Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

LISTEN: Mokshda Kaul on making the clean energy transition work for all

News Feed
Wednesday, September 25, 2024

Mokshda Kaul joins the Agents of Change in Environmental Justice podcast to discuss the clean energy transition and how policymakers and other leaders can avoid mistakes of the past.Kaul, a Ph.D. candidate in the sustainable energy program at the School of Sustainability at Arizona State University, also talks about the crucial role of coalitions in a just energy transition.The Agents of Change in Environmental Justice podcast is a biweekly podcast featuring the stories and big ideas from past and present fellows, as well as others in the field. You can see all of the past episodes here.Listen below to our discussion with Kaul and subscribe to the podcast at iTunes or Spotify.Agents of Change in Environmental Justice · Mokshda Kaul on making the clean energy transition work for allTranscript Brian BienkowskiMoksha, how are you doing today?Mokshda Kaul I'm good. How are you, Brian?Brian Bienkowski I'm doing wonderful. I'm a little hot. I turned off my fan so we don't have the background noise. And where are you today?Mokshda Kaul So speaking of hot, I'm in Arizona, so I'm in Phoenix, and I've also turned my fan off. And luckily, my AC is working, so I'm not going to explode into flames, which is always possible in Arizona. So, you know, just saying. But yeah, that's where I am right now, and I'm just really excited to do this actually.Brian Bienkowski Well, I am really excited to talk to you too. Your research and your path there, to me, are fascinating. So I'm so excited to have you on the program. So as you probably know, I like to start at the beginning. So tell me a little bit about your upbringing. Of course, you're not from Arizona originally.Mokshda Kaul yeah. So I moved here for my PhD in 2020 and that was in the middle of the pandemic, by the way, which was quite jarring. There were only those bubble flights operating from the US to India, and it was terrifying for multiple different reasons. And I got got here, and I was again stuck in a room. Instead of being stuck in a room in India, I was stuck in a room in Phoenix. Nothing changed in my life, honestly speaking. But in terms of, like, where I'm from, and coming to Arizona, I'm from Mumbai, which is I think, the world's most densely populated city. So I'm used to having people step on my toes while I'm walking. And I came to Arizona, and I was like, there are no people here. What's wrong with this place? So that was number one for me. And, I mean, being raised in Mumbai, India is a country with so many multitudes. And I'm born and raised in Mumbai, but I come from Kashmir, and I spent my summer vacations, and, like a lot of my time, even, like a few years in my childhood, actually, in this smaller town near Kashmir called Jammu, which is, I would say, like now it's a tier-two city, but back then, maybe it was like a tier-three city, and it was very jarring the difference between Mumbai and Jammu, because Mumbai is the financial capital of India. So you have every amenity you can think of. You have round the clock electricity, and of course, within Mumbai also, we have terrible infrastructure problems, but that's a different story. But juxtaposing that against Jammu, where you'd have blackouts in the middle of summer heat and like summer, like the Phoenix summer, and I used to find it so uncomfortable to sort of when I'd come back to Mumbai to have that feeling of, wait, what is the thing that the people here are doing right, that they don't have to have these blackouts? Like, what? What is it like? Why is there this element of chance and privilege that's deciding who gets to experience these things or not? And I think I was just always very irritated and uncomfortable by it, and I was benefiting from it for all intents and purposes.Brian Bienkowski And so you mentioned that juxtaposition of Kashmir and Mumbai, and I'm wondering if that was kind of where you became aware of the concept of environmental justice, or if that was or if it was something else.Mokshda Kaul So I mean, I'm really glad you point that out, but that's exactly it. I would find it very unsettling. And it's just, if you look at it, I mean, at the same time as I was growing up, I was reading like, Rawlsian theories of justice and trying to understand, like, who decides, who decides that somebody gets something just by virtue of the fact that they were born in a particular city? Like, I don't have anything to do with the fact that I was born in Mumbai. Okay, and I think that the unsettled feeling never left me, and I think that's what they call acknowledging your privilege. And I was just always affected by it. And also in addition to this, India has lot of issues on the grounds of caste and class, and growing up in a space like that, where you... especially in Mumbai, where it's so cosmopolitan and so it's like a melting pot. You see all of it every single day, and you can't be away from your privilege. You can't face away if you really choose to tap into it. So I guess that's where that idea of environmental justice kind of ticked in my brain.Brian Bienkowski And before we get into some of that, some of the energy justice work you've done, and what you're working on now, what is a moment or event that has helped shaped your identity up to this point?Mokshda Kaul It's interesting because I was listening to Maria Jo's podcast the other day, and she said the same thing that I have been thinking about that I don't think it's a particular incident. I think it's these bunch of different things that have come together to this moment of like who I am. First of all, it's obviously my parents' history as being internal refugees and learning from them about how conflict operates at a very young age, like I was, I think, three or four, when I understood that, oh, we are not in our hometown because of this huge issue that happened, and there was violence and there was extremism, and there were two sides to the story at that same time, my parents side and the other side. And I think growing up with that, and then there's actually very funny thing that I remember now that you said defining incidents. I think I had bit of a bleeding heart syndrome since I was a child. I don't know why, but I had this. So I still remember this, because it's, it's like, etched so vividly in my memory. I was in third grade and we had to make posters for something in school. I don't remember what exactly, but my poster was the planet crying because it was hot. And this is 2003 and I remember one of my uncles came home and he made fun of me, and he was like, "This is so stupid. Like, why are you concerned about the environment and the planet?" And I was in tears, because I was like, no, no, we need to care about this. I don't understand why you don't care about this. And I was, I was sad, like, I was heartbroken that people don't care. And so that little child always had that element of, why don't we want to make the world a better place? Like, what's wrong with people?Brian Bienkowski So the world is still crying. Since your picture, unfortunately, we're all we should all be crying. And so you are, you are trying to better the world, and your research focuses on, I'm distilling it down, but the clean energy transition. So first, what drew you to this line of research, and how are you using this economics background that you mentioned to understand the clean energy adoption and policy?Mokshda Kaul Back in 2014 King's College London did this really cool thing where they got professors from King's College to come down to Mumbai and do this really cool summer course. And I did the one on international political economy. And every student, it was very strenuous. They packed a summer school's worth of teaching and practice into like a one and a half week period. So it was so much reading, like this huge binder of – I don't even want to go back to that – but each student had to prepare, like a presentation on a particular topic. And this is big bit of a background. My dad works in oil and gas, and that's very unsettling to me, and I'm sure he's going to listen to this, but so I naturally decide that I want to work on the energy topic, energy presentation for this class. Because I was like, Oh, my dad knows about this. And the day that I had to present, our professor actually did this whole presentation on how the shale oil boom is going to change, like the face of the earth. And my entire presentation actually was about the shale oil boom. So this is like one hour before my presentation, and I'm having a meltdown because I don't know what to talk about anymore, because you just covered everything, and I'm doing this frantic internet search of what do I talk about? And that's how I found out about the energy transition, and that's how I discovered that, oh, renewable energy is a thing. So instead of talking about shale oil, I talked about how we have these other sources of energy which actually don't create the problems that we have with fossil fuels, and they need more investment, of course, in time. But this is 2014 so it was different situation back then. And so that was how I kind of was drawn to the energy transition. It was a very important moment in my life, I would say, and that changed the focus of how I was seeing the world, and that changed the focus of what I wanted to do with the world. And speaking to my background as an economist, I'm trained as an economist. But I come from a very interdisciplinary school, the School of Sustainability here at ASU, and we kind of, my advisor has a political science background, so I incorporate methods from political science and economics, and the way I see it is it kind of helps me translate the world. So I know econ gets a bad rap for the fact that it's been, it's kind of led us to the point we are at in terms of exploiting the environment and all of those things. But I'm surrounded by a bunch of folks in the School of Sustainability who use econ as a tool to sort of address these problems of environmental and climate issues and distribution concerns and equity concerns. And that's how I see econ. I see it as like this toolkit that I can use to understand why do things look the way they do. And then the political science part also adds to it, because it helps me understand why did people decide what they decided. So all in all, I feel like really grateful for the fact that I have this pol-sci + econ situation, because I'm able to understand policies from like, start to finish in a way that what went into the background, why did you think the way you thought when you made this and how did this come about? And then what are the outcomes from it? So from that sense, yeah, these disciplines have helped me just unpack the whole thing as much as I can.Brian Bienkowski I think the economics arguments and studies and the information that comes out when it comes to environmental issues, energy included, are some of the most interesting, in my opinion. So for instance, EHN covers endocrine disrupting chemicals, and we can say till we're blue in the face, you know, they're bad. And they do this, they hijack your hormones, so on and so forth. But a few years ago, someone did an economic impact study that looked at like healthcare costs associated with chemical exposure. And when you start putting dollar amounts to things like this, I feel like you have all that. You have, all of a sudden gotten the attention of a whole other group of people who have, maybe aren't as concerned.Mokshda Kaul AbsolutelyBrian Bienkowski so I, and I'm sure this is the case in clean energy and fossil fuels. So I I always find those kind of economic angles really, really interesting. And you're looking at the role of coalitions in clean energy policy making. So I want to unpack this a little bit. What can you tell us about the importance of coalitions in this space? And do you have some examples?Mokshda Kaul So for this piece on coalitions that I'm working on, first of all, this is more about the political science space of understanding how policies are made. And I think I came from this question of wanting to understand there were these two very interesting climate legislations in the US that I encountered. I'm sure there are many more. One was in New York, which was the CLCPA, the community leadership, climate leadership and community Protection Act. And other was the CEJA, climate and equitable jobs Act in Illinois. And when I looked at both of these, the first things that you see when you like just do a Google search, is the coalitions that led them there. So there was this really intense advocacy by these major environmental coalitions happening on the ground for both of these acts. And I personally, of course, coalitions are an important tool because they bring in that element of procedural justice, because you are actually having representation from the people you seek to create these acts for and create these bills for. But more than that, I also feel like coalitions become this interesting way to create buy in, because if you have people who are actually invested in, let's say, like, reducing energy burdens, putting their words out there, and having people actually respond to it, and that makes its way into legislation, then this person actually feels represented. And then you have, like, buy-in from this person towards protecting the environment. And I think that's like, these are the two legislative examples. But in terms of coalitions themselves, there's the Illinois clean job coalition in Illinois, which was leading the way on seizure and NY renewals, which was leading the way on clcpa. But outside of the environmental coalitions, there are also jfossil-fuel-union-based job coalitions trying to represent this other side of justice in the transition, in the sense that there are fossil fuel labor groups who are trying to advocate for the fact that they need provisions to sort of help them after these fossil fuel plants are closed down to transition into other work. And so there are, there's the Climate Jobs Institute by, I think it's with Cornell, yeah. And they essentially have these affiliates across the country in different states. So there is Climate Jobs New York, there's Climate Jobs,Illinois, and all of these spaces, I mean, these coalitions represent this other side of justice. And again, if you don't have these coalitions doing it, there's nobody who's going to actually speak like represent these people's interests, is my point. So I think coalitions are incredibly important, especially when you think about justice and in the policy making process, not just in like the part where you advocate for your needs, and you just do these die ins, or you do demonstrations, not just that, but also the language that goes into these policies. So that's my perspective, and why I think coalitions are incredibly important. And I don't want to sound biased, but I really love the work that ICJ has been doing and the work that the climate jobs affiliates have been doing, it's, yeah, it's incredible to watch how they are trying to deal with this.Brian Bienkowski So you mentioned this idea of buy in, and perhaps that gets people kind of more interested, more engaged. Most of us have also heard about these incentive programs. You know, just financial incentives for clean energy, whether it's upgrading our inefficient fridge or purchasing solar for our roof. So what kind of impact do these policies have on adoption?Mokshda Kaul So I think my question to your question is, the question is adoption for whom? Because at the end of the day, it is not about... I mean, yes, they increase adoption of like, let's say solar energy or electric vehicles or efficient appliances. But I think the question is not about, Is it leading to a relative increase? But who is it leading to a relative increase for? because, again, econ is amazing for this, but it is. There are. There's so much documented evidence at this point that electric vehicle tax credits, residential solar tax credits, tend to benefit wealthier households, which are from like a higher income status or a higher socioeconomic status in the US, and I'm talking about specifically here. So I think the question is the kind of I mean, speaking, what the kind of impact they have on adoption, I'm sure they're improving adoption. Yes, they are. But I think again, that question about how these policies define who's eligible for them, changes who can apply for them, and changes who can receive these benefits. And just as a simple example, there is this program called the affordable solar program in New York, and it's aimed at low-middle income households. But it's the eligibility criterion is that you need to be an owner-occupied household. So you need to be owning the property you live in. But if you're a program that's trying to cater to low-middle income households, you'd know that most of them are renters. So if you are trying to target LMI households by being an owner-occupied program, you're missing a huge chunk of the target population. So I guess the question that I mean, I'm all for it, I'm all for these programs that encourage adoption, but I feel like, inadvertently, they are encouraging inequities in adoption, and that is a much bigger problem to deal with honestly, because that's impeding a just transition, because there's inequitable access then and again. It's that privileged thing, like, just by virtue of the fact that I own the house that I live in, I can get a tax credit for buying panels, and I can get cheaper electricity, and I can, like, also feel good about saving the environment. But then there's somebody else who actually pays much higher amount in their energy bills, because, you know, the energy burden is higher for lower income classes, and they can't even access solar panels because they're not eligible for such tax credits. And in fact, even funnier is giving tax credit to folks who don't earn enough to fall under a tax bracket you're missing, you're missing a huge chunk of the population. If you're saying this is how we're going to help you, when that's not what they'll use. So, yeah, I'd say I'm always very concerned about trying to see who are these benefits going to when we are encouraging adoption in these ways.Brian Bienkowski Yeah, it's a really good point. There's these kind of baked in inequities, even in, you know, programs and policies that are ostensibly trying to do the right thing, we're still baking in these kind of the same kind of inequities that got us here in the first place. And speaking of that, you know, there's a lot of kind of back and forth in the EV, electric vehicle, space, and I happen to be from Detroit, so I I hear even more about this from my family who everybody worked in or does work in the automotive industry. But we're increasingly see some of the environmental justice implications around mining for the needed metals here. And again, I live in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, and they are trying to reopen old mines up here that have been closed for years. And I don't know if it's necessarily EVs or just kind of electronics at large, but specific to the EVS. Can you talk about this and what it means as EVs become more popular, some of these environmental justice concerns that might pop up or that are popping up.Mokshda Kaul So if you're a Tesla bro and you're listening to this, stop listening right now. But if you're not, go on. I have this whole, again, I have this whole I have a lot of hills that I want to die on eventually, but we'll get there when we get there. So speaking about EVs, again, they're incredibly important if we want to have, like an electrified grid, in the sense that we want that balanced demand curve, so that we can have more clean energy in our energy mix, so that way EVs, yes, 100% important. And of course, reducing, like greenhouse gas emissions that come from tailpipes. I'm all for that thing that I'm not all for is, like you said, the mining aspects of it. So I have not spent as much time looking at the domestic implications of it, and that's something I'm stepping into now, in terms of the US. But if you look at a global picture, we get most of a cobalt from the Democratic Republic of Congo, and a this has been documented by tons of reports by Amnesty International. There's also a book called Cobalt Read by Sid Kara. And there's extensive documentation of how you have child labor, you have unsafe working conditions, the wage rate that they're paid, the laborers are paid at is definitely unfair, it's way below what should be acceptable. And there's also the problem is that as the demand goes up, the fact is that people in DRC, I mean, and I'm just conjecturing from all that I've read, I might be completely wrong if I go to the ground and talk to people, but it's creating that pressure where people think that it's profitable to keep mining cobalt. So they're like little children getting into this business, and they're like, indulging in artisanal mining, which is where you dig in your backyard, kind of a thing, just in very broad terms, but as the demand goes up, it's encouraging this pressure to kind of keep mining that way. And there's no regulation in place to ensure that there is ethical mining. And because of that, you're left with the situation where you are, like, incentivizing this to be done in the wrong way, and you want to keep the price of EVs down so that more people buy it because it's a solution for fighting climate change. So it's the question of, if we were to define this in a just way, if we would have ethical mining practices, who would bear the cost? And I mean, depending on your political leaning, you would have five different answers to the question. To this question, but I guess EVs, yes, good. But how we are getting them is a huge question, and it's not about just about DRC and cobalt. It's about lithium coming from South America, and the kind of questions and issues that it's raised with, like Indigenous farmers and their rights to their land and the water pollution it's creating, and rare earth mining in Myanmar, and that's not just for EVs. That's also for a whole host of clean energy technologies. Rare earths go into panels, they go into wind turbine blades and whatnot. And if you look at these pictures, I think Global Witness to this very heartbreaking report where they showed pictures side by side of areas in Myanmar, which had been like a year back. They had not they were completely untouched, covered in like green cover. And now there's these deep wells with polluted water because they've been indiscriminately mined for rare earth. And there's also, like, the one