notably in the face of climate stressors; the eligibility requirements of some government programs artificially force people into poverty, or at least into making difficult decisions; and shrinking government budgets threaten life-sustaining medical and other benefits. Luckily, PWDs can pursue comprehensive financial empowerment to be safer and healthier in the face of climate change.

The next blog will cover some of the many ways that PWDs can increase their financial empowerment and climate resilience. And of course, financial empowerment is valuable in its own right – so it’s always worth pursuing, regardless of how invested you are in climate resilience.

Basics of Accessible Climate Mitigation

There are two main kinds of actions we can take in response to climate change. In my last blog, I talked about adaptation (also called “resilience”), which is preparing for what’s on the way. That involves things like having better planning for natural disasters or even helping people find new homes if they live close to the ocean, given waters are rising every year. These will take years-long investments and people with disabilities (PWDs) must be a part of adaptation planning and implementation. And even if we stopped pumping out greenhouse gases today, the earth would continue to warm – so we need to adapt regardless.

The second set of climate actions is called mitigation. Basically, these are the strategies to slow down, stop, or even reverse warming itself. The main strategies are focused on reducing how many carbon emissions go into the atmosphere and even “sequestering” carbon by pulling it out of the air. Reducing emissions involves things like:

  • Replacing fossil fuel power plants with renewable energy
  • Producing electric cars to replace gas-powered vehicles
  • Redesigning our cities and towns so people drive less (like putting tall apartment buildings next to subway stations)
  • Making homes more efficient, such as having better insulation or switching from natural gas appliances to electric ones
  • Changing our agriculture & livestock practices (such as having fewer methane-burping cows or adjusting their diets so they burp less).

Sequestering carbon involves natural processes, like planting more trees to naturally suck carbon out of the atmosphere, as well as new technologies, like those that take CO2 and turn it into solid bricks. Sequestration has some promising technologies but isn’t quite ready to be scaled out the same way solar panels and wind farms are (at least not yet).

Ultimately, mitigation – slowing down and hopefully reversing warming – has major benefits, such as:

  • It reduces the severity and breadth of climate impacts over time. This saves lives, livelihoods, economies and environments.
  • It buys us time to learn more about climate change and how it will impact society.
  • It buys us time to adapt to climate change, including through planning and investments.
  • It provides opportunities to build a better, more efficient and more inclusive society. For example, well-designed clean transportation can reduce people’s commute times and provide more accessible transportation options.

People, governments and organizations worldwide are committed to mitigation. Much of the landmark 2015 Paris Climate Agreement was around countries’ commitments to reducing emissions and sequestering carbon. Many people in the United States are excited about the Green New Deal (which has some major political hurdles, to say the least). In my city of Berkeley, CA, we are both focused on expanding transit-oriented housing and helping homeowners move from natural gas to electric appliances. Electric cars and charging infrastructure are all over the place these days, and new technologies like Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) could be game-changers for how we navigate the world. The list goes on.


Mitigation and Disability

Mitigation is important and is happening quickly. Rushing things, though, risks building an inequitable or inaccessible system. For example, electric vehicles are great, but don’t work for everyone unless we also make wheelchair-accessible electric vans (and other types of accessible electric vehicles). And if we outlaw gas-powered cars – but never make those accessible electric vans – the existing inequities in transportation will only become worse: PWDs will be stuck in a world of green transportation that they can’t navigate, hurting the human rights to freedom of movement. On a more dramatic note, the classical environmentalist dream of moving to the woods with a permaculture garden and no need for electricity is difficult-to-impossible for many PWDs, such as those with acute medical needs or who use electric equipment.

