1887
Volume 7, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Energy democracy hopes to foster community engagement and participation in shaping our transition from fossil fuels to a renewable energy-based economy. These considerations result from critiques by environmental justice, climate justice, and just transition advocates. Although many are sympathetic to energy democracy ideals, climate goals often are articulated in math terms. This essay defines the aforementioned key terms and asks: what are the limitations and possibilities of engaging publics when climate action solely is articulated in numbers? A compelling case study is the City of Boulder – recognized as a global leader in climate science and a national leader in innovative environmental planning. This essay shares work from 2016, when the City shared a climate action plan for public feedback, supported several public participation events, and passed climate action legislation goals. We argue a just transition and energy democracy ideals are hindered if we reduce climate goals to math.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.18020.nap
2019-02-01
2019-10-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. 350.org. n.d.Retrieved fromhttps://350.org
  2. 400.350.org. n.d. “400 PPM.” Retrieved from400.350.org
  3. Aakhus, Mark
    1999 “Science Court: Case Study in Designing Discourse to Manage Policy Controversy.” Knowledge, Technology & Policy12(2): 20–37. 10.1007/s12130‑999‑1020‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12130-999-1020-6 [Google Scholar]
  4. Aakhus, Mark, and Marcin Lewiński
    2017 “Advancing Polylogical Analysis of Large-Scale Argumentation: Disagreement Management in the Fracking Controversy.” Argumentation31 (1): 179–207. doi:  10.1007/s10503‑016‑9403‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9403-9 [Google Scholar]
  5. Allen, Benjamin
    2017 “A Mathematical Model of Altruism.” The Atlantic. Retrieved fromhttps://www.theatlantic.com/
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Antonick, Gary
    2013 “The Mathematics of Climate Change.” The New York Times, Retrieved fromhttps://nytimes.com/2013/02/25/climate/
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Armstrong, Andrea, and Harriet Bulkeley
    2014 “Micro-Hydro Politics: Producing and Contesting Community Energy in the North of England.” Geoforum56: 66–76. 10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.06.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.06.015 [Google Scholar]
  8. Asen, Robert
    2010 “Reflections on the Role of Rhetoric in Public Policy.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs13 (1):121–143. 10.1353/rap.0.0142
    https://doi.org/10.1353/rap.0.0142 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2015Democracy, Deliberation, and Education. College Station, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Baker, Ingrid, Ann Peterson, Gregory Brown, and Clive McAlpine
    2012 “Local Government Response to the Impacts of Climate Change: An Evaluation Of Local Climate Adaptation Plans.” Landscape and Urban Planning107:127–136. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.009 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bassett, Ellen, and Vivek Shandas
    2010 Innovation and climate action planning. Journal of the American Planning Association76 (4):435–450. 10.1080/01944363.2010.509703
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2010.509703 [Google Scholar]
  12. Black, Laura W.
    2008 “Deliberation, Storytelling, and Dialogic Moments.” Communication Theory18 (1):93–116. 10.1111/j.1468‑2885.2007.00315.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00315.x [Google Scholar]
  13. Boulder’s Climte Commitment
    Boulder’s Climte Commitment 2017Boulder’s Climate Commitment: Rising to the Climate Challenge, Powering a Vibrant Future. Retrieved fromhttps://bouldercolorado.gov/climate
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bridge, Gavin
    2010 “Geographies of peak oil: The other carbon problem.” Geoforum41 (4): 523–530. 10.1016/j.geoforum.2010.06.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2010.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  15. Carcasson, Martín, and Leah Sprain
    2016 “Beyond Problem Solving: Reconceptualizing the Work of Public Deliberation as Deliberative Inquiry.” Communication Theory26: 41–63. 10.1111/comt.12055
    https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12055 [Google Scholar]
  16. Castán Broto, Vanesa, and Harriet Bulkeley
    2013 “A Survey of Urban Climate Change Experiments in 100 Cities.” Global Environmental Change23: 92–102. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.005 [Google Scholar]
  17. City of Boulder
    City of Boulder 2017 “City of Boulder Announces 2017 Boulder Energy Challenge Winners.” Retrieved fromhttps://bouldercolorado.gov/newsroom/city-of-boulder-announces-2017-boulder-energy-challenge-winners
  18. Cook, John, Naomi Oreskes, Peter T. Doran, William R. L. Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed W. Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, Stephan Lewandowsky, Andrew G. Skuce, and Sarah A. Green