other thing I want to flag is I feel like the world is exploiting the fact that there are a lot of places in the world which are having a breakdown of constitutional mechanisms to protect their citizens. And the rest of the world is kind of like being privy to it and also exploiting it to make these EVs and make them cheaper and, like, have them run the way they run, kind of a thing. So, yeah, I Yes, EVs, but at what cost, is how I'd frame it.Brian Bienkowski And so, just to give you a few more hills, if you want to die, yes, before and we, I do want to get into some of the, you know, some of the optimistic and some of the bright signs you're seeing, but just kind of writ large, you know, we've talked about EVs just just now, and some of the contamination concerns and EJ components we talked about, you know, kind of inequitable distribution of incentives. What are some other environmental and energy justice concerns that you have in clean energy use? Because I think most of us, it's often painted in a very positive light, understandably so, I mean, fossil fuels remain such a big problem for this planet. So but before we get to those, some of those solutions, what are some other concerns you have?Mokshda Kaul I'm actually glad about what you said. I just want to touch on what you said for a second that we need to remember the fact that we need the clean energy transition, but we also need to have a little bit of prudence about how we are doing it, because let's not forget that we are kind of building on the backs of someone at the end of the day. And the question is, who is that someone? who's that like sacrifice zone for this now? because we've had sacrifice zones for fossil fuel production, but we sure are having it for clean energy as well. We just can't pretend that, because it's solving climate change. All's hunky dory. So other questions and like concerns that I have, first of all, I'm very deep in this bit of mining for critical minerals, which are important for the energy transition, not just for EVs. So I have been looking at, who would, you know, sort of shoulder the cost if we were to mine ethically, like, who would pay that cost? And I'm trying to get into that a little bit more lately, and I'm also trying to understand within the US, because there has been the chips act and IRA, which are kind of Inflation Reduction Act, which are encouraging domestic mining. What happens then? Because there are these reports that say that most of the reserves of critical minerals that we need if we are going to mine in the US are located close to Native American territory. So we are starting to recreate a problem we have not solved really in the past. So it becomes another question about that, in terms of the mining issues. And I think the other stuff that I'm honestly concerned about is access to clean energy opportunities. And I know, like a lot of people are working on this, but I'm thinking about electrifying like jobs, clean energy jobs. So who gets access to these and there are certain states which are creating provisions for environmental justice communities to be able to access these jobs. But then, if you're creating provisions to access a job that doesn't have prevailing wage rate, what are you doing and who are you trying to, like pull whose eyes are you trying to pull wool over? Is my question. So I guess, about the quality of jobs, I'm concerned. About, where are these jobs coming up? And I'm, I think the other thing that I'm also been thinking about in terms of EVs is electrifying transport and public transport in general, because EVs aren't accessible to LMI folks. And you're kind of like punishing these people with these vehicles that pollute, and you're finishing them with like higher burdens, because they are having to pay for gas vehicles. But what about electrifying public transport? And I think from in Arizona, especially, you see public trans like the lack in public transport. And I mean, I juxtapose this against India, where in Mumbai, we have brilliant public transport connectivity. So I yeah, that's the other element of public transportation, electrifying it is what I've been thinking about. And the other thing that I've just been toying with lately is clean energy jobs are creating an impact on these fossil fuel workers, where they're being forced to migrate to other places. And I know at the surface it seems like, well, it's just he's this person's just moving for the job. How does it matter? But I'm very curious about what kind of impacts does this have on the worker, their family, their like, emotional health, their like support system, and if they're moving, they're probably moving to like a job that doesn't pay as much. So what's going on there? And I'm trying to understand what are the impacts on migration from clean energy creation and incentives to clean energy production. So those are, like a bunch of things. I have so many. I don't hate the world, but I definitely love finding problems in it. So this is easy for me!Brian Bienkowski Well, let's, let's shift gears. Here we have, we have pointed out the world's problems, and I think you have some ideas on maybe how they cannot be so problematic. So first, you know, what are some ways, when we think about policymakers and others, where they could maybe build some caution into these climate change solutions to ensure that this transition is equitable?Mokshda Kaul I think first of all, I'm going to give a weird answer to this, because I have been working okay, for context, I have been working on two of my dissertation chapters around the clock for the last three months right now. So I'm very deep in a dark place, and it's a good dark place. I love this dark place. But I think the first thing that I'd want to say is we can't deny the technical realities of the energy transition. So I guess making peace with that the fact that we might need natural gas plants, or we might need some form of fossil fuel to transition, or we might need some form of nuclear to transition. So like kind of, I'm not saying being pro these fuels, but accepting the fact that you can't just, you know, snap your fingers and everything's going to be clean. So first of all, I would say that some way that policymakers could build that in is by having that acceptance of the actual system and the energy system itself. And the second thing is, like having these holistic perspectives on the energy transition itself, like I was talking about the Environmental Coalition and the Labor Justice Coalition, right? And if you think about it at the surface, an EJ activist would only see the environmental justice side. We would not want to focus on this is a set of people losing their jobs and and that's that's fair. But. Having that holistic perspective where you're acknowledging these two sides of the story helps, because it's you can build provisions to ameliorate the kind of suffering or the problems that will be created in the process there will be somebody who has to bear the cost of the transition. But the question is, are we building in enough provisions to sort of address that, and are we kind of trying to protect the people who we are going to be exploiting in the process?And the other thing that I think is a little bit personal to me because of the dissertation work and my own research, is the way we define things and policies. I think we need, as like as societ, we need to have clearer definitions of who we seek to benefit. And only when you have these clear definitions of who you seek to benefit can you actually measure if you've been impacting these people or not, like just having these broad, losey-goosey ideas of I have a program that should benefit environmentally disadvantaged communities. What does that mean? Who are you talking about? And that, I think, is a very important aspect as well. And the other thing I want to talk about is, like, humility, because I feel like we will learn a lot from our mistakes as this transition goes on. And I'm hopeful that we will, as policy makers, be able to, like, kind of, you know, take a step back and reflect on what went wrong. For example, bills where they have not built in just transition provisions are they are being able to see how coal communities have lost revenues and have lost have had to, like, do a lot of things in terms of, like, shutting down public schools. So those spaces policy makers can actually have that moment of reckoning and realize that, hey, maybe we made a mistake and we should try to change this the next time. So having that humility, I think, is incredibly important as well. But yeah, those are my high horse comments. So you mentioned the Inflation Reduction Act, and anybody living in the US, whether you know it or not, your community is being touched by this in some way. It was a massive, massive spending bill. Have you seen this approach in the IRA? Have you seen a justice-oriented approach? And if not, where is it lacking? So yes and no, IRA, I mean, I'm so incredibly amazed by it for so many different reasons, like it has this focus on low-middle income communities. It has a focus on electrifying tribal regions. It has that. It has a whole tribal electrification program, and it has like in these tax credits, investment tax credits, and production tax credits for energy communities. So specifically, the communities that have lost revenue due to coal plant closures or coal mine closures, and so they are kind of target like, you know, talking about the right groups of people, and they're targeting the right kind of issues in that sense, like encouraging the production of clean energy in these areas, or workforce development in these spaces. And there's also that whole chunk of Environment and Climate Justice block grants under the IRA, which are meant for specifically disadvantaged communities and community-based organizations in these areas, can apply to these grants for all things from like workforce development to clean energy technology development to climate resilience. It's, I mean, it's a huge set of sources to kind of A), reduce greenhouse gasses, and B), be able to kind of harness the potential of the clean energy transition. So from that perspective, I really like the IRA and the way it's focusing on people who need to be focused on honestly. But again, this is the same thing that I just talked about, the way we define things. So the IRA itself has, it doesn't have, like, a consistent definition of what is disadvantage and what is environmental justice communities or low income communities, like some places, they are using a particular definition based on a particular tax credit. Other places they are not, and even in the environmental justice Block Grant, environmental and climate justice block grant itself, program itself, they have, they say that they will use a definition by the that is being used by the Justice 40. The Council on Environmental Quality has that screen tool where they are basically identifying disadvantaged areas. But they also say that EPA has yet to finalize how we will define disadvantaged communities for this program. So I think that's my one of my icky things that I don't like about it is that when you don't define there is a lot of room for people to sort of exploit and pretend like they're doing good work when they're not. And I mean, of course, it remains to be seen how much people will be able to exploit this, but I think that that is something that makes me very uncomfortable about it. And I also think there is this one aspect of the IRA which is a little interesting. I haven't read a little bit. I haven't read more about it, and I really want to, but it's about how, if, uh. So the Department of Interior, I think, has to give out certain acreage of land in oil and gas leasing for being able to give offshore and onshore wind and solar development rights. So you are encouraging production of oil and gas in a way. And that's, yeah, that's a little I'm still trying to understand. Why has that been said, and why is that being done? Because I'm sure there is some logic somewhere deep inside, and I'm hoping there is, but I think, yeah, that and this definition thing, like, it's the same thing, if, in fact, I mean, sorry about the off-topicness, but the Weatherization Assistance Program that also, like, there was this work done by Dominic Bernard and Tony Reems, and they have actually documented how these programs that are supposed to assist low income households with their energy burdens and alleviate energy party, they don't use a definition at the end of the day about who's energy poor. And because they don't do that, you can't just say anybody falling below 80% of area median income is LMI, because that's not what being energy poor is about. It's about a lot of different facets. So if you choose to define it by this one income based category or criterion, you're not you're not doing a good job first of all. And yes, in that sense, the Justice body tools and this EJ screen, they are kind of holistic in the way they bring in climate burdens and environment burdens. But again, if you don't have a consistent definition throughout an act, there's so much wiggle room to do not good things, is how I'd say it.Brian Bienkowski So it sounds like the IRA has some good aspects to it, and we've we actually talked to Jalan Newsome, I believe, who is on the Council of Environmental Quality. And she talked at length about Justice40 I would encourage listeners to listen to that and then listen to this again. Listen to most response. But you know, outside of the IRA, have you seen, you know, countries, states, municipalities, towns, villages, anything that are embarking on the clean energy transition in a way that you see as equitable and just, and if so, can you talk about it a little bit?Mokshda Kaul So I'm not from Illinois. I have no relationship with Illinois. This is not sponsored by Illinois. I really love CEJA! I think it's really cool. And I know I'm probably missing a chunk of things. And I'm not saying it's perfect. Please, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that the way they have been able to bring like environmental justice and the provisions for labor justice, like fossil fuel labor justice in together at the same time is incredible, in my opinion! And they have so this is what I meant earlier, when I was saying about job creation, because what they have done is clean energy jobs are going to be created, and they're going to be union jobs. They're going to have prevailing wage standards, and they are also going to be a section of them is going to be devoted only to environmental justice communities. So you are kind of doing that, two words, one stone thing, and I think that's incredible. And the other thing I love, love about CEJA is they did this thing called the "Listen Lead Share" sessions. And I know no one can see this, but has to spark in my eye when I talk about the Listen Lead Share sessions. But the Listen LeadSshare sessions were basically this kind of listening session situation where smaller Bipoc community organizations were leading these listening sessions within Illinois, trying to collect opinions, not just opinion, but experiences and what people want in like an energy justice kind of a way from illinoisians, just to understand what is it that is bothering the people. And I wish I had the link for it, but when the bill actually came out there is he's the head of elevate. I can't remember his name right now. Really love the guy. I don't know why my brain's blanking on it, but he actually read out pieces from these listening sessions where local Illinoisans had cited concerns and what had made its way into the legislation actually, so actual people's opinions were there. And I just, I find that so amazing, like, that's what I mean by accurate representation. And the other thing that I found very cool about CEJA is they have provisions for returning citizens in these clean energy jobs. And that's some that's a, like, a huge chunk of population that we tend to miss when we talk about justice issues. And the reason they had that was because they used to have these zoom based, like, Zoom-Room based sessions where they tried to get people to talk about what's going on. And there was this one guy. He was like a representative. He was a returning citizen himself, and he was a representative for like a group, and he actually was like, You know what, we need provisions from people like me. And they bought that in, and they built that in. So it's incredible the way they have been able to sort of bring this to fruition. I mean, I'm sure implementation stages are you. Infamous for how things go wrong, but in just the way the act is written and the way it was brought together, I am so amazed, and I'm in love.Brian Bienkowski And what is that acronym? You said it's CEJA, What is that acronym? So if people wanted to check it out, yeah,Mokshda Kaul actually, you know what? I'm going to make sure I'm doing this right, because CEJA there was a CEJA proposed by the environment coalition, and then there was a final CEJA that was passed. And those two had different acronyms, but Climate and Equitable Jobs Act is how the bill that actually passed. And yeah, that's the one that was signed by the governor. And give me one second, I want to find the name of the person from Elevate, because he's really important and really cool, certainly, and I think he's like, worth mentioning if anyone's looking just one sec, Delmar. His name is Delmar Gillius, and he works for Elevate, and he was one of the few persons of color who is responsible for, like, actually, legislative negotiations as well. And he was incredible. And, yeah, it has been amazing to talk with all these folks that I've had a chance to talk to. And yes, again, not sponsored by Illinois. I just really love it.Brian Bienkowski Well, it's always nice to end on an optimistic note. And just to keep that theme, we have some fun, some fun, before we get you out of here. And thank you again, so much for this. I love talking to you about I think the energy conversation is so often missing nuance. People want to say "end" fossil fuels yesterday," or they want to say "we need fossil fuels forever," and just having nuance in that conversation is needed if we're going to get anywhere. So before we get out of here, I have a few rapid fire questions where you can just answer with one word or a phrase. My favorite comfort food is, I'llMokshda Kaul I'll have to explain this.Brian Bienkowski Go right ahead.Mokshda Kaul Okay, it's Haak, Rogan Josh and rice. Haak is collard greens. We blanch them. And Rogan Josh is a really spicy lamb curry. And these are all Kashmiri foods. So if any Kashmiri is listening, I'm representing us and and with rice and yogurt, of course, but the Indian kind of yogurt, not the Greek yogurt. I would Oh, my God. Like, I think I'm gonna make it today. I described and I was like, Yeah, well, it's been a while, maybe we should do this today.Brian Bienkowski If I had to try out a job other than my current one, it would beMokshda Kaul writing. I would love to be a fiction writer for the rest of my life.Brian Bienkowski And my dream vacation isMokshda Kaul my current dream vacation is Poland. Because Poland, Poland, however we pronounce it? because I really want to be in a place that has the mountains and the sea and all the history to it. Been wanting to go since before 2020 and now I don't know when will I go,Brian Bienkowski Are you just trying to like, like, like, kiss up to the host here? That is my so I am very, I am very, I never thought anybody would say Poland to that question, so I was supposed to go. And yes, so I am. My grandparents were immigrants from Poland to Detroit and other parts of Michigan. And so I was supposed to go in 2020 or 2021 and it was no, it must have been 2022 because it was right when a Ukraine was invaded, exactly there was, there was this tale of covid. So I waited, and then there was a war that started. So I have not gone because obviously it's so close to Ukraine. And I just, yeah, you know, but we had, we have a lot of genealogy we've done, so I'm trying to sketch out a trip to places where family was and is so very cool.Mokshda Kaul That is so cool! Yeah, I wanted to do this was my I love solo trips, and this was going to be my trip before grad school. But like I said, I started grad school in 2020 so by the time I could book the tickets, the world was shut down. So that was the start of it. And then just being in grad school, I really don't, I don't know if I had the time. And then the war happened, and so I just at that point, I was like, You know what? It's not destined for now. So I guess I'm gonna put it on the back burner.Brian Bienkowski We'll have to stay in touch. Hopefully one of us will get there. Maybe both of us will get there. And so I've been learning the language too, which a Slavic language, is not easy to learn when you are 41 years old. It is not soaking into my brain.Mokshda Kaul That's so interesting, because for Kashmiri, the problem is, it's, it is like from the Indian group of languages. But I don't know, I'm forgetting the word for it, but apparently it sounds a lot like Central American language, Central Asian languages, sorry. So there is, like, a, like, an influx of salvik. And Persian and like, so I have had a lot of friends who are from, like, Central Asia, be like, What did you say? So, like, language is, God. Like, yeah, I am very curious. That's a really cool thing to do, though, because it keeps your brain young. SoBrian Bienkowski it does, yes, it gets that other part of my brain that in music. So moksha. What is the last book that you read for fun? And you do not have to confine yourself to one word or a phrase here.Mokshda Kaul Okay, the last book I read was "Small things like these" by Claire O'keekin, I think what's her name? Very short, very spiffy, very sad. Loved it. And I also listened to audiobooks. So the last audiobook I listened to was Untamed by Glennon Doyle. So yeah, both of those were amazing. And small things like these was just I finished it in a day because it was so well written and so quick. I was like, wow, I need to I'm dropping everything.Brian Bienkowski I love books like that. They are the they are the best. Well, moksha. Thank you so much for your time, for your intelligence, your wit. I really like talking to you about these things and beyond. And just as a side note, you always seem, I know you say you're a pessimist, but you always seem happy and inject humor and lightness, and it's really just lights up a room, and it lit up this call. So thank you so much for being here, and I hope we can have you on again soon.Mokshda Kaul Yeah, thank you so much. This was really wonderful to talk to you.

