“Even when there is communication going on, it’s not necessarily back and forth. The overwhelming attitude is, ‘This is what’s coming. This is what we have planned. Deal with it.’ And then the concerns or anxieties of community members – who oftentimes have very legitimate concerns –are often just disregarded.”
~ Alex “Spike” Spike, Climate Justice Coordinator, Air Alliance Houston
Typically, the person featured in our newsletter answers a series of questions provided by the Global CO2 Initiative (GCI). However, the format for this special feature on Alex Spike and Air Alliance Houston, is a little different.
Air Alliance Houston is a non-profit advocacy organization working to reduce the public health impacts from air pollution and advance environmental justice. GCI is a non-profit working to advance carbon capture and utilization as a mainstream solution to climate change. In order to facilitate more dialog between community advocates and academic or technical non-profits, we agreed to each ask each other three questions. When a few clarification questions arose, Spike graciously agreed to answer additional questions.
GCI’s questions and Spike’s answers are featured in this newsletter. Spike’s questions and GCI’s answers were featured in the previous newsletter issue.
Spike amplifies the connections between air quality, climate change and environmental justice by coordinating community-based campaigns that educate and empower communities to take action for their health. Their background is in mathematics and atmospheric sciences with a concentration in air pollution meteorology. They also completed air pollution research with the University of Houston over the Houston Ship Channel. In their free time, Spike can be found reading or walking their dog.
GCI: What do people in the carbon capture industry (academics, policy makers, industry, people, etc,) misunderstand or get wrong about the communities who are at the heart of your work?
Spike: Carbon removal has, for the most part, been the business of government, industry and academia. Communities, especially fenceline communities, where a lot of these projects are very likely to be cited, have often been excluded.
So for one thing, there’s a lack of conversation going on. Even when there is communication going on, it’s not necessarily back and forth. The overwhelming attitude is, “This is what’s coming. This is what we have planned. Deal with it.” And then the concerns or anxieties of community members – who oftentimes have very legitimate concerns –are often just disregarded.
A lot of the firms that have the technical know-how to carry out today’s carbon capture activities are the same firms that have harmed communities in the past. Exxon and Calpine – these firms have big industrial facilities down here in Houston that are polluting the air. They are climate bad faith actors. And now they’re asking community members to have another project with another set of risks in their backyard again?! It’s going to be very challenging to get community support.
With this problematic history, there’s a very serious lack of trust here. There’s a very serious need for a new kind of relationship building. Instead of identifying communities as simple stakeholders, they need to be part of the development of these projects with very robust Community Benefit Agreements and project labor agreements.
These changes need to start with conversation. Hopefully, conversations will also spur a reorientation and re-formulation of community work. The process to fix past damages, as well as insure future relationships are positive, starts with coming to the table and having those conversations first; then everything else starts to fall into place when everyone is really listening.