On the other hand, well-designed mitigation can make the world a more inclusive and accessible place. To build that more inclusive mitigation, the general steps I recommend are:

  1. Identify new & emerging technologies & mitigation strategies. So, keep a lookout for things like new green transportation, replacing home appliances, or redesigning the electric grid with more renewables. Consider the stage of development, affordability, and how much influence you might have in the design.
  2. Train & hire people with disabilities for internal expertise. Businesses, governments and nonprofits will benefit from having employees with disabilities – and a diversity thereof – just for a more dynamic and creative team. Accessibility and technology specialists are also great hires for those with enough bandwidth (even if it’s a partial or part-time position).
  3. Consult with the disability community, both at-large and in more focused groups. Community engagement is one of the best ways to gather diverse perspectives and brainstorm inclusive mitigation. (This should ideally complement and supplement staff expertise, not replace it). Surveys, interviews, focus groups, workshops, and online events are great ways to interact with the community. Community members can also be user-testers of technology to identify accessibility shortcomings and opportunities. The “more focused groups” could be based on type of disability, intersectional factors (race, age, income, etc.), current living situation or location, and so on.
  4. Identify shortcomings and opportunities in technologies and strategies. Use input from staff and community members to identify shortcomings in the accessibility and usability of any technology, or how mitigation strategies might impact PWDs for good or bad. Then, brainstorm how that mitigation could provide opportunities for better access and usability. (Also consider things like affordability concerns or other logistical barriers).
  5. Redesign for universal access & multiple uses. Although accessibility laws are useful, it’s best to go beyond existing regulations wherever possible (partly because accessibility laws vary by country, partly because laws may change in the future and it’s easier to build using universal access than it is to retrofit later, and simply because it’s the right thing to do). I recommend utilizing the 7 Principles of Universal Design: equitable use; flexibility in use; simple and intuitive use; perceptible information; tolerance for error; low physical effort; and size and space for approach and use. Items or policies that can be used for multiple actions and services amplify their impact, flexibility and (potentially) affordability for PWDs and the population in general.
  6. Support PWDs through awareness, advertising, and affordability. PWDs have historically been left out of mitigation efforts, so they might feel disconnected from any efforts happening now. Active outreach – through community efforts, conventional advertising, online engagement, and more – is vital to getting buy-in from the disability community. This outreach and advertising should highlight any universal access features and their benefits for PWDs, possibly with details about various types of disabilities. And given the disproportionately low income of PWDs compared to those without disabilities, plus possible excess costs for accessible items (e.g. wheelchair-accessible electric minivans), consider financial support for better affordability and use.

In my last blog on adaptation, I gave a couple examples – one big and one small. They included the process of engaging the community. This time, I’ll give a couple brief are examples of ways that adaptation can be accessible, without the whole process piece.

First, let’s talk about greening the electric grid.

In the switch from a fossil-fuel-powered electric grid to a zero-emission system, we will bring on more “intermittent renewables.” These are things like solar panels and windmills that put out different amounts of energy based on the time of day, the season, and how cloudy and windy it is. Unfortunately, intermittent renewables on their own make it difficult to reliably power homes and businesses that need a steady flow of electricity. This poses a danger for PWDs, who sometimes use electrical equipment that able-bodied people do not – such as wheelchair chargers, life-sustaining ventilators, or door openers. They may also have a greater need for reliable electricity for their health, safety and independence (for example, needing reliable elevators or cell phone service to reach caregivers). Even the temporary loss of power could be life-threatening for some PWDs, or at least disproportionately affect someone’s life compared to able-bodied folks; a longer outage would be that much more dangerous.

The electric grid needs to be stable in general, and especially for disability equity. Utilities are already installing “energy storage” – basically, large-scale batteries that can store energy when we make more than people use, then push it through power lines when the sun isn’t shining and wind isn’t blowing. Utilities should ensure they have enough power supply and storage so there aren’t blackouts in the future. (Officials who are rushing to decarbonize the grid should take a moment to realize the gravity of keeping the grid stable, and disability equity can be used as yet another argument.) They can also provide batteries that PWDs can have at their home – this both evens out the grid and can let those PWDs “island” their home from the electric grid when there are unexpected power outages. Utilities or governments should consider financial support for those home-level batteries where needed: a targeted and affordable rollout of home-level energy storage for PWDs could protect lives and livelihoods that much more.