Mokshda Kaul joins the Agents of Change in Environmental Justice podcast to discuss the clean energy transition and how policymakers and other leaders can avoid mistakes of the past.Kaul, a Ph.D. candidate in the sustainable energy program at the School of Sustainability at Arizona State University, also talks about the crucial role of coalitions in a just energy transition.The Agents of Change in Environmental Justice podcast is a biweekly podcast featuring the stories and big ideas from past and present fellows, as well as others in the field. You can see all of the past episodes here.Listen below to our discussion with Kaul and subscribe to the podcast at iTunes or Spotify.Agents of Change in Environmental Justice · Mokshda Kaul on making the clean energy transition work for allTranscript Brian BienkowskiMoksha, how are you doing today?Mokshda Kaul I'm good. How are you, Brian?Brian Bienkowski I'm doing wonderful. I'm a little hot. I turned off my fan so we don't have the background noise. And where are you today?Mokshda Kaul So speaking of hot, I'm in Arizona, so I'm in Phoenix, and I've also turned my fan off. And luckily, my AC is working, so I'm not going to explode into flames, which is always possible in Arizona. So, you know, just saying. But yeah, that's where I am right now, and I'm just really excited to do this actually.Brian Bienkowski Well, I am really excited to talk to you too. Your research and your path there, to me, are fascinating. So I'm so excited to have you on the program. So as you probably know, I like to start at the beginning. So tell me a little bit about your upbringing. Of course, you're not from Arizona originally.Mokshda Kaul yeah. So I moved here for my PhD in 2020 and that was in the middle of the pandemic, by the way, which was quite jarring. There were only those bubble flights operating from the US to India, and it was terrifying for multiple different reasons. And I got got here, and I was again stuck in a room. Instead of being stuck in a room in India, I was stuck in a room in Phoenix. Nothing changed in my life, honestly speaking. But in terms of, like, where I'm from, and coming to Arizona, I'm from Mumbai, which is I think, the world's most densely populated city. So I'm used to having people step on my toes while I'm walking. And I came to Arizona, and I was like, there are no people here. What's wrong with this place? So that was number one for me. And, I mean, being raised in Mumbai, India is a country with so many multitudes. And I'm born and raised in Mumbai, but I come from Kashmir, and I spent my summer vacations, and, like a lot of my time, even, like a few years in my childhood, actually, in this smaller town near Kashmir called Jammu, which is, I would say, like now it's a tier-two city, but back then, maybe it was like a tier-three city, and it was very jarring the difference between Mumbai and Jammu, because Mumbai is the financial capital of India. So you have every amenity you can think of. You have round the clock electricity, and of course, within Mumbai also, we have terrible infrastructure problems, but that's a different story. But juxtaposing that against Jammu, where you'd have blackouts in the middle of summer heat and like summer, like the Phoenix summer, and I used to find it so uncomfortable to sort of when I'd come back to Mumbai to have that feeling of, wait, what is the thing that the people here are doing right, that they don't have to have these blackouts? Like, what? What is it like? Why is there this element of chance and privilege that's deciding who gets to experience these things or not? And I think I was just always very irritated and uncomfortable by it, and I was benefiting from it for all intents and purposes.Brian Bienkowski And so you mentioned that juxtaposition of Kashmir and Mumbai, and I'm wondering if that was kind of where you became aware of the concept of environmental justice, or if that was or if it was something else.Mokshda Kaul So I mean, I'm really glad you point that out, but that's exactly it. I would find it very unsettling. And it's just, if you look at it, I mean, at the same time as I was growing up, I was reading like, Rawlsian theories of justice and trying to understand, like, who decides, who decides that somebody gets something just by virtue of the fact that they were born in a particular city? Like, I don't have anything to do with the fact that I was born in Mumbai. Okay, and I think that the unsettled feeling never left me, and I think that's what they call acknowledging your privilege. And I was just always affected by it. And also in addition to this, India has lot of issues on the grounds of caste and class, and growing up in a space like that, where you... especially in Mumbai, where it's so cosmopolitan and so it's like a melting pot. You see all of it every single day, and you can't be away from your privilege. You can't face away if you really choose to tap into it. So I guess that's where that idea of environmental justice kind of ticked in my brain.Brian Bienkowski And before we get into some of that, some of the energy justice work you've done, and what you're working on now, what is a moment or event that has helped shaped your identity up to this point?Mokshda Kaul It's interesting because I was listening to Maria Jo's podcast the other day, and she said the same thing that I have been thinking about that I don't think it's a particular incident. I think it's these bunch of different things that have come together to this moment of like who I am. First of all, it's obviously my parents' history as being internal refugees and learning from them about how conflict operates at a very young age, like I was, I think, three or four, when I understood that, oh, we are not in our hometown because of this huge issue that happened, and there was violence and there was extremism, and there were two sides to the story at that same time, my parents side and the other side. And I think growing up with that, and then there's actually very funny thing that I remember now that you said defining incidents. I think I had bit of a bleeding heart syndrome since I was a child. I don't know why, but I had this. So I still remember this, because it's, it's like, etched so vividly in my memory. I was in third grade and we had to make posters for something in school. I don't remember what exactly, but my poster was the planet crying because it was hot. And this is 2003 and I remember one of my uncles came home and he made fun of me, and he was like, "This is so stupid. Like, why are you concerned about the environment and the planet?" And I was in tears, because I was like, no, no, we need to care about this. I don't understand why you don't care about this. And I was, I was sad, like, I was heartbroken that people don't care. And so that little child always had that element of, why don't we want to make the world a better place? Like, what's wrong with people?Brian Bienkowski So the world is still crying. Since your picture, unfortunately, we're all we should all be crying. And so you are, you are trying to better the world, and your research focuses on, I'm distilling it down, but the clean energy transition. So first, what drew you to this line of research, and how are you using this economics background that you mentioned to understand the clean energy adoption and policy?Mokshda Kaul Back in 2014 King's College London did this really cool thing where they got professors from King's College to come down to Mumbai and do this really cool summer course. And I did the one on international political economy. And every student, it was very strenuous. They packed a summer school's worth of teaching and practice into like a one and a half week period. So it was so much reading, like this huge binder of – I don't even want to go back to that – but each student had to prepare, like a presentation on a particular topic. And this is big bit of a background. My dad works in oil and gas, and that's very unsettling to me, and I'm sure he's going to listen to this, but so I naturally decide that I want to work on the energy topic, energy presentation for this class. Because I was like, Oh, my dad knows about this. And the day that I had to present, our professor actually did this whole presentation on how the shale oil boom is going to change, like the face of the earth. And my entire presentation actually was about the shale oil boom. So this is like one hour before my presentation, and I'm having a meltdown because I don't know what to talk about anymore, because you just covered everything, and I'm doing this frantic internet search of what do I talk about? And that's how I found out about the energy transition, and that's how I discovered that, oh, renewable energy is a thing. So instead of talking about shale oil, I talked about how we have these other sources of energy which actually don't create the problems that we have with fossil fuels, and they need more investment, of course, in time. But this is 2014 so it was different situation back then. And so that was how I kind of was drawn to the energy transition. It was a very important moment in my life, I would say, and that changed the focus of how I was seeing the world, and that changed the focus of what I wanted to do with the world. And speaking to my background as an economist, I'm trained as an economist. But I come from a very interdisciplinary school, the School of Sustainability here at ASU, and we kind of, my advisor has a political science background, so I incorporate methods from political science and economics, and the way I see it is it kind of helps me translate the world. So I know econ gets a bad rap for the fact that it's been, it's kind of led us to the point we are at in terms of exploiting the environment and all of those things. But I'm surrounded by a bunch of folks in the School of Sustainability who use econ as a tool to sort of address these problems of environmental and climate issues and distribution concerns and equity concerns. And that's how I see econ. I see it as like this toolkit that I can use to understand why do things look the way they do. And then the political science part also adds to it, because it helps me understand why did people decide what they decided. So all in all, I feel like really grateful for the fact that I have this pol-sci + econ situation, because I'm able to understand policies from like, start to finish in a way that what went into the background, why did you think the way you thought when you made this and how did this come about? And then what are the outcomes from it? So from that sense, yeah, these disciplines have helped me just unpack the whole thing as much as I can.Brian Bienkowski I think the economics arguments and studies and the information that comes out when it comes to environmental issues, energy included, are some of the most interesting, in my opinion. So for instance, EHN covers endocrine disrupting chemicals, and we can say till we're blue in the face, you know, they're bad. And they do this, they hijack your hormones, so on and so forth. But a few years ago, someone did an economic impact study that looked at like healthcare costs associated with chemical exposure. And when you start putting dollar amounts to things like this, I feel like you have all that. You have, all of a sudden gotten the attention of a whole other group of people who have, maybe aren't as concerned.Mokshda Kaul AbsolutelyBrian Bienkowski so I, and I'm sure this is the case in clean energy and fossil fuels. So I I always find those kind of economic angles really, really interesting. And you're looking at the role of coalitions in clean energy policy making. So I want to unpack this a little bit. What can you tell us about the importance of coalitions in this space? And do you have some examples?Mokshda Kaul So for this piece on coalitions that I'm working on, first of all, this is more about the political science space of understanding how policies are made. And I think I came from this question of wanting to understand there were these two very interesting climate legislations in the US that I encountered. I'm sure there are many more. One was in New York, which was the CLCPA, the community leadership, climate leadership and community Protection Act. And other was the CEJA, climate and equitable jobs Act in Illinois. And when I looked at both of these, the first things that you see when you like just do a Google search, is the coalitions that led them there. So there was this really intense advocacy by these major environmental coalitions happening on the ground for both of these acts. And I personally, of course, coalitions are an important tool because they bring in that element of procedural justice, because you are actually having representation from the people you seek to create these acts for and create these bills for. But more than that, I also feel like coalitions become this interesting way to create buy in, because if you have people who are actually invested in, let's say, like, reducing energy burdens, putting their words out there, and having people actually respond to it, and that makes its way into legislation, then this person actually feels represented. And then you have, like, buy-in from this person towards protecting the environment. And I think that's like, these are the two legislative examples. But in terms of coalitions themselves, there's the Illinois clean job coalition in Illinois, which was leading the way on seizure and NY renewals, which was leading the way on clcpa. But outside of the environmental coalitions, there are also jfossil-fuel-union-based job coalitions trying to represent this other side of justice in the transition, in the sense that there are fossil fuel labor groups who are trying to advocate for the fact that they need provisions to sort of help them after these fossil fuel plants are closed down to transition into other work. And so there are, there's the Climate Jobs Institute by, I think it's with Cornell, yeah. And they essentially have these affiliates across the country in different states. So there is Climate Jobs New York, there's Climate Jobs,Illinois, and all of these spaces, I mean, these coalitions represent this other side of justice. And again, if you don't have these coalitions doing it, there's nobody who's going to actually speak like represent these people's interests, is my point. So I think coalitions are incredibly important, especially when you think about justice and in the policy making process, not just in like the part where you advocate for your needs, and you just do these die ins, or you do demonstrations, not just that, but also the language that goes into these policies. So that's my perspective, and why I think coalitions are incredibly important. And I don't want to sound biased, but I really love the work that ICJ has been doing and the work that the climate jobs affiliates have been doing, it's, yeah, it's incredible to watch how they are trying to deal with this.Brian Bienkowski So you mentioned this idea of buy in, and perhaps that gets people kind of more interested, more engaged. Most of us have also heard about these incentive programs. You know, just financial incentives for clean energy, whether it's upgrading our inefficient fridge or purchasing solar for our roof. So what kind of impact do these policies have on adoption?Mokshda Kaul So I think my question to your question is, the question is adoption for whom? Because at the end of the day, it is not about... I mean, yes, they increase adoption of like, let's say solar energy or electric vehicles or efficient appliances. But I think the question is not about, Is it leading to a relative increase? But who is it leading to a relative increase for? because, again, econ is amazing for this, but it is. There are. There's so much documented evidence at this point that electric vehicle tax credits, residential solar tax credits, tend to benefit wealthier households, which are from like a higher income status or a higher socioeconomic status in the US, and I'm talking about specifically here. So I think the question is the kind of I mean, speaking, what the kind of impact they have on adoption, I'm sure they're improving adoption. Yes, they are. But I think again, that question about how these policies define who's eligible for them, changes who can apply for them, and changes who can receive these benefits. And just as a simple example, there is this program called the affordable solar program in New York, and it's aimed at low-middle income households. But it's the eligibility criterion is that you need to be an owner-occupied household. So you need to be owning the property you live in. But if you're a program that's trying to cater to low-middle income households, you'd know that most of them are renters. So if you are trying to target LMI households by being an owner-occupied program, you're missing a huge chunk of the target population. So I guess the question that I mean, I'm all for it, I'm all for these programs that encourage adoption, but I feel like, inadvertently, they are encouraging inequities in adoption, and that is a much bigger problem to deal with honestly, because that's impeding a just transition, because there's inequitable access then and again. It's that privileged thing, like, just by virtue of the fact that I own the house that I live in, I can get a tax credit for buying panels, and I can get cheaper electricity, and I can, like, also feel good about saving the environment. But then there's somebody else who actually pays much higher amount in their energy bills, because, you know, the energy burden is higher for lower income classes, and they can't even access solar panels because they're not eligible for such tax credits. And in fact, even funnier is giving tax credit to folks who don't earn enough to fall under a tax bracket you're missing, you're missing a huge chunk of the population. If you're saying this is how we're going to help you, when that's not what they'll use. So, yeah, I'd say I'm always very concerned about trying to see who are these benefits going to when we are encouraging adoption in these ways.Brian Bienkowski Yeah, it's a really good point. There's these kind of baked in inequities, even in, you know, programs and policies that are ostensibly trying to do the right thing, we're still baking in these kind of the same kind of inequities that got us here in the first place. And speaking of that, you know, there's a lot of kind of back and forth in the EV, electric vehicle, space, and I happen to be from Detroit, so I I hear even more about this from my family who everybody worked in or does work in the automotive industry. But we're increasingly see some of the environmental justice implications around mining for the needed metals here. And again, I live in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, and they are trying to reopen old mines up here that have been closed for years. And I don't know if it's necessarily EVs or just kind of electronics at large, but specific to the EVS. Can you talk about this and what it means as EVs become more popular, some of these environmental justice concerns that might pop up or that are popping up.Mokshda Kaul So if you're a Tesla bro and you're listening to this, stop listening right now. But if you're not, go on. I have this whole, again, I have this whole I have a lot of hills that I want to die on eventually, but we'll get there when we get there. So speaking about EVs, again, they're incredibly important if we want to have, like an electrified grid, in the sense that we want that balanced demand curve, so that we can have more clean energy in our energy mix, so that way EVs, yes, 100% important. And of course, reducing, like greenhouse gas emissions that come from tailpipes. I'm all for that thing that I'm not all for is, like you said, the mining aspects of it. So I have not spent as much time looking at the domestic implications of it, and that's something I'm stepping into now, in terms of the US. But if you look at a global picture, we get most of a cobalt from the Democratic Republic of Congo, and a this has been documented by tons of reports by Amnesty International. There's also a book called Cobalt Read by Sid Kara. And there's extensive documentation of how you have child labor, you have unsafe working conditions, the wage rate that they're paid, the laborers are paid at is definitely unfair, it's way below what should be acceptable. And there's also the problem is that as the demand goes up, the fact is that people in DRC, I mean, and I'm just conjecturing from all that I've read, I might be completely wrong if I go to the ground and talk to people, but it's creating that pressure where people think that it's profitable to keep mining cobalt. So they're like little children getting into this business, and they're like, indulging in artisanal mining, which is where you dig in your backyard, kind of a thing, just in very broad terms, but as the demand goes up, it's encouraging this pressure to kind of keep mining that way. And there's no regulation in place to ensure that there is ethical mining. And because of that, you're left with the situation where you are, like, incentivizing this to be done in the wrong way, and you want to keep the price of EVs down so that more people buy it because it's a solution for fighting climate change. So it's the question of, if we were to define this in a just way, if we would have ethical mining practices, who would bear the cost? And I mean, depending on your political leaning, you would have five different answers to the question. To this question, but I guess EVs, yes, good. But how we are getting them is a huge question, and it's not about just about DRC and cobalt. It's about lithium coming from South America, and the kind of questions and issues that it's raised with, like Indigenous farmers and their rights to their land and the water pollution it's creating, and rare earth mining in Myanmar, and that's not just for EVs. That's also for a whole host of clean energy technologies. Rare earths go into panels, they go into wind turbine blades and whatnot. And if you look at these pictures, I think Global Witness to this very heartbreaking report where they showed pictures side by side of areas in Myanmar, which had been like a year back. They had not they were completely untouched, covered in like green cover. And now there's these deep wells with polluted water because they've been indiscriminately mined for rare earth. And there's also, like, the one other thing I want to flag is I feel like the world is exploiting the fact that there are a lot of places in the world which are having a breakdown of constitutional mechanisms to protect their citizens. And the rest of the world is kind of like being privy to it and also exploiting it to make these EVs and make them cheaper and, like, have them run the way they run, kind of a thing. So, yeah, I Yes, EVs, but at what cost, is how I'd frame it.Brian Bienkowski And so, just to give you a few more hills, if you want to die, yes, before and we, I do want to get into some of the, you know, some of the optimistic and some of the bright signs you're seeing, but just kind of writ large, you know, we've talked about EVs just just now, and some of the contamination concerns and EJ components we talked about, you know, kind of inequitable distribution of incentives. What are some other environmental and energy justice concerns that you have in clean energy use? Because I think most of us, it's often painted in a very positive light, understandably so, I mean, fossil fuels remain such a big problem for this planet. So but before we get to those, some of those solutions, what are some other concerns you have?Mokshda Kaul I'm actually glad about what you said. I just want to touch on what you said for a second that we need to remember the fact that we need the clean energy transition, but we also need to have a little bit of prudence about how we are doing it, because let's not forget that we are kind of building on the backs of someone at the end of the day. And the question is, who is that someone? who's that like sacrifice zone for this now? because we've had sacrifice zones for fossil fuel production, but we sure are having it for clean energy as well. We just can't pretend that, because it's solving climate change. All's hunky dory. So other questions and like concerns that I have, first of all, I'm very deep in this bit of mining for critical minerals, which are important for the energy transition, not just for EVs. So I have been looking at, who would, you know, sort of shoulder the cost if we were to mine ethically, like, who would pay that cost? And I'm trying to get into that a little bit more lately, and I'm also trying to understand within the US, because there has been the chips act and IRA, which are kind of Inflation Reduction Act, which are encouraging domestic mining. What happens then? Because there are these reports that say that most of the reserves of critical minerals that we need if we are going to mine in the US are located close to Native American territory. So we are starting to recreate a problem we have not solved really in the past. So it becomes another question about that, in terms of the mining issues. And I think the other stuff that I'm honestly concerned about is access to clean energy opportunities. And I know, like a lot of people are working on this, but I'm thinking about electrifying like jobs, clean energy jobs. So who gets access to these and there are certain states which are creating provisions for environmental justice communities to be able to access these jobs. But then, if you're creating provisions to access a job that doesn't have prevailing wage rate, what are you doing and who are you trying to, like pull whose eyes are you trying to pull wool over? Is my question. So I guess, about the quality of jobs, I'm concerned. About, where are these jobs coming up? And I'm, I think the other thing that I'm also been thinking about in terms of EVs is electrifying transport and public transport in general, because EVs aren't accessible to LMI folks. And you're kind of like punishing these people with these vehicles that pollute, and you're finishing them with like higher burdens, because they are having to pay for gas vehicles. But what about electrifying public transport? And I think from in Arizona, especially, you see public trans like the lack in public transport. And I mean, I juxtapose this against India, where in Mumbai, we have brilliant public transport connectivity. So I yeah, that's the other element of public transportation, electrifying it is what I've been thinking about. And the other thing that I've just been toying with lately is clean energy jobs are creating an impact on these fossil fuel workers, where they're being forced to migrate to other places. And I know at the surface it seems like, well, it's just he's this person's just moving for the job. How does it matter? But I'm very curious about what kind of impacts does this have on the worker, their family, their like, emotional health, their like support system, and if they're moving, they're probably moving to like a job that doesn't pay as much. So what's going on there? And I'm trying to understand what are the impacts on migration from clean energy creation and incentives to clean energy production. So those are, like a bunch of things. I have so many. I don't hate the world, but I definitely love finding problems in it. So this is easy for me!Brian Bienkowski Well, let's, let's shift gears. Here we have, we have pointed out the world's problems, and I think you have some ideas on maybe how they cannot be so problematic. So first, you know, what are some ways, when we think about policymakers and others, where they could maybe build some caution into these climate change solutions to ensure that this transition is equitable?Mokshda Kaul I think first of all, I'm going to give a weird answer to this, because I have been working okay, for context, I have been working on two of my dissertation chapters around the clock for the last three months right now. So I'm very deep in a dark place, and it's a good dark place. I love this dark place. But I think the first thing that I'd want to say is we can't deny the technical realities of the energy transition. So I guess making peace with that the fact that we might need natural gas plants, or we might need some form of fossil fuel to transition, or we might need some form of nuclear to transition. So like kind of, I'm not saying being pro these fuels, but accepting the fact that you can't just, you know, snap your fingers and everything's going to be clean. So first of all, I would say that some way that policymakers could build that in is by having that acceptance of the actual system and the energy system itself. And the second thing is, like having these holistic perspectives on the energy transition itself, like I was talking about the Environmental Coalition and the Labor Justice Coalition, right? And if you think about it at the surface, an EJ activist would only see the environmental justice side. We would not want to focus on this is a set of people losing their jobs and and that's that's fair. But. Having that holistic perspective where you're acknowledging these two sides of the story helps, because it's you can build provisions to ameliorate the kind of suffering or the problems that will be created in the process there will be somebody who has to bear the cost of the transition. But the question is, are we building in enough provisions to sort of address that, and are we kind of trying to protect the people who we are going to be exploiting in the process?And the other thing that I think is a little bit personal to me because of the dissertation work and my own research, is the way we define things and policies. I think we need, as like as societ, we need to have clearer definitions of who we seek to benefit. And only when you have these clear definitions of who you seek to benefit can you actually measure if you've been impacting these people or not, like just having these broad, losey-goosey ideas of I have a program that should benefit environmentally disadvantaged communities. What does that mean? Who are you talking about? And that, I think, is a very important aspect as well. And the other thing I want to talk about is, like, humility, because I feel like we will learn a lot from our mistakes as this transition goes on. And I'm hopeful that we will, as policy makers, be able to, like, kind of, you know, take a step back and reflect on what went wrong. For example, bills where they have not built in just transition provisions are they are being able to see how coal communities have lost revenues and have lost have had to, like, do a lot of things in terms of, like, shutting down public schools. So those spaces policy makers can actually have that moment of reckoning and realize that, hey, maybe we made a mistake and we should try to change this the next time. So having that humility, I think, is incredibly important as well. But yeah, those are my high horse comments. So you mentioned the Inflation Reduction Act, and anybody living in the US, whether you know it or not, your community is being touched by this in some way. It was a massive, massive spending bill. Have you seen this approach in the IRA? Have you seen a justice-oriented approach? And if not, where is it lacking? So yes and no, IRA, I mean, I'm so incredibly amazed by it for so many different reasons, like it has this focus on low-middle income communities. It has a focus on electrifying tribal regions. It has that. It has a whole tribal electrification program, and it has like in these tax credits, investment tax credits, and production tax credits for energy communities. So specifically, the communities that have lost revenue due to coal plant closures or coal mine closures, and so they are kind of target like, you know, talking about the right groups of people, and they're targeting the right kind of issues in that sense, like encouraging the production of clean energy in these areas, or workforce development in these spaces. And there's also that whole chunk of Environment and Climate Justice block grants under the IRA, which are meant for specifically disadvantaged communities and community-based organizations in these areas, can apply to these grants for all things from like workforce development to clean energy technology development to climate resilience. It's, I mean, it's a huge set of sources to kind of A), reduce greenhouse gasses, and B), be able to kind of harness the potential of the clean energy transition. So from that perspective, I really like the IRA and the way it's focusing on people who need to be focused on honestly. But again, this is the same thing that I just talked about, the way we define things. So the IRA itself has, it doesn't have, like, a consistent definition of what is disadvantage and what is environmental justice communities or low income communities, like some places, they are using a particular definition based on a particular tax credit. Other places they are not, and even in the environmental justice Block Grant, environmental and climate justice block grant itself, program itself, they have, they say that they will use a definition by the that is being used by the Justice 40. The Council on Environmental Quality has that screen tool where they are basically identifying disadvantaged areas. But they also say that EPA has yet to finalize how we will define disadvantaged communities for this program. So I think that's my one of my icky things that I don't like about it is that when you don't define there is a lot of room for people to sort of exploit and pretend like they're doing good work when they're not. And I mean, of course, it remains to be seen how much people will be able to exploit this, but I think that that is something that makes me very uncomfortable about it. And I also think there is this one aspect of the IRA which is a little interesting. I haven't read a little bit. I haven't read more about it, and I really want to, but it's about how, if, uh. So the Department of Interior, I think, has to give out certain acreage of land in oil and gas leasing for being able to give offshore and onshore wind and solar development rights. So you are encouraging production of oil and gas in a way. And that's, yeah, that's a little I'm still trying to understand. Why has that been said, and why is that being done? Because I'm sure there is some logic somewhere deep inside, and I'm hoping there is, but I think, yeah, that and this definition thing, like, it's the same thing, if, in fact, I mean, sorry about the off-topicness, but the Weatherization Assistance Program that also, like, there was this work done by Dominic Bernard and Tony Reems, and they have actually documented how these programs that are supposed to assist low income households with their energy burdens and alleviate energy party, they don't use a definition at the end of the day about who's energy poor. And because they don't do that, you can't just say anybody falling below 80% of area median income is LMI, because that's not what being energy poor is about. It's about a lot of different facets. So if you choose to define it by this one income based category or criterion, you're not you're not doing a good job first of all. And yes, in that sense, the Justice body tools and this EJ screen, they are kind of holistic in the way they bring in climate burdens and environment burdens. But again, if you don't have a consistent definition throughout an act, there's so much wiggle room to do not good things, is how I'd say it.Brian Bienkowski So it sounds like the IRA has some good aspects to it, and we've we actually talked to Jalan Newsome, I believe, who is on the Council of Environmental Quality. And she talked at length about Justice40 I would encourage listeners to listen to that and then listen to this again. Listen to most response. But you know, outside of the IRA, have you seen, you know, countries, states, municipalities, towns, villages, anything that are embarking on the clean energy transition in a way that you see as equitable and just, and if so, can you talk about it a little bit?Mokshda Kaul So I'm not from Illinois. I have no relationship with Illinois. This is not sponsored by Illinois. I really love CEJA! I think it's really cool. And I know I'm probably missing a chunk of things. And I'm not saying it's perfect. Please, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that the way they have been able to bring like environmental justice and the provisions for labor justice, like fossil fuel labor justice in together at the same time is incredible, in my opinion! And they have so this is what I meant earlier, when I was saying about job creation, because what they have done is clean energy jobs are going to be created, and they're going to be union jobs. They're going to have prevailing wage standards, and they are also going to be a section of them is going to be devoted only to environmental justice communities. So you are kind of doing that, two words, one stone thing, and I think that's incredible. And the other thing I love, love about CEJA is they did this thing called the "Listen Lead Share" sessions. And I know no one can see this, but has to spark in my eye when I talk about the Listen Lead Share sessions. But the Listen LeadSshare sessions were basically this kind of listening session situation where smaller Bipoc community organizations were leading these listening sessions within Illinois, trying to collect opinions, not just opinion, but experiences and what people want in like an energy justice kind of a way from illinoisians, just to understand what is it that is bothering the people. And I wish I had the link for it, but when the bill actually came out there is he's the head of elevate. I can't remember his name right now. Really love the guy. I don't know why my brain's blanking on it, but he actually read out pieces from these listening sessions where local Illinoisans had cited concerns and what had made its way into the legislation actually, so actual people's opinions were there. And I just, I find that so amazing, like, that's what I mean by accurate representation. And the other thing that I found very cool about CEJA is they have provisions for returning citizens in these clean energy jobs. And that's some that's a, like, a huge chunk of population that we tend to miss when we talk about justice issues. And the reason they had that was because they used to have these zoom based, like, Zoom-Room based sessions where they tried to get people to talk about what's going on. And there was this one guy. He was like a representative. He was a returning citizen himself, and he was a representative for like a group, and he actually was like, You know what, we need provisions from people like me. And they bought that in, and they built that in. So it's incredible the way they have been able to sort of bring this to fruition. I mean, I'm sure implementation stages are you. Infamous for how things go wrong, but in just the way the act is written and the way it was brought together, I am so amazed, and I'm in love.Brian Bienkowski And what is that acronym? You said it's CEJA, What is that acronym? So if people wanted to check it out, yeah,Mokshda Kaul actually, you know what? I'm going to make sure I'm doing this right, because CEJA there was a CEJA proposed by the environment coalition, and then there was a final CEJA that was passed. And those two had different acronyms, but Climate and Equitable Jobs Act is how the bill that actually passed. And yeah, that's the one that was signed by the governor. And give me one second, I want to find the name of the person from Elevate, because he's really important and really cool, certainly, and I think he's like, worth mentioning if anyone's looking just one sec, Delmar. His name is Delmar Gillius, and he works for Elevate, and he was one of the few persons of color who is responsible for, like, actually, legislative negotiations as well. And he was incredible. And, yeah, it has been amazing to talk with all these folks that I've had a chance to talk to. And yes, again, not sponsored by Illinois. I just really love it.Brian Bienkowski Well, it's always nice to end on an optimistic note. And just to keep that theme, we have some fun, some fun, before we get you out of here. And thank you again, so much for this. I love talking to you about I think the energy conversation is so often missing nuance. People want to say "end" fossil fuels yesterday," or they want to say "we need fossil fuels forever," and just having nuance in that conversation is needed if we're going to get anywhere. So before we get out of here, I have a few rapid fire questions where you can just answer with one word or a phrase. My favorite comfort food is, I'llMokshda Kaul I'll have to explain this.Brian Bienkowski Go right ahead.Mokshda Kaul Okay, it's Haak, Rogan Josh and rice. Haak is collard greens. We blanch them. And Rogan Josh is a really spicy lamb curry. And these are all Kashmiri foods. So if any Kashmiri is listening, I'm representing us and and with rice and yogurt, of course, but the Indian kind of yogurt, not the Greek yogurt. I would Oh, my God. Like, I think I'm gonna make it today. I described and I was like, Yeah, well, it's been a while, maybe we should do this today.Brian Bienkowski If I had to try out a job other than my current one, it would beMokshda Kaul writing. I would love to be a fiction writer for the rest of my life.Brian Bienkowski And my dream vacation isMokshda Kaul my current dream vacation is Poland. Because Poland, Poland, however we pronounce it? because I really want to be in a place that has the mountains and the sea and all the history to it. Been wanting to go since before 2020 and now I don't know when will I go,Brian Bienkowski Are you just trying to like, like, like, kiss up to the host here? That is my so I am very, I am very, I never thought anybody would say Poland to that question, so I was supposed to go. And yes, so I am. My grandparents were immigrants from Poland to Detroit and other parts of Michigan. And so I was supposed to go in 2020 or 2021 and it was no, it must have been 2022 because it was right when a Ukraine was invaded, exactly there was, there was this tale of covid. So I waited, and then there was a war that started. So I have not gone because obviously it's so close to Ukraine. And I just, yeah, you know, but we had, we have a lot of genealogy we've done, so I'm trying to sketch out a trip to places where family was and is so very cool.Mokshda Kaul That is so cool! Yeah, I wanted to do this was my I love solo trips, and this was going to be my trip before grad school. But like I said, I started grad school in 2020 so by the time I could book the tickets, the world was shut down. So that was the start of it. And then just being in grad school, I really don't, I don't know if I had the time. And then the war happened, and so I just at that point, I was like, You know what? It's not destined for now. So I guess I'm gonna put it on the back burner.Brian Bienkowski We'll have to stay in touch. Hopefully one of us will get there. Maybe both of us will get there. And so I've been learning the language too, which a Slavic language, is not easy to learn when you are 41 years old. It is not soaking into my brain.Mokshda Kaul That's so interesting, because for Kashmiri, the problem is, it's, it is like from the Indian group of languages. But I don't know, I'm forgetting the word for it, but apparently it sounds a lot like Central American language, Central Asian languages, sorry. So there is, like, a, like, an influx of salvik. And Persian and like, so I have had a lot of friends who are from, like, Central Asia, be like, What did you say? So, like, language is, God. Like, yeah, I am very curious. That's a really cool thing to do, though, because it keeps your brain young. SoBrian Bienkowski it does, yes, it gets that other part of my brain that in music. So moksha. What is the last book that you read for fun? And you do not have to confine yourself to one word or a phrase here.Mokshda Kaul Okay, the last book I read was "Small things like these" by Claire O'keekin, I think what's her name? Very short, very spiffy, very sad. Loved it. And I also listened to audiobooks. So the last audiobook I listened to was Untamed by Glennon Doyle. So yeah, both of those were amazing. And small things like these was just I finished it in a day because it was so well written and so quick. I was like, wow, I need to I'm dropping everything.Brian Bienkowski I love books like that. They are the they are the best. Well, moksha. Thank you so much for your time, for your intelligence, your wit. I really like talking to you about these things and beyond. And just as a side note, you always seem, I know you say you're a pessimist, but you always seem happy and inject humor and lightness, and it's really just lights up a room, and it lit up this call. So thank you so much for being here, and I hope we can have you on again soon.Mokshda Kaul Yeah, thank you so much. This was really wonderful to talk to you.