    2016 “Consensus on Consensus: A Synthesis of Consensus Estimates on Human-Caused Global Warming.” Environmental Research Letters11:1–7. 10.1088/1748‑9326/11/4/048002
    https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 [Google Scholar]
  19. Cox, Robert
    2007 “Nature’s ‘Crisis Disciplines’: Does Environmental Communication Have an Ethical Duty?” Environmental Communication1: 5–20. 10.1080/17524030701333948
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17524030701333948 [Google Scholar]
  20. de Onís, Catalina M., and Phaedra C. Pezzullo
    2017 “The Ethics of Embodied Engagement: Ethnographies of Environmental Justice.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Environmental Justice, ed. byRyan Holifield, Jayajit Chakraborty, and Gordon Walker, 231–240. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315678986‑19
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315678986-19 [Google Scholar]
  21. Delgado, Fernando Pedro
    1995 “Chicano Movement Rhetoric: An Ideographic Interpretation.” Communication Quarterly43: 446–456. 10.1080/01463379509369991
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379509369991 [Google Scholar]
  22. della Porta, Donatella
    2014Methodological Practices in Social Movement Research. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198719571.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198719571.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Fairchild, Denise
    2017 “Conclusion: Building an Energy Democracy Movement.” InEnergy Democracy: Advancing Equity in Clean Energy Solutions, ed. byDenise Fairchild, and Al Weinrub, 239–250. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 10.5822/978‑1‑61091‑852‑7_12
    https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-852-7_12 [Google Scholar]
  24. Fairchild, Denise, and Al Weinrub
    2017 “Introduction.” InEnergy Democracy: Advancing Equity in Clean Energy Solutions, ed. byDenise Fairchild, and Al Weinrub, 1–20. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 10.5822/978‑1‑61091‑852‑7_1
    https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-852-7_1 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gastil, John
    2008Political Communication and Deliberation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 10.4135/9781483329208
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483329208 [Google Scholar]
  26. Goodnight, G. Thomas
    2012a “The Personal, Technical, and Public Spheres of Argument: A Speculative Inquiry into the Art of Public Deliberation.” Argumentation and Advocacy48: 198–210. doi:  10.1080/00028533.2012.11821771
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2012.11821771 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2012b “The Personal, Technical, and Public Spheres of Argument: A Note on 21st Century Critical Communication Inquiry.” Argumentation & Advocacy 48(4): 258–267. https://doi-org.colorado.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/00028533.2012.11821776. 10.1080/00028533.2012.11821776
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2012.11821776 [Google Scholar]
  28. Goodwin, Jean
    2011 “Accounting for the Appeal to the Authority of Experts.” Argumentation, 25 (3): 285–296. doi:  10.1007/s10503‑011‑9219‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9219-6 [Google Scholar]
  29. Goodwin, Jean, and Lee Honeycutt
    2009 “When Science Goes Public: From Technical Arguments to Appeals to Authority.” Studies in Communication Sciences9 (2): 19–30.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Griffin, Leland G.
    1964 “The Rhetorical Structure of the ‘New Left’ Movement: Part I.” Quarterly Journal of Speech50: 113–135. 10.1080/00335636409382652
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00335636409382652 [Google Scholar]
  31. Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson
    2004Why Deliberative Democracy?Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 10.1515/9781400826339
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400826339 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hammerback, John C., and Richard J. Jensen
    1994 “Ethnic Heritage as Rhetorical Legacy: The Plan of Delano.” Quarterly Journal of Speech80: 53–70. 10.1080/00335639409384055
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00335639409384055 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hicks, Darrin, and Lenore Langsdorf
    1999 “Regulating Disagreement, Constituting Participants: A Critique of Proceduralist Theories of Democracy.” Argumentation13 (2): 139–160. 10.1023/A:1007773607213
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007773607213 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hoornweg, Daniel, Mila Freire, Marcus J. Lee, Perinaz Bhada-Tata, and Belinda Yuen
    2011Cities and Climate Change: Responding to an Urgent Agenda. Retrieved fromworldbank.org10.1596/978‑0‑8213‑8493‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-8493-0 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hunt, Alistair, and Paul Watkiss