Now let’s think about transportation and transit-oriented development:

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transportation accounted for about 28.2% of US GHG emissions in 2018, with light-duty vehicles about 59% of that chunk (so about 17% of total emissions in the country are from personal vehicles). We can reduce vehicle emissions by manufacturing electric cars, increasing the use of public transit, and building housing near transit stations and main thoroughfares. Businesses are developing innovative transportation systems as well, such as automated vehicles that can drive on their own.

People with disabilities (PWDs) have several existing disadvantages when it comes to transportation. Just a few examples include: households with one or more PWDs have, on average, lower rates of automobile ownership than households without PWDs; the lower average income of PWDs limits transportation options; some PWDs have a need for wheelchair-accessible transportation; and PWDs often have fewer housing choices (because of affordability & accessibility), which may limit their ability to live near transit hubs. To address this, the green-transportation revolution should include a full review to make sure every technology is universally accessible (e.g. figuring out wheelchair-accessible automated vehicles where chairs can be secured safely); maximizing accessibility in public transit (e.g. having two elevators at subway stations, in case one goes down); subsidizing transportation and electric-vehicle ownership; and increasing the amount of accessible, affordable transit-oriented housing. Each of these is valuable in its own right – but we must pursue all of them, and more, to move toward equitable transportation and urban development.


These examples could be applied at any scale, focused on a specific technology (whether related to green energy or transportation), or be tweaked to focus on a specific group or subset of disabilities. Always remember the classic disability activist mantra: “nothing about us, without us” – so PWDs must be part of the discussion and planning process as we move forward.

The Basics of Accessible Adaptation – 1/4/21

In my last blog, I gave an intro to climate change, its impacts, and a few ways that people with disabilities (PWDs) are affected by those impacts. Now that we know the basics, the big question facing us is: how do we ensure the health and safety of PWDs in an equitable manner? That’s the basis of our work, and it is a moral imperative.

As far as climate policy goes, most of the discussion these days is about mitigation, or slowing down climate change itself. This will benefit everyone but won’t magically make climate change go away, and certainly won’t fix the uneven impacts of climate change itself. That’s why we must address adaptation – preparing for what’s on the way through policies, institutional actions, and engaging the public at-large. Adaptation also gives a great opportunity to build more equitable systems, including for disability equity. So we can direct resources to the places and people most affected by climate impacts, to the communities who will need the most support to adapt, and to people with specialized needs during adaptation. People with disabilities disproportionately fall into these buckets, and many PWDs are in all three.

Now, disability-equitable adaptation isn’t as easy as saying “as you adapt, make sure it’s universally accessible.” That’s because climate change is complex, disability is complex, and accessibility is complex. Everything can still be under the umbrellas of climate change and disability rights – but the actions we take depend on what we are adapting for, the local context, target populations, existing inequities, and ideal outcomes.

The general steps I recommend in this process are:

  1. Identify the scale and scope of the disability rights barriers and opportunities, and do a demographic analysis if need be. This includes your target disability categories (whether “disability” in general or a more specific group), geographic area, and timeframe of concern (which could be indefinite, depending on your work).
  2. Identify the climate impacts in the area of concern. This includes primary impacts, such as increased heat waves, and secondary impacts, such as power outages (from everybody running their air conditioning and overwhelming the grid). Impacts farther down-the-line could include things like migration, shrinking government revenue, or conflict.
  3. Consider the effects on the built environment, and the resulting impacts on disability access, services, and general equity. This can be for any level of climate impact. For example, the power outages from heat waves could endanger somebody who uses a wall-powered ventilator for breathing. Conflict raises human rights concerns for marginalized groups, including PWDs.
  4. Identify shortcomings and areas of need. Approach this using the social model wherever possible – so consider, what are the existing barriers to access and equity and what shortcomings might there be with upcoming climate changes?
  5. Develop inclusive resilience and reinforcement actions. Examine those shortcomings and barriers, consult with the disability community and experts, and design an inclusive and equitable adaptation strategy.