Mokshda Kaul joins the Agents of Change in Environmental Justice podcast to discuss the clean energy transition and how policymakers and other leaders can avoid mistakes of the past.


Kaul, a Ph.D. candidate in the sustainable energy program at the School of Sustainability at Arizona State University, also talks about the crucial role of coalitions in a just energy transition.

The Agents of Change in Environmental Justice podcast is a biweekly podcast featuring the stories and big ideas from past and present fellows, as well as others in the field. You can see all of the past episodes here.

Listen below to our discussion with Kaul and subscribe to the podcast at iTunes or Spotify.


Agents of Change in Environmental Justice · Mokshda Kaul on making the clean energy transition work for all

Transcript 


Brian Bienkowski

Moksha, how are you doing today?

Mokshda Kaul

I'm good. How are you, Brian?

Brian Bienkowski

I'm doing wonderful. I'm a little hot. I turned off my fan so we don't have the background noise. And where are you today?

Mokshda Kaul

So speaking of hot, I'm in Arizona, so I'm in Phoenix, and I've also turned my fan off. And luckily, my AC is working, so I'm not going to explode into flames, which is always possible in Arizona. So, you know, just saying. But yeah, that's where I am right now, and I'm just really excited to do this actually.

Brian Bienkowski

Well, I am really excited to talk to you too. Your research and your path there, to me, are fascinating. So I'm so excited to have you on the program. So as you probably know, I like to start at the beginning. So tell me a little bit about your upbringing. Of course, you're not from Arizona originally.

Mokshda Kaul

yeah. So I moved here for my PhD in 2020 and that was in the middle of the pandemic, by the way, which was quite jarring. There were only those bubble flights operating from the US to India, and it was terrifying for multiple different reasons. And I got got here, and I was again stuck in a room. Instead of being stuck in a room in India, I was stuck in a room in Phoenix. Nothing changed in my life, honestly speaking. But in terms of, like, where I'm from, and coming to Arizona, I'm from Mumbai, which is I think, the world's most densely populated city. So I'm used to having people step on my toes while I'm walking. And I came to Arizona, and I was like, there are no people here. What's wrong with this place? So that was number one for me. And, I mean, being raised in Mumbai, India is a country with so many multitudes. And I'm born and raised in Mumbai, but I come from Kashmir, and I spent my summer vacations, and, like a lot of my time, even, like a few years in my childhood, actually, in this smaller town near Kashmir called Jammu, which is, I would say, like now it's a tier-two city, but back then, maybe it was like a tier-three city, and it was very jarring the difference between Mumbai and Jammu, because Mumbai is the financial capital of India. So you have every amenity you can think of. You have round the clock electricity, and of course, within Mumbai also, we have terrible infrastructure problems, but that's a different story. But juxtaposing that against Jammu, where you'd have blackouts in the middle of summer heat and like summer, like the Phoenix summer, and I used to find it so uncomfortable to sort of when I'd come back to Mumbai to have that feeling of, wait, what is the thing that the people here are doing right, that they don't have to have these blackouts? Like, what? What is it like? Why is there this element of chance and privilege that's deciding who gets to experience these things or not? And I think I was just always very irritated and uncomfortable by it, and I was benefiting from it for all intents and purposes.

Brian Bienkowski

And so you mentioned that juxtaposition of Kashmir and Mumbai, and I'm wondering if that was kind of where you became aware of the concept of environmental justice, or if that was or if it was something else.

Mokshda Kaul

So I mean, I'm really glad you point that out, but that's exactly it. I would find it very unsettling. And it's just, if you look at it, I mean, at the same time as I was growing up, I was reading like, Rawlsian theories of justice and trying to understand, like, who decides, who decides that somebody gets something just by virtue of the fact that they were born in a particular city? Like, I don't have anything to do with the fact that I was born in Mumbai. Okay, and I think that the unsettled feeling never left me, and I think that's what they call acknowledging your privilege. And I was just always affected by it. And also in addition to this, India has lot of issues on the grounds of caste and class, and growing up in a space like that, where you... especially in Mumbai, where it's so cosmopolitan and so it's like a melting pot. You see all of it every single day, and you can't be away from your privilege. You can't face away if you really choose to tap into it. So I guess that's where that idea of environmental justice kind of ticked in my brain.

Brian Bienkowski

And before we get into some of that, some of the energy justice work you've done, and what you're working on now, what is a moment or event that has helped shaped your identity up to this point?

