School of Sustainability Graduate Culminating Experiences

The planet is going through a mass extinction event brought on by human influence: biodiversity elimination, habitat destruction, climate change, and many other cascading effects. The toll on nature is already unconscionable, yet this is already effecting human populations as well, and will only exponentially increase in the coming years. It won’t just be our children experiencing this crisis, it is us, now. It is already happening. Arguably a primary reason for these environmental issues falls to environmental externalities in our economic systems.

The only way to fundamentally address this is through a systemic introduction of labeling or reporting the environmental costs of products and services. Externalities are the hidden costs, or the costs not calculated in the production or use of a good or service. Through a lack of transparency, intentional obfuscation, and willful or pure ignorance, we as a species profoundly lack knowledge on how the products and services we consume affect the world around us. In fact, of 1000 global primary production sectors, none generate the profit needed to cover their cost in natural capital (TruCost, 2013).

The only way we can even have a chance to mitigate our impact is to be provided that data before we spend our money. As such, products and services must report their impacts on the environment through a standardized metric or grade on a label or report that is easy to understand and will capture information on biodiversity loss, climate change, pollution and waste. The only way for this to effectively take hold and maintain transparency is through governmental legislation and the associated infrastructure to provide a method for businesses to make such a calculation.

This paper describes the effort to design such policy, provide it to legislators and pass it. Most ideally, this would be integrated into a larger systemic bill designed to economically shape the country in a sustainable way. As such, this initiative is being proposed as an amendment to be added to House Resolution 109, the “Green New Deal.” Assimilating this as a specific initiative within the GND, which is currently more or less a framework of mission statements, provides a more solid groundwork for a successful legislative effort. The underlying concept is to enable the consumer with needed and usable information. There is no true guarantee of a “happy ending,” but at its core, it will help to hold businesses accountable and ultimately empower the common consumer to make informed choices, from whence the fate of our planet can at least be decided honestly.

Institutional factors are rarely examined in disaster risks in the Himalayan region, as much of the focus so far has been on improving the scientific understanding of the natural hazards and risks. This is particularly true for glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs), which are natural hazards endemic to high mountain ranges such as the Andes, Alps, and Himalayas. While these have put mountain communities at risk for centuries, vulnerability is viewed to be increasing due to climate change. While the science behind the causes and characteristics of these hazards is now better understood, there is an absence of research understanding the social, cultural and institutional drivers behind creating effective strategies to mitigate risks from GLOFs. This is more so for the Himalayan region, where institutions have recently started to address this risk, but contention between local communities and external organizations can hinder mitigation efforts. To better understand how people’s perception towards disaster risk, a study conducted by Sherpa et al. (2019) examined the socio-economic and cultural perceptions surrounding GLOF hazards.

This research highlighted gaps in how scientific knowledge is disseminated to local communities, and the resulting distrust in government mitigation projects such as lake lowering and Early Warning Systems. A clear need developed to conduct an institutional analysis of the governance systems responsible for disaster risk management and their interaction with local communities. This study examines the institutional conditions under which mountain communities create effective adaptation strategies to address climate induced hazards. We use a mixed-methods approach, combining: a) quantitative analysis of household surveys collected in 2016-2017 and b) qualitative analysis that maps out the various factors of institutions that influence the success of community-based adaptation efforts. Additionally, GLOF case studies from Nepal are compared to those in Peru, where institutions have a longer history of managing GLOF risks. The research finds that there are several considerations including: lack of cross-scalar communication networks, lack of local knowledge and participation in policy processes, and ineffective interorganizational coordination of knowledge sharing and funding streams for local projects. This disconnect between external versus local and informal institutions becomes an inherent issue in projects where agenda setting by external organizations plays prevalent roles in project implementation.