Here are two examples at different scales:

First off, an action at the broad level could be something like this (pardon the technocratic language):

The United States is doing a large climate assessment, then developing a plan for where to adapt and how. Management hires at least one disability policy and outreach specialist, and ensures that all proceedings are fully accessible (e.g. with closed captioning as needed). Project staff consult with the disability community and specific constituencies (such as people with physical disabilities, intellectual/developmental disabilities, or those who are blind/low vision), both through policy/advocacy groups and public forums. Officials convey these concerns and experiences in their reports, while limiting the classical framework of PWDs as a “vulnerable group” simply because of their medical conditions. Instead, they identify and challenge the structural barriers to access and equity in the face of climate change. The report also addresses intersectionality – so sections on disability mention barriers and oppression for women with disabilities, people of color (POC) with disabilities, and so on; while sections on racial equity note that rates of disability are higher among POC and disability can create additional inequities in addition to those already faced by able-bodied POC.

Officials then identify areas where the US can support equitable adaptation. The report emphasizes universal accessibility and equity in every possible section, then goes into more granular detail where it’s appropriate. For example, sections on disaster response could address warnings, evacuation and shelter (among other things), while a section on extreme heat events could emphasize access to air conditioning and financial assistance for electric bills. Anecdotes provide examples of intersectionality and detailed scenarios in ways that are easy to digest and can inspire planners moving forward. The report should recommend pursuing universal access (beyond existing legal requirements), engaging the disability community (using the theme of “nothing about us, without us”) and respecting both human and civil rights in times of crisis. The report includes resources and appendices as needed.


So that’s broad-level planning that also includes the opportunity for detail. How in-depth can that detail go? It depends on the scope of the project, the relation to climate change, and what segment of the disability community is to be addressed.

Consider this example of something more in-depth:

In a large coastal city, officials are putting together a long-term plan for managing rising sea levels. They know that there are dozens of residential buildings at risk of regular flooding by 2035. In response, the city will pursue planned relocation for the roughly 3000 people who live in those buildings over the course of 10 years. City staff reach out to residents to raise awareness, and soon begin a series of surveys and community forums to shape the 10-year strategy.

In the first survey, staff ask if residents have any disability-related housing concerns, whether around physical access or cost (such as for PWDs on fixed income like SSI). At the community forums, which are streamed live on the city website, staff hire American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters and a closed-captioning specialist, so communications are fully accessible. Staff also host a disability-specific forum for residents, inviting disability organizations like the local Independent Living Center, so residents can connect with other community advocates. Staff commit to engaging with local disability organizations and residents throughout the 10-year process.

In the end, staff find that 500 of the 3000 residents have some sort of disability-related housing concern. The concerns are mostly about physical access, closeness to transportation and services, and affordability. The city hires a specialist to assist each of those 500 residents find a new home, with the right accessibility features and a good location, and relocate safely. The project also secures funding for housing retrofits and subsidies, so people can live in homes that are as accessible and affordable as the ones they left behind. A final report includes an appendix on how staff included PWDs: this is useful for the city going forward and can serve as a resource for other cities adapting to rising tides.


Conclusion

Given the diversity and intersectionality of disability, plus the complex set of climate impacts, this topic can be approached from any number of angles. The biggest key is to include the disability community in the conversation around climate adaptation. From the disability activist end, we can identify any number of issues in society and figure out how they are connected to climate change; we can then understand how climate change might affect those issues in the future; and we must always stay vigilant and engaged for truly inclusive climate adaptation.

Climate Change & Disability – an Intro (12/31/20)

It’s time to visit the main topic at hand: the intersection of climate change and disability rights. Want to know why this is an incredibly important topic – and now, the focus of my life’s work? Here goes…

First off, the climate is changing. And that’s a big deal.