Mokshda Kaul

It's interesting because I was listening to Maria Jo's podcast the other day, and she said the same thing that I have been thinking about that I don't think it's a particular incident. I think it's these bunch of different things that have come together to this moment of like who I am. First of all, it's obviously my parents' history as being internal refugees and learning from them about how conflict operates at a very young age, like I was, I think, three or four, when I understood that, oh, we are not in our hometown because of this huge issue that happened, and there was violence and there was extremism, and there were two sides to the story at that same time, my parents side and the other side. And I think growing up with that, and then there's actually very funny thing that I remember now that you said defining incidents. I think I had bit of a bleeding heart syndrome since I was a child. I don't know why, but I had this. So I still remember this, because it's, it's like, etched so vividly in my memory. I was in third grade and we had to make posters for something in school. I don't remember what exactly, but my poster was the planet crying because it was hot. And this is 2003 and I remember one of my uncles came home and he made fun of me, and he was like, "This is so stupid. Like, why are you concerned about the environment and the planet?" And I was in tears, because I was like, no, no, we need to care about this. I don't understand why you don't care about this. And I was, I was sad, like, I was heartbroken that people don't care. And so that little child always had that element of, why don't we want to make the world a better place? Like, what's wrong with people?

Brian Bienkowski

So the world is still crying. Since your picture, unfortunately, we're all we should all be crying. And so you are, you are trying to better the world, and your research focuses on, I'm distilling it down, but the clean energy transition. So first, what drew you to this line of research, and how are you using this economics background that you mentioned to understand the clean energy adoption and policy?

Mokshda Kaul

Back in 2014 King's College London did this really cool thing where they got professors from King's College to come down to Mumbai and do this really cool summer course. And I did the one on international political economy. And every student, it was very strenuous. They packed a summer school's worth of teaching and practice into like a one and a half week period. So it was so much reading, like this huge binder of – I don't even want to go back to that – but each student had to prepare, like a presentation on a particular topic. And this is big bit of a background. My dad works in oil and gas, and that's very unsettling to me, and I'm sure he's going to listen to this, but so I naturally decide that I want to work on the energy topic, energy presentation for this class. Because I was like, Oh, my dad knows about this. And the day that I had to present, our professor actually did this whole presentation on how the shale oil boom is going to change, like the face of the earth. And my entire presentation actually was about the shale oil boom. So this is like one hour before my presentation, and I'm having a meltdown because I don't know what to talk about anymore, because you just covered everything, and I'm doing this frantic internet search of what do I talk about? And that's how I found out about the energy transition, and that's how I discovered that, oh, renewable energy is a thing. So instead of talking about shale oil, I talked about how we have these other sources of energy which actually don't create the problems that we have with fossil fuels, and they need more investment, of course, in time. But this is 2014 so it was different situation back then. And so that was how I kind of was drawn to the energy transition. It was a very important moment in my life, I would say, and that changed the focus of how I was seeing the world, and that changed the focus of what I wanted to do with the world. And speaking to my background as an economist, I'm trained as an economist. But I come from a very interdisciplinary school, the School of Sustainability here at ASU, and we kind of, my advisor has a political science background, so I incorporate methods from political science and economics, and the way I see it is it kind of helps me translate the world. So I know econ gets a bad rap for the fact that it's been, it's kind of led us to the point we are at in terms of exploiting the environment and all of those things. But I'm surrounded by a bunch of folks in the School of Sustainability who use econ as a tool to sort of address these problems of environmental and climate issues and distribution concerns and equity concerns. And that's how I see econ. I see it as like this toolkit that I can use to understand why do things look the way they do. And then the political science part also adds to it, because it helps me understand why did people decide what they decided. So all in all, I feel like really grateful for the fact that I have this pol-sci + econ situation, because I'm able to understand policies from like, start to finish in a way that what went into the background, why did you think the way you thought when you made this and how did this come about? And then what are the outcomes from it? So from that sense, yeah, these disciplines have helped me just unpack the whole thing as much as I can.

Brian Bienkowski

I think the economics arguments and studies and the information that comes out when it comes to environmental issues, energy included, are some of the most interesting, in my opinion. So for instance, EHN covers endocrine disrupting chemicals, and we can say till we're blue in the face, you know, they're bad. And they do this, they hijack your hormones, so on and so forth. But a few years ago, someone did an economic impact study that looked at like healthcare costs associated with chemical exposure. And when you start putting dollar amounts to things like this, I feel like you have all that. You have, all of a sudden gotten the attention of a whole other group of people who have, maybe aren't as concerned.

Mokshda Kaul

Absolutely

Brian Bienkowski

so I, and I'm sure this is the case in clean energy and fossil fuels. So I I always find those kind of economic angles really, really interesting. And you're looking at the role of coalitions in clean energy policy making. So I want to unpack this a little bit. What can you tell us about the importance of coalitions in this space? And do you have some examples?

Mokshda Kaul

So for this piece on coalitions that I'm working on, first of all, this is more about the political science space of understanding how policies are made. And I think I came from this question of wanting to understand there were these two very interesting climate legislations in the US that I encountered. I'm sure there are many more. One was in New York, which was the CLCPA, the community leadership, climate leadership and community Protection Act. And other was the CEJA, climate and equitable jobs Act in Illinois. And when I looked at both of these, the first things that you see when you like just do a Google search, is the coalitions that led them there. So there was this really intense advocacy by these major environmental coalitions happening on the ground for both of these acts. And I personally, of course, coalitions are an important tool because they bring in that element of procedural justice, because you are actually having representation from the people you seek to create these acts for and create these bills for. But more than that, I also feel like coalitions become this interesting way to create buy in, because if you have people who are actually invested in, let's say, like, reducing energy burdens, putting their words out there, and having people actually respond to it, and that makes its way into legislation, then this person actually feels represented. And then you have, like, buy-in from this person towards protecting the environment. And I think that's like, these are the two legislative examples. But in terms of coalitions themselves, there's the Illinois clean job coalition in Illinois, which was leading the way on seizure and NY renewals, which was leading the way on clcpa. But outside of the environmental coalitions, there are also jfossil-fuel-union-based job coalitions trying to represent this other side of justice in the transition, in the sense that there are fossil fuel labor groups who are trying to advocate for the fact that they need provisions to sort of help them after these fossil fuel plants are closed down to transition into other work. And so there are, there's the Climate Jobs Institute by, I think it's with Cornell, yeah. And they essentially have these affiliates across the country in different states. So there is Climate Jobs New York, there's Climate Jobs,Illinois, and all of these spaces, I mean, these coalitions represent this other side of justice. And again, if you don't have these coalitions doing it, there's nobody who's going to actually speak like represent these people's interests, is my point. So I think coalitions are incredibly important, especially when you think about justice and in the policy making process, not just in like the part where you advocate for your needs, and you just do these die ins, or you do demonstrations, not just that, but also the language that goes into these policies. So that's my perspective, and why I think coalitions are incredibly important. And I don't want to sound biased, but I really love the work that ICJ has been doing and the work that the climate jobs affiliates have been doing, it's, yeah, it's incredible to watch how they are trying to deal with this.

Brian Bienkowski

So you mentioned this idea of buy in, and perhaps that gets people kind of more interested, more engaged. Most of us have also heard about these incentive programs. You know, just financial incentives for clean energy, whether it's upgrading our inefficient fridge or purchasing solar for our roof. So what kind of impact do these policies have on adoption?

Mokshda Kaul

So I think my question to your question is, the question is adoption for whom? Because at the end of the day, it is not about... I mean, yes, they increase adoption of like, let's say solar energy or electric vehicles or efficient appliances. But I think the question is not about, Is it leading to a relative increase? But who is it leading to a relative increase for? because, again, econ is amazing for this, but it is. There are. There's so much documented evidence at this point that electric vehicle tax credits, residential solar tax credits, tend to benefit wealthier households, which are from like a higher income status or a higher socioeconomic status in the US, and I'm talking about specifically here. So I think the question is the kind of I mean, speaking, what the kind of impact they have on adoption, I'm sure they're improving adoption. Yes, they are. But I think again, that question about how these policies define who's eligible for them, changes who can apply for them, and changes who can receive these benefits. And just as a simple example, there is this program called the affordable solar program in New York, and it's aimed at low-middle income households. But it's the eligibility criterion is that you need to be an owner-occupied household. So you need to be owning the property you live in. But if you're a program that's trying to cater to low-middle income households, you'd know that most of them are renters. So if you are trying to target LMI households by being an owner-occupied program, you're missing a huge chunk of the target population. So I guess the question that I mean, I'm all for it, I'm all for these programs that encourage adoption, but I feel like, inadvertently, they are encouraging inequities in adoption, and that is a much bigger problem to deal with honestly, because that's impeding a just transition, because there's inequitable access then and again. It's that privileged thing, like, just by virtue of the fact that I own the house that I live in, I can get a tax credit for buying panels, and I can get cheaper electricity, and I can, like, also feel good about saving the environment. But then there's somebody else who actually pays much higher amount in their energy bills, because, you know, the energy burden is higher for lower income classes, and they can't even access solar panels because they're not eligible for such tax credits. And in fact, even funnier is giving tax credit to folks who don't earn enough to fall under a tax bracket you're missing, you're missing a huge chunk of the population. If you're saying this is how we're going to help you, when that's not what they'll use. So, yeah, I'd say I'm always very concerned about trying to see who are these benefits going to when we are encouraging adoption in these ways.

Brian Bienkowski

Yeah, it's a really good point. There's these kind of baked in inequities, even in, you know, programs and policies that are ostensibly trying to do the right thing, we're still baking in these kind of the same kind of inequities that got us here in the first place. And speaking of that, you know, there's a lot of kind of back and forth in the EV, electric vehicle, space, and I happen to be from Detroit, so I I hear even more about this from my family who everybody worked in or does work in the automotive industry. But we're increasingly see some of the environmental justice implications around mining for the needed metals here. And again, I live in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, and they are trying to reopen old mines up here that have been closed for years. And I don't know if it's necessarily EVs or just kind of electronics at large, but specific to the EVS. Can you talk about this and what it means as EVs become more popular, some of these environmental justice concerns that might pop up or that are popping up.

Mokshda Kaul

So if you're a Tesla bro and you're listening to this, stop listening right now. But if you're not, go on. I have this whole, again, I have this whole I have a lot of hills that I want to die on eventually, but we'll get there when we get there. So speaking about EVs, again, they're incredibly important if we want to have, like an electrified grid, in the sense that we want that balanced demand curve, so that we can have more clean energy in our energy mix, so that way EVs, yes, 100% important. And of course, reducing, like greenhouse gas emissions that come from tailpipes. I'm all for that thing that I'm not all for is, like you said, the mining aspects of it. So I have not spent as much time looking at the domestic implications of it, and that's something I'm stepping into now, in terms of the US. But if you look at a global picture, we get most of a cobalt from the Democratic Republic of Congo, and a this has been documented by tons of reports by Amnesty International. There's also a book called Cobalt Read by Sid Kara. And there's extensive documentation of how you have child labor, you have unsafe working conditions, the wage rate that they're paid, the laborers are paid at is definitely unfair, it's way below what should be acceptable. And there's also the problem is that as the demand goes up, the fact is that people in DRC, I mean, and I'm just conjecturing from all that I've read, I might be completely wrong if I go to the ground and talk to people, but it's creating that pressure where people think that it's profitable to keep mining cobalt. So they're like little children getting into this business, and they're like, indulging in artisanal mining, which is where you dig in your backyard, kind of a thing, just in very broad terms, but as the demand goes up, it's encouraging this pressure to kind of keep mining that way. And there's no regulation in place to ensure that there is ethical mining. And because of that, you're left with the situation where you are, like, incentivizing this to be done in the wrong way, and you want to keep the price of EVs down so that more people buy it because it's a solution for fighting climate change. So it's the question of, if we were to define this in a just way, if we would have ethical mining practices, who would bear the cost? And I mean, depending on your political leaning, you would have five different answers to the question. To this question, but I guess EVs, yes, good. But how we are getting them is a huge question, and it's not about just about DRC and cobalt. It's about lithium coming from South America, and the kind of questions and issues that it's raised with, like Indigenous farmers and their rights to their land and the water pollution it's creating, and rare earth mining in Myanmar, and that's not just for EVs. That's also for a whole host of clean energy technologies. Rare earths go into panels, they go into wind turbine blades and whatnot. And if you look at these pictures, I think Global Witness to this very heartbreaking report where they showed pictures side by side of areas in Myanmar, which had been like a year back. They had not they were completely untouched, covered in like green cover. And now there's these deep wells with polluted water because they've been indiscriminately mined for rare earth. And there's also, like, the one other thing I want to flag is I feel like the world is exploiting the fact that there are a lot of places in the world which are having a breakdown of constitutional mechanisms to protect their citizens. And the rest of the world is kind of like being privy to it and also exploiting it to make these EVs and make them cheaper and, like, have them run the way they run, kind of a thing. So, yeah, I Yes, EVs, but at what cost, is how I'd frame it.

Brian Bienkowski

And so, just to give you a few more hills, if you want to die, yes, before and we, I do want to get into some of the, you know, some of the optimistic and some of the bright signs you're seeing, but just kind of writ large, you know, we've talked about EVs just just now, and some of the contamination concerns and EJ components we talked about, you know, kind of inequitable distribution of incentives. What are some other environmental and energy justice concerns that you have in clean energy use? Because I think most of us, it's often painted in a very positive light, understandably so, I mean, fossil fuels remain such a big problem for this planet. So but before we get to those, some of those solutions, what are some other concerns you have?

Mokshda Kaul

I'm actually glad about what you said. I just want to touch on what you said for a second that we need to remember the fact that we need the clean energy transition, but we also need to have a little bit of prudence about how we are doing it, because let's not forget that we are kind of building on the backs of someone at the end of the day. And the question is, who is that someone? who's that like sacrifice zone for this now? because we've had sacrifice zones for fossil fuel production, but we sure are having it for clean energy as well. We just can't pretend that, because it's solving climate change. All's hunky dory. So other questions and like concerns that I have, first of all, I'm very deep in this bit of mining for critical minerals, which are important for the energy transition, not just for EVs. So I have been looking at, who would, you know, sort of shoulder the cost if we were to mine ethically, like, who would pay that cost? And I'm trying to get into that a little bit more lately, and I'm also trying to understand within the US, because there has been the chips act and IRA, which are kind of Inflation Reduction Act, which are encouraging domestic mining. What happens then? Because there are these reports that say that most of the reserves of critical minerals that we need if we are going to mine in the US are located close to Native American territory. So we are starting to recreate a problem we have not solved really in the past. So it becomes another question about that, in terms of the mining issues. And I think the other stuff that I'm honestly concerned about is access to clean energy opportunities. And I know, like a lot of people are working on this, but I'm thinking about electrifying like jobs, clean energy jobs. So who gets access to these and there are certain states which are creating provisions for environmental justice communities to be able to access these jobs. But then, if you're creating provisions to access a job that doesn't have prevailing wage rate, what are you doing and who are you trying to, like pull whose eyes are you trying to pull wool over? Is my question. So I guess, about the quality of jobs, I'm concerned. About, where are these jobs coming up? And I'm, I think the other thing that I'm also been thinking about in terms of EVs is electrifying transport and public transport in general, because EVs aren't accessible to LMI folks. And you're kind of like punishing these people with these vehicles that pollute, and you're finishing them with like higher burdens, because they are having to pay for gas vehicles. But what about electrifying public transport? And I think from in Arizona, especially, you see public trans like the lack in public transport. And I mean, I juxtapose this against India, where in Mumbai, we have brilliant public transport connectivity. So I yeah, that's the other element of public transportation, electrifying it is what I've been thinking about. And the other thing that I've just been toying with lately is clean energy jobs are creating an impact on these fossil fuel workers, where they're being forced to migrate to other places. And I know at the surface it seems like, well, it's just he's this person's just moving for the job. How does it matter? But I'm very curious about what kind of impacts does this have on the worker, their family, their like, emotional health, their like support system, and if they're moving, they're probably moving to like a job that doesn't pay as much. So what's going on there? And I'm trying to understand what are the impacts on migration from clean energy creation and incentives to clean energy production. So those are, like a bunch of things. I have so many. I don't hate the world, but I definitely love finding problems in it. So this is easy for me!

Brian Bienkowski

Well, let's, let's shift gears. Here we have, we have pointed out the world's problems, and I think you have some ideas on maybe how they cannot be so problematic. So first, you know, what are some ways, when we think about policymakers and others, where they could maybe build some caution into these climate change solutions to ensure that this transition is equitable?