    2011 “Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation in Cities: A Review of the Literature.” Climatic Change104: 13–49. 10.1007/s10584‑010‑9975‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9975-6 [Google Scholar]
  36. Jackson, Sally
    2008 “Black Box Arguments.” Argumentation22: 437–446. 10.1007/s10503‑008‑9094‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-008-9094-y [Google Scholar]
  37. 2015 “Design Thinking in Argumentation Theory and Practice.” Argumentation29: 243–263. doi:  10.1007/s10503‑015‑9353‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9353-7 [Google Scholar]
  38. Jackson, Sally, and Mark Aakhus
    2014 “Becoming More Reflective About the Role of Design in Communication.” Journal of Applied Communication Research42 (2): 125–134. doi:  10.1080/00909882.2014.882009
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2014.882009 [Google Scholar]
  39. Jordan, Andrew, Tim Rayner, Heike Schroeder, Neil Adger, Kevin Anderson, Alice Bows, Corinne Le Quéré, Manoj Joshi, Sarah Mander, Nem Vaughan, and Lorraine Whitmarsh
    2013 “Going Beyond Two Degrees? The Risks and Opportunities of Alternative Options.” Climate Policy13: 751–769. 10.1080/14693062.2013.835705
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2013.835705 [Google Scholar]
  40. Just Transition Collaborative (JTC)
    Just Transition Collaborative (JTC) (n.d.). Just Transition Collaborative University of Colorado Boulder. Retrieved fromwww.colorado.edu/jtc
  41. Kahn, Brian
    2016, September27. “The World Passes 400 PPM Threshold. Permanently.” Climate Central. Retrieved fromwww.climatecentral.org/news/world-passes-400-ppm-threshold-permanently-20738
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Maldonado, Julie, Heather Lazrus, Shiloh-Kay Bennett, Karletta Chief, Carla May Dhillon, Bob Gough, Linda Kruger, Jeff Morisette, Stefan Petrovic, and Kyle Powys Whyte
    2016 “The Story of Rising Voices: Facilitating Collaboration Between Indigenous and Western Ways of Knowing.” InResponses to Disasters and Climate Change: Understanding Vulnerability and Fostering Resilience, ed. byMichele Companion and Miriam S. Chaiken, 15–26. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 10.1201/9781315315928‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315315928-3 [Google Scholar]
  43. Martinez, Cecilia
    2017 “From Commodification to the Commons: Charting the Pathway for Energy Democracy.” InEnergy Democracy: Advancing Equity in Clean Energy Solutions, ed. byDenise Fairchild, and Al Weinrub, 21–36. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 10.5822/978‑1‑61091‑852‑7_2
    https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-852-7_2 [Google Scholar]
  44. McKibben, Bill
    2012, July19. “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math.” The Rolling Stone. Retrieved fromwww.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Middleton, Michael, Aaron Hess, Danielle Endres, and Samantha Senda-Cook
    2015Participatory Critical Rhetoric: Theoretical and Methodological Foundations for Studying Rhetoric In Situ. New York, NY: Lexington Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Middleton, Michael, Samantha Senda-Cook, and Danielle Endres
    2011 “Articulating Rhetorical Field Methods: Challenges and Tensions.” Western Journal of Communication75 (4): 386–406. 10.1080/10570314.2011.586969
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2011.586969 [Google Scholar]
  47. Millard-Ball, Adam
    2012 “The Limits to Planning: Causal Impacts of City Climate Action Plans.” Journal of Planning Education and Research33: 5–19. 10.1177/0739456X12449742
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X12449742 [Google Scholar]
  48. Musi, Elena, and Mark Aakhus
    2018 “Discovering Argumentative Patterns in Energy Polylogues: A Macroscope for Argument Mining.” Argumentation32 (3): 397–430. 10.1007/s10503‑017‑9441‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-017-9441-y [Google Scholar]
  49. Neves, Ana Rita, and Vitor Leal
    2010 “Energy Sustainability Indicators for Local Energy Planning: Review of Current Practices and Derivation of a New Framework.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews14: 2723–2735. 10.1016/j.rser.2010.07.067
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.07.067 [Google Scholar]
  50. Nield, David
    2016, November16. “More Than 6,000 Cities Are Already Crushing Carbon Emission Targets For 2020.” Science Alert, Retrieved fromwww.sciencealert.com/6-000-cities-are-ahead-of-their-carbon-emission-targets
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Paliewicz, Nicholas
    2012 “Global Warming and the Interaction between the Public and Technical Spheres of Argument: When Standards for Expertise Really Matter.” Argumentation and Advocacy48: 231–242. 10.1080/00028533.2012.11821774
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2012.11821774 [Google Scholar]