As many folks know, climate change poses a huge danger to the natural world, humans, and our built environment. Almost entirely because of human actions, the amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere has gone through the roof over the past century-and-a-half. Greenhouse gases act like a blanket around the earth, trapping the sun’s warmth so we aren’t, well, the temperature of space. These gases – the most well-known of which is carbon dioxide (CO2) – have gone up and down over millennia. When the concentrations of GHGs increase, global temperatures go up; when GHG concentrations go down, the temperature gets cooler. Humans, by burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests and doing other industrial processes (like making cement), have caused GHGs in the atmosphere to skyrocket over the last 150 years. In the mid-late 1800s, before we started burning coal as fuel, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 270 parts per million (ppm); now, it’s at an unthinkable 415 ppm. We have also released other more-potent GHGs, such as methane (CH4) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) that, frankly, aren’t discussed enough these days. As a result, the Earth has warmed by about 1.2°C, or 2°F, which has led to massive changes in the environment. Plus, we are still churning out GHGs while getting to net-zero-carbon will take decades – and because warming lags behind GHG growth, we are destined for more warming regardless.

That warming has significant consequences. For example:

  • A warmer atmosphere makes for stronger storms, more intense wildfires, deeper droughts, shrinking glaciers and snowpack, and many other direct environmental impacts.
  • — The oceans have sucked up a good amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere, which makes them more acidic. This harms coral reefs and can devastate fish, crustaceans and other sea creatures.
  • — When things warm up, ice melts and water expands. Melting mountaintop glaciers and ice sheets (like those on Greenland or Antarctica), plus expanding water, means that the surface level of the earth’s oceans continues to rise. This threatens low-lying islands and coastal areas.
  • — Animals and plants will either have a hard time withstanding warming, or they will migrate because of it. We’ll end up with expanding deserts near the equator, and more tropical plants inching toward the Arctic. We may also lose some species, including animals and plants that humans harvest for food.
  • — Warming can kick in dangerous “positive feedback loops” that increase temperatures even without human activity. For example, warming temperatures can lead to more forest fires, which release CO2 and kill the trees that pull carbon out of the atmosphere. As permafrost – permanently frozen soil – in the Arctic melts, bacteria eat the thawing soil and plant matter and release dangerous methane. Feedback loops raise the danger of indefinite, drastic warming.

The magazine Rolling Stone, commemorating us reaching 415 ppm in 2019, notes that “The last time CO2 levels were at 415 ppm, during the Pliocene period about 3 million years ago… Beech trees grew near the South Pole. There was no Greenland ice sheet, and probably not a West Antarctic ice sheet, either. Sea levels were 50 or 60 feet (or more) higher.” As I mentioned earlier, changes to the environment tend to lag behind changes in GHGs – so we may have some very drastic transformations on the way. (Will oceans rise 50 or 60 feet? Well, that depends on how quickly we reduce our emissions and, hopefully, start “sequestering” CO2 by pulling it out of the atmosphere.)

This all threatens to upend nature and society along with it. Over millennia, humans have built a system of farms, cities, dams, ports, island nations, and plenty of immovable infrastructure to hold all of it together. A changing climate threatens those very systems. For example:

  • — Stronger storms and wildfires damage or destroy homes and infrastructure, while people may be hurt or perish in a natural disaster. Pollution during and after those events can threaten public health (for example, storms can lead to damaged sanitation infrastructure with related consequences).
  • — More frequent and intense heat waves impact public health and may stress the electric grid if too many people are blasting air-conditioners.
  • — Changes in rainfall, snowfall and glacier melt threaten freshwater supplies for farming, drinking, sanitation, industrial processes and more.
  • — Rising oceans can flood islands, coastal cities, coastal infrastructure, and the shipping ports that facilitate so much international trade.
  • — We have domesticated plants and animals for farming and livestock, but our farms might not work well in a different climate (especially depending on the type of crop, animal, and/or climate impact). Changing migration patterns of other animals and insects, including pollinators like honeybees and butterflies, may affect our food supplies.