Mokshda Kaul

I think first of all, I'm going to give a weird answer to this, because I have been working okay, for context, I have been working on two of my dissertation chapters around the clock for the last three months right now. So I'm very deep in a dark place, and it's a good dark place. I love this dark place. But I think the first thing that I'd want to say is we can't deny the technical realities of the energy transition. So I guess making peace with that the fact that we might need natural gas plants, or we might need some form of fossil fuel to transition, or we might need some form of nuclear to transition. So like kind of, I'm not saying being pro these fuels, but accepting the fact that you can't just, you know, snap your fingers and everything's going to be clean. So first of all, I would say that some way that policymakers could build that in is by having that acceptance of the actual system and the energy system itself. And the second thing is, like having these holistic perspectives on the energy transition itself, like I was talking about the Environmental Coalition and the Labor Justice Coalition, right? And if you think about it at the surface, an EJ activist would only see the environmental justice side. We would not want to focus on this is a set of people losing their jobs and and that's that's fair. But. Having that holistic perspective where you're acknowledging these two sides of the story helps, because it's you can build provisions to ameliorate the kind of suffering or the problems that will be created in the process there will be somebody who has to bear the cost of the transition. But the question is, are we building in enough provisions to sort of address that, and are we kind of trying to protect the people who we are going to be exploiting in the process?And the other thing that I think is a little bit personal to me because of the dissertation work and my own research, is the way we define things and policies. I think we need, as like as societ, we need to have clearer definitions of who we seek to benefit. And only when you have these clear definitions of who you seek to benefit can you actually measure if you've been impacting these people or not, like just having these broad, losey-goosey ideas of I have a program that should benefit environmentally disadvantaged communities. What does that mean? Who are you talking about? And that, I think, is a very important aspect as well. And the other thing I want to talk about is, like, humility, because I feel like we will learn a lot from our mistakes as this transition goes on. And I'm hopeful that we will, as policy makers, be able to, like, kind of, you know, take a step back and reflect on what went wrong. For example, bills where they have not built in just transition provisions are they are being able to see how coal communities have lost revenues and have lost have had to, like, do a lot of things in terms of, like, shutting down public schools. So those spaces policy makers can actually have that moment of reckoning and realize that, hey, maybe we made a mistake and we should try to change this the next time. So having that humility, I think, is incredibly important as well. But yeah, those are my high horse comments. So you mentioned the Inflation Reduction Act, and anybody living in the US, whether you know it or not, your community is being touched by this in some way. It was a massive, massive spending bill. Have you seen this approach in the IRA? Have you seen a justice-oriented approach? And if not, where is it lacking? So yes and no, IRA, I mean, I'm so incredibly amazed by it for so many different reasons, like it has this focus on low-middle income communities. It has a focus on electrifying tribal regions. It has that. It has a whole tribal electrification program, and it has like in these tax credits, investment tax credits, and production tax credits for energy communities. So specifically, the communities that have lost revenue due to coal plant closures or coal mine closures, and so they are kind of target like, you know, talking about the right groups of people, and they're targeting the right kind of issues in that sense, like encouraging the production of clean energy in these areas, or workforce development in these spaces. And there's also that whole chunk of Environment and Climate Justice block grants under the IRA, which are meant for specifically disadvantaged communities and community-based organizations in these areas, can apply to these grants for all things from like workforce development to clean energy technology development to climate resilience. It's, I mean, it's a huge set of sources to kind of A), reduce greenhouse gasses, and B), be able to kind of harness the potential of the clean energy transition. So from that perspective, I really like the IRA and the way it's focusing on people who need to be focused on honestly. But again, this is the same thing that I just talked about, the way we define things. So the IRA itself has, it doesn't have, like, a consistent definition of what is disadvantage and what is environmental justice communities or low income communities, like some places, they are using a particular definition based on a particular tax credit. Other places they are not, and even in the environmental justice Block Grant, environmental and climate justice block grant itself, program itself, they have, they say that they will use a definition by the that is being used by the Justice 40. The Council on Environmental Quality has that screen tool where they are basically identifying disadvantaged areas. But they also say that EPA has yet to finalize how we will define disadvantaged communities for this program. So I think that's my one of my icky things that I don't like about it is that when you don't define there is a lot of room for people to sort of exploit and pretend like they're doing good work when they're not. And I mean, of course, it remains to be seen how much people will be able to exploit this, but I think that that is something that makes me very uncomfortable about it. And I also think there is this one aspect of the IRA which is a little interesting. I haven't read a little bit. I haven't read more about it, and I really want to, but it's about how, if, uh. So the Department of Interior, I think, has to give out certain acreage of land in oil and gas leasing for being able to give offshore and onshore wind and solar development rights. So you are encouraging production of oil and gas in a way. And that's, yeah, that's a little I'm still trying to understand. Why has that been said, and why is that being done? Because I'm sure there is some logic somewhere deep inside, and I'm hoping there is, but I think, yeah, that and this definition thing, like, it's the same thing, if, in fact, I mean, sorry about the off-topicness, but the Weatherization Assistance Program that also, like, there was this work done by Dominic Bernard and Tony Reems, and they have actually documented how these programs that are supposed to assist low income households with their energy burdens and alleviate energy party, they don't use a definition at the end of the day about who's energy poor. And because they don't do that, you can't just say anybody falling below 80% of area median income is LMI, because that's not what being energy poor is about. It's about a lot of different facets. So if you choose to define it by this one income based category or criterion, you're not you're not doing a good job first of all. And yes, in that sense, the Justice body tools and this EJ screen, they are kind of holistic in the way they bring in climate burdens and environment burdens. But again, if you don't have a consistent definition throughout an act, there's so much wiggle room to do not good things, is how I'd say it.

Brian Bienkowski

So it sounds like the IRA has some good aspects to it, and we've we actually talked to Jalan Newsome, I believe, who is on the Council of Environmental Quality. And she talked at length about Justice40 I would encourage listeners to listen to that and then listen to this again. Listen to most response. But you know, outside of the IRA, have you seen, you know, countries, states, municipalities, towns, villages, anything that are embarking on the clean energy transition in a way that you see as equitable and just, and if so, can you talk about it a little bit?

Mokshda Kaul

So I'm not from Illinois. I have no relationship with Illinois. This is not sponsored by Illinois. I really love CEJA! I think it's really cool. And I know I'm probably missing a chunk of things. And I'm not saying it's perfect. Please, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that the way they have been able to bring like environmental justice and the provisions for labor justice, like fossil fuel labor justice in together at the same time is incredible, in my opinion! And they have so this is what I meant earlier, when I was saying about job creation, because what they have done is clean energy jobs are going to be created, and they're going to be union jobs. They're going to have prevailing wage standards, and they are also going to be a section of them is going to be devoted only to environmental justice communities. So you are kind of doing that, two words, one stone thing, and I think that's incredible. And the other thing I love, love about CEJA is they did this thing called the "Listen Lead Share" sessions. And I know no one can see this, but has to spark in my eye when I talk about the Listen Lead Share sessions. But the Listen LeadSshare sessions were basically this kind of listening session situation where smaller Bipoc community organizations were leading these listening sessions within Illinois, trying to collect opinions, not just opinion, but experiences and what people want in like an energy justice kind of a way from illinoisians, just to understand what is it that is bothering the people. And I wish I had the link for it, but when the bill actually came out there is he's the head of elevate. I can't remember his name right now. Really love the guy. I don't know why my brain's blanking on it, but he actually read out pieces from these listening sessions where local Illinoisans had cited concerns and what had made its way into the legislation actually, so actual people's opinions were there. And I just, I find that so amazing, like, that's what I mean by accurate representation. And the other thing that I found very cool about CEJA is they have provisions for returning citizens in these clean energy jobs. And that's some that's a, like, a huge chunk of population that we tend to miss when we talk about justice issues. And the reason they had that was because they used to have these zoom based, like, Zoom-Room based sessions where they tried to get people to talk about what's going on. And there was this one guy. He was like a representative. He was a returning citizen himself, and he was a representative for like a group, and he actually was like, You know what, we need provisions from people like me. And they bought that in, and they built that in. So it's incredible the way they have been able to sort of bring this to fruition. I mean, I'm sure implementation stages are you. Infamous for how things go wrong, but in just the way the act is written and the way it was brought together, I am so amazed, and I'm in love.

Brian Bienkowski

And what is that acronym? You said it's CEJA, What is that acronym? So if people wanted to check it out, yeah,

Mokshda Kaul

actually, you know what? I'm going to make sure I'm doing this right, because CEJA there was a CEJA proposed by the environment coalition, and then there was a final CEJA that was passed. And those two had different acronyms, but Climate and Equitable Jobs Act is how the bill that actually passed. And yeah, that's the one that was signed by the governor. And give me one second, I want to find the name of the person from Elevate, because he's really important and really cool, certainly, and I think he's like, worth mentioning if anyone's looking just one sec, Delmar. His name is Delmar Gillius, and he works for Elevate, and he was one of the few persons of color who is responsible for, like, actually, legislative negotiations as well. And he was incredible. And, yeah, it has been amazing to talk with all these folks that I've had a chance to talk to. And yes, again, not sponsored by Illinois. I just really love it.

Brian Bienkowski

Well, it's always nice to end on an optimistic note. And just to keep that theme, we have some fun, some fun, before we get you out of here. And thank you again, so much for this. I love talking to you about I think the energy conversation is so often missing nuance. People want to say "end" fossil fuels yesterday," or they want to say "we need fossil fuels forever," and just having nuance in that conversation is needed if we're going to get anywhere. So before we get out of here, I have a few rapid fire questions where you can just answer with one word or a phrase. My favorite comfort food is, I'll

Mokshda Kaul

I'll have to explain this.

Brian Bienkowski

Go right ahead.

Mokshda Kaul

Okay, it's Haak, Rogan Josh and rice. Haak is collard greens. We blanch them. And Rogan Josh is a really spicy lamb curry. And these are all Kashmiri foods. So if any Kashmiri is listening, I'm representing us and and with rice and yogurt, of course, but the Indian kind of yogurt, not the Greek yogurt. I would Oh, my God. Like, I think I'm gonna make it today. I described and I was like, Yeah, well, it's been a while, maybe we should do this today.

Brian Bienkowski

If I had to try out a job other than my current one, it would be

Mokshda Kaul

writing. I would love to be a fiction writer for the rest of my life.

Brian Bienkowski

And my dream vacation is

Mokshda Kaul

my current dream vacation is Poland. Because Poland, Poland, however we pronounce it? because I really want to be in a place that has the mountains and the sea and all the history to it. Been wanting to go since before 2020 and now I don't know when will I go,

Brian Bienkowski

Are you just trying to like, like, like, kiss up to the host here? That is my so I am very, I am very, I never thought anybody would say Poland to that question, so I was supposed to go. And yes, so I am. My grandparents were immigrants from Poland to Detroit and other parts of Michigan. And so I was supposed to go in 2020 or 2021 and it was no, it must have been 2022 because it was right when a Ukraine was invaded, exactly there was, there was this tale of covid. So I waited, and then there was a war that started. So I have not gone because obviously it's so close to Ukraine. And I just, yeah, you know, but we had, we have a lot of genealogy we've done, so I'm trying to sketch out a trip to places where family was and is so very cool.

Mokshda Kaul

That is so cool! Yeah, I wanted to do this was my I love solo trips, and this was going to be my trip before grad school. But like I said, I started grad school in 2020 so by the time I could book the tickets, the world was shut down. So that was the start of it. And then just being in grad school, I really don't, I don't know if I had the time. And then the war happened, and so I just at that point, I was like, You know what? It's not destined for now. So I guess I'm gonna put it on the back burner.

Brian Bienkowski

We'll have to stay in touch. Hopefully one of us will get there. Maybe both of us will get there. And so I've been learning the language too, which a Slavic language, is not easy to learn when you are 41 years old. It is not soaking into my brain.

Mokshda Kaul

That's so interesting, because for Kashmiri, the problem is, it's, it is like from the Indian group of languages. But I don't know, I'm forgetting the word for it, but apparently it sounds a lot like Central American language, Central Asian languages, sorry. So there is, like, a, like, an influx of salvik. And Persian and like, so I have had a lot of friends who are from, like, Central Asia, be like, What did you say? So, like, language is, God. Like, yeah, I am very curious. That's a really cool thing to do, though, because it keeps your brain young. So

Brian Bienkowski

it does, yes, it gets that other part of my brain that in music. So moksha. What is the last book that you read for fun? And you do not have to confine yourself to one word or a phrase here.

Mokshda Kaul

Okay, the last book I read was "Small things like these" by Claire O'keekin, I think what's her name? Very short, very spiffy, very sad. Loved it. And I also listened to audiobooks. So the last audiobook I listened to was Untamed by Glennon Doyle. So yeah, both of those were amazing. And small things like these was just I finished it in a day because it was so well written and so quick. I was like, wow, I need to I'm dropping everything.

Brian Bienkowski

I love books like that. They are the they are the best. Well, moksha. Thank you so much for your time, for your intelligence, your wit. I really like talking to you about these things and beyond. And just as a side note, you always seem, I know you say you're a pessimist, but you always seem happy and inject humor and lightness, and it's really just lights up a room, and it lit up this call. So thank you so much for being here, and I hope we can have you on again soon.

Mokshda Kaul

Yeah, thank you so much. This was really wonderful to talk to you.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Inside the North Carolina GOP’s decade-long push to seize power from state’s Democratic governors

GOP lawmakers have passed law after law stripping powers from Democratic governors