  52. Paliewicz, Nicholas S., and George, F. (Guy) McHendry, Jr.
    2017 “When Good Arguments Do Not Work: Post-Dialectics, Argument Assemblages, and the Networks of Climate Skepticism.” Argumentation and Advocacy53: 287–309. 10.1080/00028533.2017.1375738
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2017.1375738 [Google Scholar]
  53. Pearce, Warren, Reiner Grundmann, Mike Hulme, Sujatha Raman, Eleanor Hadley Kershaw, and Judith Tsouvalis
    2017 “Beyond Counting Climate Consensus.” Environmental Communication23: 1–8. doi:  10.1080/17524032.2017.1333965
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1333965 [Google Scholar]
  54. Pezzullo, Phaedra C.
    2007Toxic Tourism: Rhetorics of Pollution, Travel, and Environmental Justice. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 2016 “Afterword: Decentering & Regenerating the Field.” InText + Field: Innovations in Rhetorical Methods, eds. bySara McKinnon, Robert Asen, Karma R. Chávez, and Robert Glenn Howard, 177–188. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 2016 “Unearthing the Marvelous: Environmental Imprints in Rhetorical Criticism.” Review of Communication16: 25–42. 10.1080/15358593.2016.1183874
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2016.1183874 [Google Scholar]
  57. Pezzullo, Phaedra C., and Robert J. Cox
    2017Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere (5th eds.). Thousand Oaks, C: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 2018Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere (5th eds.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Pezzullo, Phaedra C., and Catalina M. de Onís
    2018 “Rethinking Rhetorical Field Methods on a Precarious Planet.” Communication Monographs85 (1): 103–122. doi:  10.1080/03637751.2017.1336780
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1336780 [Google Scholar]
  60. Sierra Club
    Sierra Club (n.d.). “Is Your City #readyfor100?” Retrieved fromwww.sierraclub.org/ready-for-100/cities-ready-for-100
  61. Simons, Herbert W.
    1970 “Requirements, Problems, and Strategies: A theory of Persuasion for Social Movements.” Quarterly Journal of Speech56: 1–11. 10.1080/00335637009382977
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00335637009382977 [Google Scholar]
  62. Smith, Linda T.
    2012Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (2nd ed.) New York, NY: Zed Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Sprain, Leah, and Hughes, Jessica M. F.
    2015 “A New Perspective on Stories in Public Deliberation: Analyzing Small Stories in Discussions About Immigration.” Text & Talk35: 531–551. 10.1515/text‑2015‑0013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2015-0013 [Google Scholar]
  64. Stewart, Charles J., Craig Allen Smith, and Robert E. Denton
    2012Persuasion and Social Movements (6th ed.) Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Tarrow, Sidney G.
    2011Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics (3rd ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511973529
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511973529 [Google Scholar]
  66. UN-HABITAT
    UN-HABITAT 2012State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 – Prosperity of Cities. London: Earthscan. Retrieved frommiror.unhabitat.org
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Warner, Koko, Kees van der Geest, Sönke Kreft, Saleemul Huq, Sven Harmeling, Koen Kusters, and Alex de Sherbinin
    2012 “Evidence From the Frontlines of Climate Change: Loss and Damage to Communities Despite Coping and Adaptation.” Loss and Damage in Vulnerable Countries Initiative. Policy Report. Report No. 9. Bonn: United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS).
  68. Weber, Elke U., and Paul C. Stern
    2011 “Public Understanding of Climate Change in the United States.” American Psychologist66: 315–328. 10.1037/a0023253
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023253 [Google Scholar]
  69. Whyte, Kyle
    2017 “Indigenous Climate Change Studies: Indigenizing Futures, Decolonizing the Anthropocene.” English Language Notes55 (1–2): 153–162. 10.1215/00138282‑55.1‑2.153
    https://doi.org/10.1215/00138282-55.1-2.153 [Google Scholar]
  70. World-Bank
    World-Bank 2010Cities and Climate Change: An Urgent Agenda. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Yalçın, Melike, and Benoit Lefèvre
    2012 “Local Climate Action Plans in France: Emergence, Limitations and Conditions for Success.” Environmental Policy and Governance22: 104–115. 10.1002/eet.1575
    https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1575 [Google Scholar]
  72. Young, Iris M.
    1996 “Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy.” InDemocracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, ed. bySeyla Benhabib, 120–136. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 2000Inclusion and Democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.18020.nap
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.18020.nap
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error