These and other consequences can lead to even more drastic impacts on society. I often call these “secondary,” “tertiary,” and “cascading” impacts of climate change. Just a few examples include:

  • — People may leave their homes due to the impacts of climate change. For example, they may need to leave a low-lying island overtaken by rising oceans or find a new home after theirs was destroyed in a wildfire. This is called “climate migration” or “climate displacement.”
  • — Climate stressors can lead to violent conflict. For example, there might be “water wars” over diminishing freshwater supplies. Mass migration can also lead to resentment and even conflict. (Going the other way, climate-related conflict can create refugees).
  • — The global economy will certainly take a hit from climate change. There could be any number of causes, such as droughts impacting agriculture or flooded ports harming international trade.
  • — The combination of shrinking natural environments (from deforestation, wildfires, pollution and more) brings humans more in contact with wildlife. This raises the danger of diseases moving from animals to humans – such as was the case for the catastrophic COVID-19 pandemic.
  • — A shrinking economy will stress government budgets. Governments may also have greater costs from climate impacts (say, repairing damaged infrastructure or having huge health spending during a pandemic). This endangers the stability of government and its services.

Long story short: climate change is a big deal and is already impacting societies and economies around the world. Luckily, business and government has been working hard to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. But there is much, much more to be done.

So now that that’s out of the way – what’s the connection to disability?

Well, disability is plenty complex just like climate change. There are several broad disability categories with thousands of specific disabilities between them. Two people with the same disability may have a different experience with how it affects their body, mind, senses or general comfort. (Anecdote: I have a C5-6 spinal cord injury with quadriplegia; my experience is different than other C5-6 quads, and definitely different than somebody who injured their spinal cord much higher or lower on their neck/torso.) And people’s other life experiences – their income, race, gender identity, nationality, place of residence, education, and so on – make it so disability is ultimately an intersectional issue.

Before getting into details of climate justice, we need to consider how we look at disability. The classic perspective was through the medical model of disability. The medical model basically says that being able-bodied is normal and it’s just fine for society to be built for able-bodied folks; disability, on the other hand, is a medical issue that is inherently negative and must be addressed through medicine and technology. On the other hand, there is the social model of disability, which gained traction through the modern disability rights movement. This says that we must recognize there’s a broad range of physical, mental and other characteristics in society, and society should be built in a universally accessible way. Any barriers to equality – whether a lack of physical access or discrimination in hiring – is actually what causes somebody’s disability; the lack of equitable access is the disabling factor. My go-to example of this is a wheelchair-user in a two-story building: the medical model says a building with only stairs is just fine, and the “impairment” is the disability (basically, “tough luck”); the social model, though, says that it’s the lack of an elevator that truly causes the disability. In addition to the social model having more moral weight around equity and tackling oppression, it usually makes logistical sense: adding an elevator is a whole lot easier than trying to make the wheelchair-user walk again (which is usually impossible) and that elevator will transport multiple people with disabilities (PWDs) over its lifetime.

When we consider disability and climate change, we must accept the reality that the world is not fully accessible and that too many people are still stuck in the “medical model” mentality. Also, the lack of universal access means that we need to keep some of those medically-related issues in mind. But wherever possible, it’s important to frame the discussion using the social model – and that will help us push for more universal access and a truly inclusive future.

Now it’s brainstorming time! Check out how these climate impacts affect PWDs and then think about how they might fit into the medical and social models.