In November 2024, Democrat Josh Stein scored an emphatic victory in the race to become North Carolina’s governor, drubbing his Republican opponent by almost 15 percentage points. His honeymoon didn’t last long, however. Two weeks after his win, the North Carolina legislature’s Republican supermajority fast-tracked a bill that would transform the balance of power in the state. Its authors portrayed the 131-page proposal, released publicly only an hour before debate began, as a disaster relief measure for victims of Hurricane Helene. But much of it stripped powers from the state’s governor, taking away authority over everything from the highway patrol to the utilities commission. Most importantly, the bill eliminated the governor’s control over appointments to the state elections board, which sets voting rules and settles disputes in the swing state’s often close elections. Ignoring protesters who labeled the bill a “legislative coup,” Republicans in the General Assembly easily outvoted Democrats, then overrode the outgoing Democratic governor’s veto. The maneuver culminated a nearly decade-long effort by Republican legislators, who have pushed through law after law shrinking the powers of North Carolina’s chief executive — always a Democrat during that time frame — as well as the portfolios of other executive branch officials who are Democrats. Over that period, lawmakers have attempted to transfer control or partial control of at least 29 boards, entities or important executive powers. In most cases, they succeeded. As a result, Republicans now hold increased sway not only over North Carolina’s election board, but also over its schools, building codes, environmental regulations, coastal development, wildlife management, utilities, cabinet appointments and more. All had previously been under control of the governor. “This is not what people voted for,” said Derek Clinger, a senior counsel at the State Democracy Research Initiative, an institute at the University of Wisconsin Law School, who has studied the events in North Carolina. Stein, as well as all of North Carolina’s living former governors — Republicans and Democrats alike — have blasted the legislature’s erosion of gubernatorial authority as a violation of the state’s constitutionally enshrined separation of powers. “You should not be able to make the laws and then control who enforces them — just ask any fourth grader about the three branches of government,” Stein said in a statement to ProPublica. Lawmakers’ actions “throw the will of the voters into the trash can,” he added. Initially, governors had some success using separation-of-powers arguments in lawsuits filed to challenge efforts to strip their powers. Even majority-Republican courts ruled in their favor, declaring laws that shifted authority directly from the governor to the legislature were unconstitutional. More recently, though, legislators have found a loophole, writing laws that move traditional gubernatorial powers to elected executive branch officials who are Republicans. Since 2023, when the GOP won majorities on the state’s appellate courts, judges have increasingly rejected lawsuits aimed at blocking such legislation. The North Carolina GOP’s effort to rein in executive power at the state level stands in sharp contrast to the Trump administration’s efforts to expand such power federally. Before the Supreme Court, for example, the administration has argued for a “unitary executive” theory that would allow the president near-total control over personnel. North Carolina Republican legislative leaders didn’t respond to interview requests or detailed emailed questions from ProPublica about the power shifts. In the past, Republicans have defended whittling down Democratic governors’ authority by pointing to similarly partisan moves by Democrats decades ago, though these were on a much smaller scale. Current and former lawmakers also say the power shifts reflect the vision of North Carolina’s founders, who deliberately made the state’s governor weak and its legislature strong to prevent abuses suffered under British rule. “It’s never been co-equal, never will be, never intended to be,” said Paul Stam, who was the lame-duck Republican speaker pro tempore of the House when the General Assembly began its push to weaken the governor in 2016. Republicans also dispute the notion that voters oppose reducing governors’ authorities. “The people voted for a strong Republican majority in the legislature,” Sam Hayes, the former general counsel for North Carolina’s speaker of the House, said in an interview. “That role can involve reassigning the powers of the executive branch.” After lawmakers took away the governor’s power to appoint the election board’s members, Hayes became its director. The board’s new Republican majority has handed control over North Carolina’s county election boards to conservatives, some of whom have moved to eliminate early voting sites favored by Democrats. In recent years, states including Wisconsin, Michigan and Kentucky have waged similar battles over separation of powers. In almost all cases, Republican-dominated legislatures have stripped powers from Democrats elected to statewide offices. Still, North Carolina’s example has been particularly notable, critics say. According to a scholarly review by Clinger, the General Assembly’s power grabs in 2016 and 2024 are the most expansive in recent American history. Collectively, lawmakers have brought the powers of the state’s chief executive to a low ebb, said Christopher Cooper, a political scientist at Western Carolina University. In 2010, the textbook “Politics in the American States” ranked the institutional powers of North Carolina’s governor the third-weakest in the nation. By 2024, they ranked dead last. “Soon,” Cooper said of the legislature, “they’re not going to have anything left to take.” When the battles over the election board began in 2016, the joke among Republican lawmakers was that to get things done on elections policy, “you either need the Northern Hammer or the Sweet Southern Stammer.” The Northern Hammer was Bob Rucho, a famously blunt senator originally from Massachusetts. The Sweet Southern Stammer was David Lewis, a genial Republican House member from rural North Carolina with a speech impediment and an uncommon mastery of election law. The self-deprecating Lewis, a farmer and tractor salesman by trade, had helped design the gerrymandering strategies that, starting in 2010, handed Republicans long-term control of the legislature even in election cycles when Democrats won a majority of statewide offices. The importance of controlling the election board — and the potential disastrousness of not controlling it — was clear in the 2016 gubernatorial race, a close contest between Republican Gov. Pat McCrory and his Democratic challenger, Roy Cooper. The board makes decisions that can affect election outcomes in myriad ways, such as deciding where and for how long early voting takes place. It picks the state’s election director and members of county election boards, which maintain voter registration lists and operate voting sites. It arbitrates postelection challenges from losing candidates. As governors historically had, McCrory had appointed the five board members who oversaw the 2016 race, choosing three from his party and two from the opposing party as state law directed. But the panel and its professional staff still operated with considerable independence. After McCrory challenged his 10,000-vote loss to Cooper, alleging widespread voter fraud, the board — led by McCrory’s picks — voted against his protests, effectively ending the race. When Republican legislators launched their first effort to seize control of the board soon after, senior staffers figured it was payback for not helping McCrory. “I viewed it as retaliation for the board not having played a partisan enough role,” said Katelyn Love, who was then an attorney for the board and went on to become its general counsel. Lewis, who left the legislature in 2020, said he and other lawmakers were convinced that once appointment power passed to Cooper, he’d “stack the board” against Republicans. “In certain parts of the state,” he said, “elections really do come down to two or three votes, or a small percentage of votes, and we had no confidence” that Cooper’s appointees “would just treat us fairly.” Republican legislative leaders called a special session, proposing multiple bills that redirected powers from the governor, often to the legislature itself. “We said, ‘You know what: We’re the legislature and we decide who appoints who,’” Lewis recalled. “Instead of letting Roy do it, why don’t we put folks in place that kind of support the way we see things?” Lawmakers targeted not only the elections board, but also Cooper’s ability to hire and fire more than 1,000 political appointees in state government and to choose members of the state’s Industrial Commission, which handles matters such as worker safety claims. They took aim at some positions in part because they came with big paychecks, Lewis acknowledged; a seat on the Industrial Commission pays more than $160,000, for example. “The truth is, a lot of the importance of some of these positions is who gets to appoint whose friends to the board,” Lewis said. “It’s kind of considered a plum job.” The election board measure was framed as making oversight more bipartisan. Indeed, it increased the number of board members to eight and required even numbers of Republican and Democratic appointees. But the governor controlled only four of those seats. The legislature appointed the other four. Also, in even-numbered years — those when federal elections are held — the law required the board’s chair to be “a member of the political party with the second-highest number of registered affiliates.” At the time, that meant a Republican. Since the chair shaped what matters were taken up and had other bureaucratic influence, this gave the party an edge. Lewis insisted the restructured board was designed to even the scales — between the parties and between the governor and the legislature. “If one side can block the other, then bad things don’t happen,” he said. “And if both sides can work together, you can get a more positive resolution.” Less than two weeks after McCrory conceded, the legislature quickly forced through the changes, despite protests so intense they led to numerous arrests. Cooper quickly filed a court challenge, arguing that the law violated the state’s constitution and stymied his ability to enact his policies. The separation of powers is explicitly enshrined in North Carolina’s constitution, which declares, “The legislative, executive, and supreme judicial powers of the State government shall be forever separate and distinct from each other.” Democrats also made the case that the new, evenly split election board was intended to produce gridlock that effectively favored Republicans, keeping in place the election director chosen by McCrory’s board and blocking steps that required majority approval, such as establishing early voting sites. In March 2017, a trial court struck down most of the legislative changes, including those affecting the elections board, ruling they illegally robbed the governor of executive authority. Lewis and other Republican leaders went back to the drawing board. Small groups of election specialists and legislative aides met early in the morning or late at night, surviving on food from Bojangles, the much-loved fried-chicken-and-biscuits chain. They sketched out priorities and drafted legislative language on whiteboards, then waited for the opportune moment to introduce a bill. According to Lewis and other Republicans, they were determined to find a winning formula, no matter how many shots it took. “We felt like we had every right to do that because the constitution invested the legislature with defining the responsibilities” of the governor, Lewis said. A month after the trial court rejected lawmakers’ first stab at breaking the governor’s grip on the elections board, the legislature tried again. It passed another law that altered the board in much the same ways as the first, expanding it to eight members, for example. But this time, instead of giving the legislature half the appointments, the law directed the governor to make all of them — from lists provided by the chairs of the state’s Democratic and Republican parties. Cooper, calling the measure the “the same unconstitutional legislation in another package,” swiftly filed another legal challenge. For almost a year, as the case wound through the courts, he refused to make appointments under the proposed rules. The board’s professional staff kept up with administrative tasks but struggled to find workarounds for responsibilities handled by board members. They went to court on multiple occasions to get judges to rule on election protests and challenges in the board’s absence. “It was very disruptive and chaotic, and a drain on the agency’s limited resources,” Love said. In January 2018, the state Supreme Court struck down the legislature’s second attempt at taking over the elections board. The third came two months later, when lawmakers passed a bill that resurrected many elements of the previous one, but with a few new tweaks. In this version, the governor chose the board’s eight members — four Republicans and four Democrats — from lists submitted by each party, plus an additional tie-breaking member, unaffiliated with either party, from nominees provided by the new board. Despite these differences, the outcome was much the same: another lawsuit from Cooper and, eventually, another loss in court. Republican legislators realized they were likely to lose the case, so they also decided to try a strategy that took the issue out of the hands of the court system, Lewis said. They put a constitutional amendment on the November 2018 ballot that proposed removing the governor’s power to choose election board members and giving that authority to the legislature. “You put your idea out for the people,” Lewis said. If “they vote for it, then it’s no longer unconstitutional.” Of the six constitutional changes on the ballot that year, the election board proposal and one other — an amendment altering who picked judges to fill empty or added court seats — targeted traditional gubernatorial powers. The measures were hotly contested, attracting about $18 million in spending by groups for and against them. Lewis said that Republican internal polling showed clear support for the amendments, but the final tallies showed a notable divide: Voters passed four of the measures but rejected the two that stripped powers from the governor by roughly 2 to 1. At the end of 2018, Republicans temporarily waved the white flag, passing a law that returned the governor’s control over the election board. In 2020, Lewis relinquished his longtime role as the House’s election policy point man after pleading guilty to charges related to using campaign funds for personal expenses, including rent. He then resigned. Today, Lewis sells cars in a small town on North Carolina’s swampy southeastern coast and does occasional political consulting. Looking back, he still believes he did the right thing. “I was following the will of the voters that gave us the majority in the legislature to do these things.” Over the next few years, the elections board made one critical decision after another in close or disputed elections, underscoring its importance. In one instance, it called a new election in a congressional race tainted by an illegal scheme to fraudulently collect and fill out mail-in ballots. Republican legislative leaders bided their time, waiting for another opportunity to launch a takeover. Karen Brinson Bell, chosen as the state’s election director in May 2019 by Cooper’s appointees, said lawmakers never let her forget the tenuousness of her position. “I knew from the day I started that my days were numbered,” she said. “I was never naive to the fact that there would likely be other attempts to change the makeup of the board.” Bell said that at a December 2022 meeting held by the National Conference of State Legislatures in West Virginia, Warren Daniel, a Senate Republican who worked on election matters, told her that he and his colleagues planned to take over the board and to reduce early voting. (Daniel didn’t respond to ProPublica’s questions about the incident.) In October 2023, the moment Bell had long expected finally arrived. The legislature’s Republican supermajority introduced a new bill to remake the election board. It shifted control over appointments to the General Assembly’s majority and minority leaders and put some of the board’s administrative functions under the secretary of state. On decisions where the board’s four Republicans and four Democrats deadlocked, the law gave Republicans a decided advantage. If members couldn’t agree on an executive director, for example, the legislature’s majority leaders would choose one. If the board couldn’t agree on a plan for expanded early voting (championed by Democrats), then each county would have just one early voting site, the minimum required by law. The measure was similar to its predecessors, but the courts that would decide its legality were vastly different. Since the demise of the previous election board law, Republicans had won 14 appellate court races in a row and held majorities on the state’s higher courts. The Supreme Court’s chief justice, Paul Newby, had made it clear he saw no legal impediment to whittling down the governor’s portfolio, writing a sharp dissent to a ruling that struck down an earlier attempt to limit gubernatorial power. In February 2024, a trial court issued a decision that reframed the debate over the constitutionality of gubernatorial power transfers. This time, the case didn’t involve the election board. It dealt instead with a law that used a variety of mechanisms to strip away Gov. Roy Cooper’s control over seven other entities that managed everything from coastal resources to building codes. A three-judge panel found three of the seven transfer schemes legal because power passed from the governor to another elected executive branch member. “While the Governor is the chief executive, other elected officers who are members of the Council of State are also vested with executive power,” the judges wrote. Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who studies issues related to separation of powers, was aghast, saying the decision reflected partisanship rather than sound legal analysis. The court was “ignoring the fact that the governor was actually elected” and “allowing the state legislature to transfer some of his authority to Republican officials,” he said. Mitch Kokai, a senior political analyst at the conservative John Locke Foundation, argued the panel’s finding was consistent with North Carolina’s history of splitting executive power among multiple executive branch officials. He dismissed Gerhardt’s comments as partisan “sour grapes.” “The Democrats are losing, and they don’t like the fact that the Republicans are winning, so they’re casting doubt on what the conservative courts are saying,” he said. The ruling didn’t affect the October 2023 election board measure, which hadn’t been implemented, blocked by a separate trial court decision. But after Stein’s double-digit win in the 2024 governor’s race, Republican lawmakers again used a legislative session ostensibly about hurricane relief to introduce a new, superseding measure that would finally put the election board under their party’s control. It used a power transfer strategy similar to the ones that had won court approval the previous February, placing election board appointments in the hands of Dave Boliek, a Republican newly elected to the executive branch office of state auditor. Boliek could choose three of the board’s five members from his own party, giving Republicans their long-sought majority. No other state auditor in America manages elections and Boliek had no experience doing so, but he expressed enthusiasm about taking on the job. “Governor Josh Stein doesn’t have any experience supervising elections either,” Boliek told ProPublica in an email exchange. “Leading a public office requires a willingness to learn and serve — and I’m a quick study.” In the same law, legislators also redirected Stein’s authority to make appointments to an array of other boards and entities and stripped powers from other newly elected Democrats, including the lieutenant governor, attorney general and superintendent of public instruction. Stein sued to prevent the changes from taking effect, but in May, the Newby-led Supreme Court declined to block Boliek’s takeover of the election board. Although litigation continues, he has started transforming election oversight, both statewide and locally, in ways that would be hard to undo. Some of Boliek’s board members have long histories in Republican politics and efforts to tilt state elections in the party’s favor. The new chair, Francis De Luca, had led a conservative institute that sued to contest McCrory’s loss in the 2016 race for governor. (De Luca didn’t respond to ProPublica’s request for comment.) Another new Republican member was Rucho, the so-called Northern Hammer who’d worked on election policy with Lewis. The new board will be fair, he promised. “My goal is to level the playing field so that everyone is playing by the same rules,” he said. Bell’s replacement as election director, Hayes, has overhauled the board’s 60-member staff, though historically it’s been nonpartisan and largely remained when new leadership took over. Since Hayes took charge, at least nine staffers have left or been placed on leave, according to interviews and published reports. At the same time, the board has added seven new political appointees, many of whom have close ties to Republican politicians. “It’s a nonpartisan shop shifting to a partisan shop,” said one staff member who asked not to be identified, fearing retaliation. Hayes insisted the board remains nonpartisan and described the changes in staff as “nothing out of the ordinary.” He described his goals as “repairing relationships with the General Assembly” and working to “honor the letter and spirit of the law.” “If we do that,” he said, “I believe that we will rebuild trust in elections here.” Under Hayes’ leadership, the board also moved swiftly to settle a lawsuit filed against it earlier this year by the U.S. Justice Department, agreeing to require tens of thousands of voters to provide missing registration information or risk not having their ballots count in state races, voter advocacy groups say. Bell had opposed taking such steps. Hayes said he settled the suit with the “intent of honoring federal law” and to clean up the state’s voter rolls, which Republicans argue have been badly mismanaged. The new leadership has also taken steps that could limit early voting locations in the state, especially those in Democratic strongholds. Boliek hired longtime Republican operative Dallas Woodhouse, who has advocated for restricting early voting, to fill a newly created role partly focused on early voting. In October, Woodhouse emailed Republican board chairs directing them to consider moving polling sites out of urban areas, where there are more Democrats, to “areas that are outside of urban cores,” where Republicans tend to hold the majority. So far, conservative majorities in at least eight counties have moved to limit early voting sites or weekend hours sought by Democrats. At least two have rejected sites near universities, including a site near a historically Black college. In an interview, Boliek told ProPublica there was no plan to reduce early voting sites in areas that lean Democratic. He later explained in an email that Woodhouse “simply answered inquiries from board chairs.” Hayes communicates with Cleta Mitchell, a lawyer who tried to help Trump overturn the 2020 election, and Woodhouse regularly attends video calls held by the North Carolina chapter of Mitchell’s national organization, the Election Integrity Network. Boliek said Woodhouse talks to a variety of organizations from across the political spectrum, adding,“I don’t think people should be concerned.” He said the board was dedicated to making “it easy to vote and hard to cheat in North Carolina.” Hayes said Mitchell and other network leaders aren’t “receiving special access to me or treatment from this office” and that he talks to people on both sides of the aisle. All told, Republican legislators have successfully transferred power over 17 of the 29 boards, entities and important executive prerogatives they’ve targeted since 2016, a ProPublica review showed. In addition to the election board, the governor has lost control or partial control over a dozen entities, including the state’s Environmental Management Commission and its Utilities Commission. Stein told ProPublica that state residents have suffered, in the form of weakened environmental protections and rising energy costs. Rucho, the Northern Hammer, argues the power transfers have actually improved life in the state. “You have to change the way the system works, if the system is not working,” he said. “This was a real good remedy to make these boards work on behalf of the people.” Longtime observers say they have deepening concerns about the erosion of the separation of powers in North Carolina. Bob Orr, a former Republican state Supreme Court justice, said that if power grabs by Republican legislators continue to be upheld by the state’s Republican-majority courts, it will threaten democracy in the state. “Really, what can people do?” said Orr, who left the Republican Party because of how it changed under Trump. “A legislature that is literally unchecked with gerrymandered districts and a presumption of constitutionality for everything they do in the courts — that is a danger to democracy because they can change the system regardless of the will of the people.” The post Inside the North Carolina GOP’s decade-long push to seize power from state’s Democratic governors appeared first on Salon.com.

The Bad River Band is suing to protect its wild rice from an oil pipeline

The lawsuit targets a federal permit for Enbridge’s Line 5, which the tribe says puts wetlands, rivers, and treaty-protected resources at risk.

Around August of each year, when temperatures swell in the Great Lakes region, wild rice — or manoomin in the Ojibwe language — begins to flower. Rice stalks can grow as high as 10 feet in the shallow waters, and to harvest, sticks and poles are used to knock seeds loose into boats or canoes. The harvest is critical each year to the Ojibwe. But those ricing waters are under threat as the Canadian oil transport company Enbridge looks to reroute its controversial pipeline, Line 5, through prime harvesting areas. Now, the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, one of six Ojibwe bands in northern Wisconsin, has filed a lawsuit against the United States Army Corps of Engineers, or USACE, to stop construction. “For hundreds of years, and to this day, the Band’s ancestors and members have lived, hunted, fished, trapped, gathered, and engaged in traditional activities in the wetlands and waters to be crossed by the project,” the lawsuit says. In October, USACE granted Enbridge a permit to build a 41-mile addition to Line 5 in order to circumvent the Bad River reservation, but Earthjustice, a nonprofit litigation organization representing the tribe, argues the permit failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act. Earthjustice says the pipeline will cross waterways that flow onto the Bad River Reservation and leaks would threaten the watershed and ecosystem, needed for wild rice harvesting and fishing. After the largest inland oil spill from Enbridge’s pipelines in the U.S. in 2010 — flooding more than a million gallons into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan — the largest spill in Wisconsin’s history happened last year. The company reported around 69,000 gallons of oil spilled onto the ground near a rural town in the south of the state. Initially, the spill was reported as two gallons; it was a month before the public officially knew the spill’s size.  Line 5 has operated for more than 70 years and has become a major legal battle for multiple tribal nations in the Great Lakes region. During the 1950s, for the Lakehead Pipeline, the company fitted 12 miles of pipeline across the 124,655-acre reservation to transport oil from western Canada to eastern Canada. Despite the treaty of 1854 that established permanent reservation territory and the treaty of 1842, cementing the right to hunt, gather, and fish, the company did not initiate talks with the tribe on pipeline siting.  In 2019, the Bad River Band sued Enbridge to cease operations on their land, ordering the company to remove its pipeline from the reservation. In 2023, a federal judge backed the nation, ruling that the company had three years to remove its property from the reservation and pay a $5.1 million fine for trespassing. The tribe said the proposed 41-mile addition would impact at least 70 different waterways as Enbridge will need to use explosives and horizontal drilling to build the extension. “Oil and gas contribute to pollution in a number of ways, and the Trump administration is focused on energy dominance,” said Gussie Lord, a member of the Oneida Nation and an attorney at Earthjustice. “It’s cut out renewable energy from the equation to the extent it can, and it just really feels like a backward-looking playbook to me.”  Last year, under the Biden administration, the USACE conducted an environmental assessment on the proposed route rather than an environmental impact study. Environmental assessments allow for faster review, while environmental impact studies are more thorough and require more time and resources to evaluate a project’s impact. They also allow for consultation with tribal nations to determine if a project violates treaty rights, cultural resources, or access to clean water. In neighboring Michigan, Enbridge is also up against tribal nations and state officials in order to operate a nearly 5-mile pipeline segment under the Great Lakes to replace a 72-year-old section of Line 5. This month, a federal judge blocked Michigan from enforcing an order to shut the pipeline down, ruling that pipeline safety is a matter of federal responsibility, not states. In March, the Army Corps fast-tracked a permit for the segment under the Trump administration’s energy emergency declaration, allowing the agency to bypass regulatory laws, like the National Environmental Policy Act. Shortly after, seven tribal nations withdrew from discussions, citing the federal government’s failure to engage with tribal governments. Currently, the initial permit hasn’t been signed or finalized by the USACE. “Until the permit is signed, USACE has not engaged in a judicially reviewable final agency action,” a spokesperson for Enbridge said. “Enbridge will move to intervene in the lawsuit and defend the USACE’s forthcoming permit decision.” In Wisconsin, the Bad River Band has also initiated litigation against the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources over its state permitting of Enbridge in August.  Gussie Lord of Earthjustice said litigation is going to be an uphill battle, but adds that the Bad River Band believes it’s their responsibility to protect the area’s watershed and environment. “We need people who are going to be thinking about what makes sense, for the future, not just 10 years from now, but 50 years, 100 years from now,” Lord said. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The Bad River Band is suing to protect its wild rice from an oil pipeline on Dec 23, 2025.