  • In extreme heat events, certain disabilities increase the risk of heat exhaustion and heat stroke (e.g., diabetes and high-level spinal cord injuries). Meanwhile, PWDs are both lower-income and have fewer housing choices on average, so they generally have less access to air conditioning and the funds to pay for high AC bills. PWDs also have disproportionately low personal vehicle ownership, so they may need to wait at outdoor bus stops on their way to finding an accessible air-conditioned building.
  • — In the case of storms and other acute disasters, PWDs may not have access to accessible transportation to evacuate (or they may not have somebody to drive a vehicle for them). If they are able to evacuate, they often need to take extra supplies; then, they’ll need to secure appropriate shelter until they can return or find a new home. PWDs who need personal assistance or regular medical care (say, for dressing or transfers or bathroom care) will need to arrange that until they can recover from the disaster. If their home is destroyed, they may have difficulty finding affordable, accessible shelter and may not have enough money to fully recover.
  • PWDs on average have fewer assets and lower income than the able-bodied population; many also receive vital benefits and supports through the government. If the economy falters due to the stresses of climate change, already-economically-disadvantaged groups will have a tougher time than more privileged groups. PWDs, who disproportionately face employment discrimination, may find it difficult to land jobs in a tough job market. If economic stresses lead to cutbacks in government services, it may jeopardize life-sustaining benefits for PWDs.
  • Migration is one of the least discussed but most concerning parts of climate change. PWDs already face barriers regarding relocation – such as finding a destination country with legal protections around disability, getting work visas in a discriminatory job environment, and enrolling in the government services needed for health and quality-of-life. Finding appropriate, accessible transportation during migration and maintaining the necessary medical and personal care along the way are other significant barriers (especially when moving over rough terrain, with smugglers, etc.). And right now, there are few if any legal frameworks for addressing climate migrants (unlike with conflict refugees), which harms all environmental migrants but especially PWDs and other groups with existing barriers.
  • Climate change consequences can sometimes lead to disability or exacerbate it. For example, an able-bodied person may be trapped in rubble during a storm and get a life-long disability from their injuries. Wildfire smoke can lead to asthma or other respiratory disabilities. Expanding disease vectors, including mosquito-borne diseases and new epidemic/pandemic viruses, can likewise lead to lifelong disability; we are seeing this with the nonfatal COVID-19 outcomes including long-term cardiovascular damage, amputations, cognitive impacts and more.

Each of these impacts will raise serious dangers to the health, safety and independence of PWDs around the world. They come from a combination of legitimate medical concerns, such as a high risk of heat exhaustion whenever somebody with a relevant disability is outside, and social inequities, such as disproportionately low access to air conditioning. Problems are only exacerbated when we consider intersectionality and multiple marginalized identities – so it’s an especially inequitable world for PWDs of color, women and LGBTQ groups, people with multiple disabilities, those living in poverty or slum-like conditions, unemployed PWDs, and so on. In the end, the main point is clear: PWDs are disproportionately affected by the many impacts of climate change and much of that is the result of inequitable infrastructure and social systems.

Of course, this can’t go unaddressed. We must create a fully inclusive world that ensures health, safety, independence, and human rights for the disability community. As we reduce emissions and prepare for the future, we must ensure all steps include universal accessibility and decisions are made with the input of PWDs. In the next week or so, I’ll do a couple blogs explaining inclusive approaches to mitigation (reducing emissions and slowing climate change) and adaptation (preparing for the consequences of climate change).

But for now, that’s the end of today’s explainer. Happy new year everyone – catch you in 2021!

Intro to ACS’s founder, Alex

It’s time for the ACS blog! These will be a mix of explaining the connection between climate and disability, telling stories of what’s happening with ACS, and sharing info from our partners and collaborators. Guest blogs are always welcome, so reach out if you have an idea.

Now that the blog page is up, it’s time for an introduction.

I’m Alex Ghenis, the founder of Accessible Climate Strategies (ACS). I came to establish ACS partly from personal experience, partly for intellectual curiosity, and largely from wanting to make the world a more inclusive and safer place for people with disabilities. I’ve been working on climate and disability issues for my whole career, largely in the nonprofit sphere, and decided during the uncertain year of 2020 that direct consulting could help numerous partners and organizations. I’m excited for the opportunity to work with partners and make positive change in everything connected to climate and disability – and, as projects grow, expand ACS as a change-making entity.

Although I have a couple disabilities, my disability experience started before those came about. Throughout my childhood, I had family and friends with chronic health disabilities and, at one point, lived with a double amputee (my father’s then-girlfriend) who used a power wheelchair. I even watched a ramp being built into my family home before I knew ramps would become a central part of my independence.

At age 16, my affinity for extreme sports caught up to me when I broke my neck in a cycling accident, leaving me with no control of my legs and limited control of my torso and arms. I didn’t truly understand the gravity of privilege at the time, but I was quite lucky to have access to quality medical care and a supportive family environment. In less than a year, I felt comfortable in my new situation and was back at school with more focus, especially considering I wasn’t as distracted with riding bikes down mountains (or jumping bikes off buildings… and yes, I did that once).

One year after I returned home from the hospital, I was accepted to the University of California, Berkeley. I participated in their unique Disabled Students Residence Program (DSRP) alongside a dozen other students with disabilities. The program, which was funded both by the state and the University, provided personal attendant care and independent living training as we applied for social services and hired our own staff of attendants. I was taught to manage hiring, scheduling, a boatload of government paperwork, and my own personal finances so I wouldn’t lose healthcare and other benefits. “Adulting” can be hard for anyone, but there were extra hoops for me and my DSRP-peers just to stay healthy and independent. What we learned is that, with enough focus and effort, it’s plenty possible for us to live a happy and successful life. (That is, as Americans with access to social services and the wherewithal to put in that effort – another point of privilege I hadn’t yet fully digested.)

Once living in Berkeley, I was involved in disability rights activism throughout college. But what caught my academic interest was climate change. I explored climate change through the geography department, with a focus on human geography – how humans interact with each other, the built environment, and the national environment (and how the natural and built environments impact humans). The end of college involved a sobering revelation as I learned about methane in thawing permafrost: although we can try to reduce emissions, the “positive feedback loops” of climate change means the earth will continue to warm. It was clear to me that we can’t just reduce emissions – must also adapt. (Additionally, I looked into limited natural resources and had another revelation: as we adapt, we must do so in the right ways so we don’t run out of the resources we need to build a better world.)

My next step was grad school for public policy. Through connections and internships, I honed on energy storage as a career focus. We clearly needed renewables to reduce emissions and avoid running out of natural gas (which would devastate the electric grid) – but solar panels can’t produce stable energy on a partly cloudy day, and certainly not at night. Energy storage (basically huge batteries for the electric grid) could help even out that “intermittent” energy and turn daytime sunlight into nighttime electricity. It’s just as important for other forms of renewable energy, such as wind power. With that in mind, my first job was at the California Energy Storage Alliance, working on regulatory issues related to storage and the grid.

Soon into that work, I had an epiphany. “I charge my wheelchair at night, and storage is a must-have if we want stable 24-hour electricity. This isn’t just a climate issue. It’s a disability rights and independence issue.” With that in mind, I began a blog on the connections between climate, limited resources and disability. That project, titled “New Earth Disability,” eventually got picked up by the World Institute on Disability – where I began working and managed the NED initiative for 6 years. The work expanded to focus on everything from disaster readiness to transportation infrastructure to financial empowerment (because financial stability helps weather the uncertainties of climate change). My time at WID was fulfilling and I’m grateful for the partners and collaborators I met on the way, including amazing experts in the disability and climate worlds.

When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, I decided to pursue consulting as a more dynamic opportunity to work with partners on climate adaptation and mitigation. Creating Accessible Climate Strategies and building a business has been an exciting journey. I mentioned that financial empowerment is an important part of climate resilience – and the experience of starting and managing consulting work has been enlightening around the economic strategies that people with disabilities can use to pave their own path while paying the bills.

ACS is already supporting individuals and organizations on disability rights in disaster readiness, transportation, housing and financial empowerment. Feel free to reach out if you are interested in working together, to make the world a better place.

Thank you for your interest in Accessible Climate Strategies. Looking forward to sharing more in future blogs!