‘Bonkers': DOI letter halts all five in-progress offshore wind farms

The Interior Department announced Monday it is pausing leases for all five large-scale offshore wind projects under construction in America, citing unspecified issues of national security. Canary Media obtained a copy of a letter notifying one of the affected wind farm developers, providing new details about the…

The Interior Department’s press release about the pause also cites claims not included in the letter to Dominion Energy, including mention of a 2024 Department of Energy study that determined offshore wind turbines could cause radar to ​“miss actual targets” while also noting that ​“wind energy will play a leading role in the nation’s transition to a clean energy economy.” Dominion Energy did not respond to a request for comment.  A spokesperson for Equinor, the partially state-owned Norwegian energy firm that is developing the Empire Wind project off the coast of New York, said, ​“We are evaluating the order and seeking further information from the federal government.”  The Trump administration had previously hit two of the affected projects — Empire Wind and Revolution Wind — with stop-work orders. Both installations were later allowed to proceed, although that construction pause cost Equinor nearly $1 billion. The remaining three projects, Coastal Virginia, Vineyard Wind, and Sunrise Wind, had been spared until now. Several of these projects are more than halfway complete; Revolution Wind is at least 80% finished. Monday’s announcement is not the first time the administration has used national security as an excuse for throwing sand in the gears of offshore wind.  But between 2020 and 2023, the Revolution Wind project endured an extensive regulatory review, including by the Pentagon and Federal Aviation Administration. BOEM approved the project under the condition that all turbines be built to lighting and marking standards that would ensure they’re visible to aircraft at night. No mitigation for radar is mentioned. In August 2023, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — a branch of the military — co-signed the authorization of plans for Danish developer Ørsted to build 65 wind turbines for the Revolution Wind project.  “Was the military at the table, represented and consulted with during this stakeholder process? The answer is: very much so,” wind energy veteran Bill White told Canary Media in August. From 2009 to 2015, White represented Massachusetts on a BOEM-led intergovernmental task force focused on the siting of New England offshore wind energy areas.  In February 2024, a Brown University research group examined 441 claims made against offshore wind during the first six months of 2023. They found multiple times ​“military readiness” and ​“radar interference” were mentioned in ways that the researchers found misleading or problematic.  “[S]uggesting that our military is unaware of this issue or has done nothing to address it is completely untrue,” the report concluded.  J. Timmons Roberts, a co-author of the report and a professor of environmental studies and sociology at Brown University, called the administration’s halt to five approved wind farms because of classified national security information ​“bonkers.” “These claims aren’t new and they have been, in the past, shown to be quite baseless,” he said. { if ($event.target.classList.contains('hs-richtext')) { if ($event.target.textContent === '+ more options') { $event.target.remove(); open = true; } } }" >

Dakota Access Pipeline Should Continue Operating, US Army Corps of Engineers Says

By Georgina McCartneyHOUSTON, Dec 19 (Reuters) - The ‌U.S. ​Army Corps of ‌Engineers on Friday released a long-anticipated Environmental Impact ​...

HOUSTON, Dec 19 (Reuters) - The ‌U.S. ​Army Corps of ‌Engineers on Friday released a long-anticipated Environmental Impact ​Statement for the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), recommending that operations of the ‍oil pipeline continue with ​some conditions.The EIS, a document required by U.S. law ​to ⁠evaluate the environmental effects of major federal actions, is a win for DAPL operator Energy Transfer and a step closer to the end of a lengthy court battle between the company and ‌nearby Native American tribes, who have been fighting for ​the pipeline's ‌closure.The document recommends the continued ‍operation ⁠of DAPL, on the grounds that safeguards are put in place such as groundwater monitoring, fish tissue residue analyses and water and sediment sampling, as well as the deployment of new leak detection technology.A U.S. court in 2022 ordered the federal government to undertake a more intensive ​EIS of the 1,100-mile (1,800-km) crude pipeline's route as part of the dispute between Energy Transfer and the tribes who have cited risks to water quality as the pipeline runs through Lake Oahe, with the crossing around half a mile north of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation.The pipeline has continued to operate while the review is being carried out. It is the biggest oil pipeline ​from the Bakken shale oil basin and can transport up to 750,000 barrels of oil per day from North Dakota to Illinois.It is not known whether USACE's ​recommendation will be implemented. (Reporting by Georgina McCartney in Houston; Editing by Paul Simao)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

We need to grow the economy. We need to stop torching the planet. Here’s how we do both.

The first thing that struck me about this year’s most talked-about policy book, Abundance (perhaps you’ve heard of it?), is a detail almost no one talks about.  The book’s cover art sketches a future where half of our planet is densely woven with the homes, clean energy, and other technologies required to fill every human […]

The first thing that struck me about this year’s most talked-about policy book, Abundance (perhaps you’ve heard of it?), is a detail almost no one talks about.  The book’s cover art sketches a future where half of our planet is densely woven with the homes, clean energy, and other technologies required to fill every human need, liberating the other half to flourish as a preserve for the biosphere on which we all depend — wild animals, forests, contiguous stretches of wilderness. It’s a beautiful ecomodernist image, suggesting that protecting what we might crudely call “nature” is an equal part of what it means to be prosperous, and that doing so is compatible with continued economic growth. It’s a visual rebuke to those who argue that we must choose between the two.  How would we do it?  The US and its peer countries today are spectacularly rich — unimaginably so, from the vantage of nearly any point in human history — and it might be tempting to think that we have grown enough, that our environmental crisis is so grave that we should save our planet by shrinking our economy and freeing ourselves from useless junk. I understand the pull of that vision — but it’s one that I think is illusory and politically calamitous, not to mention at odds with human freedom. A world where economic growth goes into reverse is a world that would see ever more brutal fighting over shrinking wealth, and it is far from guaranteed to benefit the planet. Yet that doesn’t change the essential problem: Climate change and the destruction of the natural world pose grave immediate threats to humans, and to the nonhuman life that is valuable in itself. And we are not on track to manage it.  It’s not easy to reconcile these realities, but it is possible and necessary to do so in a way that’s consistent with liberal democratic principles. Instead of deliberately shrinking national income, we can seek out the areas of greatest inefficiency in our economy and chart a path that gets the most economic gain for the least environmental harm. If growing the economy without torching the planet is feasible in principle — and I think it is — then we should fight for it to grow in the best direction possible.  Inside this story • Meat and dairy, plus our extreme dependence on cars, are two huge efficiency sinks: they produce a big share of emissions and devour land, and they aren’t essential to economic growth or human flourishing. • Shifting diets toward plant-based foods and freeing up land could act like a giant carbon-capture project, buying time to decarbonize. • Reducing car dependence would slash transport emissions, make land use more efficient, and make Americans healthier and safer — without sacrificing prosperity. We’ll need to build out renewables at breakneck speed and electrify everything we can, of course. But some of the most powerful levers we have to decouple economic growth from environmental impact challenge us to do something even harder — to begin outgrowing two central fixtures of American life that are as taken-for-granted as they are supremely inefficient: our extreme dependence on meat and cars.  Changing those realities is so culturally and politically heretical in America that this case is almost never made in climate politics, but it deserves to be made nonetheless. And doing so will require examining the trade-offs that we too often treat as defaults.  Two great efficiency sinks It’s probably not news to you that cars and animal-based foods are bad for the planet — together they contribute around a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions both globally and within the US. Animal agriculture also devours more than a third of habitable land globally (a crucially important part of our planetary crisis) and 40 percent of land in the lower 48 US states, while car-dependent sprawl fragments and eats into what’s left at the urban fringe.  We obviously need food and transportation, but meat and cars convert our planet’s resources into those necessities much more wastefully than the alternatives: plant-based food, walking, public transportation, and so on. And in a climate-constrained economy that still needs to grow, we don’t have room to waste. Beef emits roughly 70 times more greenhouse gases per calorie than beans and 31 times more than tofu; poultry emits 10 times more than beans and four to five times more than tofu. Mile-for-mile, traveling by rail transit in the US emits about a third as much as driving on average, while walking doesn’t emit anything.  For all that resource use, animal agriculture and autos are not indispensable to our economy or to our continued economic growth. The entire US agricultural sector, plus the manufacture and servicing of automobiles, make up a tiny share of our GDP; like other advanced economies, America’s is largely service-based, employing workers in everything from health care to law firms to restaurants and retailers like Amazon and Walmart. Of course, agriculture, energy, and manufacturing are foundational to everything else in the economy — without farming, Chipotle and Trader Joe’s would have no food to sell, and more importantly, we would starve. To say that agriculture isn’t a major part of our economy isn’t to say that it’s not really important to having an economy.  But it is, unsurprisingly, those foundational parts of the economy that disproportionately drive resource use and environmental impact — and because they’re a small share of the economy, we have a lot of room to change their composition without crashing GDP.  If we shifted a chunk of our food production away from meat and dairy and toward plant-based foods, for example, the already economically tiny ag sector might shrink somewhat. Meanwhile, we would save a lot of greenhouse gas emissions and land, and it would be reasonable to infer that the food service and retail sectors, which make up a significantly larger share of US GDP than agriculture does, would function all the same because we’d still eat the same number of calories and buy the same amount of food. With less meat consumption, the US might even have a significantly bigger alternative protein sector, with cleaner, better jobs than farm or slaughterhouse work.   Which is not to say there wouldn’t be any losers in the short run — job losses and stranded capital in industries that are regionally concentrated and politically powerful. But those transitions can be managed, just as we have been managing the transition away from fossil fuels.   This is exactly what decoupling — the idea that we can grow richer while decreasing emissions and other environmental impacts — looks like. The US, like a lot of other developed countries, has largely managed that in carbon emissions from energy consumption, which have fallen around 20 percent since 2005, even as the economy has grown about 50 percent in real terms. Agriculture has become more efficient, too, but it still lags on decoupling; the sector’s emissions are mostly flat or rising. Road transport tells a similar story: cars and trucks have gotten more efficient, but total emissions from driving are still stuck near their mid-2000s levels. Admittedly, it’s easier to decouple for energy than it is to change the way we eat or move around. A megawatt is a megawatt, whether it’s produced by coal or solar, while switching from steak to beans is not the same experience. But learning how to use resources more efficiently is, after all, a big part of how wealthy nations have become wealthy, including in these tougher sectors. Despite how inefficient our food system still is, the US has managed to significantly decrease how much land it uses for farming over the last century, while producing much more food. We could go much further if we weren’t so reliant on eating animals.  Now, you might be thinking, so what if American GDP doesn’t depend on meat and cars? People like them, and they’re part of what it means to be rich and comfortable in the modern world. And you would have a point. No one would say that heating and cooling shouldn’t exist (well, the French might) just because they use a lot of energy and make up a tiny share of the economy.   But every choice we make in the economy is a trade-off against something else, and everything we spend our limited carbon budget on is a choice to forgo something else. Our task is to decide whether high meat intake and extreme car dependence are worth that trade — whether they make up for their toll on the planet in contributions to our economy or to our flourishing as human beings.  The “eating-the-Earth” problem We can start with animal agriculture, because however bad for the planet it looks on first impression, it’s actually worse.  Estimates of the livestock industry’s greenhouse gas emissions range from around 12 to 20 percent globally; in the US, it’s around 7 percent (despite the lower percentage, per capita meat consumption is substantially higher in the US than it is globally — it’s just that our other sources of emissions are even higher). But those numbers don’t account for what climate scientists call the carbon opportunity cost of animal agriculture’s land use.  This story was first featured in the Processing Meat newsletter Sign up here for Future Perfect’s biweekly newsletter from Marina Bolotnikova and Kenny Torrella, exploring how the meat and dairy industries shape our health, politics, culture, environment, and more. Have questions or comments on this newsletter? Email us at futureperfect@vox.com! Recall that farming animals for food takes up a massive amount of land, because we need space for the animals and for the crops needed to feed them. Meat and dairy production hogs 80 percent of all agricultural land to produce what amounts to 17 percent of global calories. Much of it could instead be rewilded with climate-stabilizing ecosystems, which would support biodiversity and also happen to be among our best defenses against global warming because of how good they are at sequestering carbon.  How big would the impact be? The canonical paper on the carbon opportunity cost of animal agriculture finds that a 70 percent reduction in global meat consumption, relative to projected consumption levels in 2050, would remove the equivalent of about nine years of carbon emissions, while a global plant-based diet would remove 16 years of emissions; another study concludes that a rapid phaseout of animal agriculture could effectively freeze increases in all greenhouse gases over the next 30 years, and offset most carbon emissions this century. It’s worth pausing to appreciate just how miraculous that is. Freeing up even some of the land now used for meat and dairy turns it into a negative-emissions machine better than any existing carbon capture technology, giving us a carbon budget windfall that could ease the phaseout of fossil fuels and buy time for solving harder problems like decarbonizing aviation. This is as close as it gets to a free lunch, as long as you’re willing to make it a vegan lunch.  Organizing society around cars doesn’t make sense  We can think of car dependence as the other big resource black hole in US society. Transportation is the top source of greenhouse gas emissions in the country, and cars are the biggest source within that category, accounting for about 16 percent of all US emissions. Globally, gas-powered cars are in retreat — a very good thing for both climate change and deadly air pollution, though the US is increasingly falling behind peer countries in auto electrification.  Still, if it were just a matter of swapping out gas-guzzlers for EVs, auto transportation wouldn’t be an obstacle to truly sustainable growth. But EVs alone aren’t a silver bullet for repairing the environmental problems of cars.  One influential paper on the subject found as much in 2020, concluding that, at any realistic pace of electrification, EV growth wouldn’t be enough to meet climate targets, and even with universal adoption, EVs aren’t emissions-free. They take lots of energy to make — especially those heavy batteries — and an enormous amount of steel and critical minerals. These are scarce inputs that we also need to decarbonize the electric grid and build other green infrastructure.  That isn’t to say that EVs aren’t better for the climate than gas-powered vehicles — they absolutely are. But as the lead author of that paper wrote in an accompanying commentary, “The real question is, do you even need a car?” The problem is not the existence of cars, but our total dependence on them. In most of the country, Americans have no other convenient transportation options. And remember, we’re trying to optimize for the least resources used for the most economic upside. Organizing society around the movement of hundreds of millions of two-ton metal boxes is… obviously not that, and the reasons why go well beyond emissions from the cars themselves. The car-dependent urban form that dominates America forces us to build things spread far apart — sprawl, in other words — which forces us to use more land. As of 2010, according to one estimate, the US devoted a land area about the size of New Jersey to parking spots alone.   Our cities and suburbs occupy less than one-tenth as much land as farming — about 3 percent of the US total — but they still matter for the environment, fragmenting the habitats on which wildlife and ecosystems depend. Plus, housing in the US is sprawling enough that some exurban communities stretch across outlying rural counties, occupying an unknown additional share of land that’s not included in the 3 percent figure.   Perhaps most damaging from an economic perspective, the sprawling development pattern that car dependence both enables and relies upon has driven the misallocation of valuable land toward low-density single-family homes, driving our national housing crisis. Cars are by no means the sole reason behind the housing shortage, but without mass car dependence, it would be vastly harder to lock so much of our land into inefficient uses. Meanwhile, Americans pay dearly for car dependence in the form of costly infrastructure and tens of thousands of traffic deaths each year. Urbanists sometimes like to say that the US prioritizes cars over people — that an alien arriving on Earth would probably think cars are our planet’s apex species. In some senses, that’s certainly true — the privileges that we’ve reserved for cars make it harder to meet the basic human need of housing, which makes us poorer and diminishes the agglomeration effects that make cities dynamic and productive. One widely cited paper estimated, astonishingly, that housing supply constraints, especially in the highest-productivity cities, cut US economic growth by 36 percent, relative to what it would have been otherwise, from 1964 to 2009. Imagine how much higher the GDP of Los Angeles would be if it doubled its housing stock and population and, with its freeways already maxed out, enabled millions more people to get around on foot, bike, and transit.  And, of course, since autos and animal products are both very high in negative externalities, the benefits of reducing our collective dependence on them go well beyond the strictly economic or environmental. Americans would spend less money managing chronic disease and die fewer premature deaths (in the case of meat and dairy, probably, and in the case of cars, undoubtedly). We would torture and kill fewer animals (and fewer people would have to spend their working lives doing the killing). We would help keep antibiotics working, and we might even prevent the next pandemic.  But will we do it? The growth that brought us industrial modernity is an awe-inspiring thing: It’s given us an abundance of choices, and it’s made obsolete brutal ways of life that not long ago were a shorthand for prosperity, like coal mining or the hunting of whales to make industrial products. Prosperity can be measured concretely in rising incomes and lengthening lifespans, but it’s also an evolving story we tell ourselves about what constitutes the good life, and what we’re willing to trade to get it.  With cars, at least, we might have the seeds of a different story. Dethroning the automobile in car-loving America remains a grueling, uphill battle, and I wouldn’t necessarily call myself optimistic, but transportation reform flows quite naturally from the changes we already know we need to make to solve our housing shortage.  The best way to reduce the number of miles we drive is to permit a greater density of homes anywhere where there’s demand for it, especially in the parts of cities that already have the affordances of car-free or car-light life (and it’s definitely not all or nothing — I own a car and can appreciate its conveniences, while driving maybe a quarter as much as the average American). The housing abundance movement is winning the intellectual argument necessary to change policy in that direction. And maybe most crucially, we know many Americans want to live in these places — some of the most in-demand homes in the country are in walkable neighborhoods. If we make it easy to build lots of housing in the centers of growing cities, people will move there.  But animal agriculture, barring a game-changing breakthrough in cell-cultivated meat, is a somewhat different story. It’s one thing to show that we’re not missing out on economic growth by forgoing meat, and quite another to persuade people that eating less of it isn’t a sacrifice — something the plant-based movement hasn’t yet figured out how to do. At bare minimum, we ought to be pouring public money into meat alternatives research. There’s no shortage of clever policy ideas to nudge consumer choices in the right direction — but for them to succeed rather than backfire terribly, people have to want it. And to that end, I’d encourage anyone to discover the abundance of a low- or no-meat diet, which is an easier choice to make in most of America than escaping car dependence.  Right now, our livestock and our automotive herd squander the resources that could be used to make industrial modernity sustainable for everyone. We grow less than we might because we waste so much on cars and meat. Reclaiming even a fraction of that capacity would make the math of decoupling less brutal, freeing us to build whatever else we can imagine. There’s no guarantee we’ll make that choice, or make it in time — but the choice is ours.  This series was supported by a grant from Arnold Ventures. Vox had full discretion over the content of this reporting.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.