7

Defining, Measuring, and Seeking Solutions to Environmental Justice Issues for Industrial Decarbonization

The panel tackled the complex task of establishing metrics for evaluating environmental justice in the context of decarbonization. Emphasizing the potential for a just transition designed to rectify past inequities and prevent future ones, panel members aimed to facilitate robust and quantitative social science research in this domain. To do so, the panel explored establishing appropriate metrics for just outcomes by identifying gaps in existing data sets. Planning committee member Aseem Prakash, Professor of Political Science, Walker Family Professor for the College of Arts and Sciences, and Director of the Center for Environmental Politics at the University of Washington, Seattle, opened the panel by emphasizing both the importance of environmental justice and underlying environmental justice issues as understood from both moral and practical standpoints. He pointed out that perceptions of injustice could result in resistance and impede decarbonization.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN ACTION: ADVANCING CLEAN ENERGY AND DECARBONIZATION INITIATIVES FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND EQUITY

Convening the second day of the workshop, Jalonne White-Newsome, Senior Director for Environmental Justice at the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ),¹ emphasized the importance of addressing issues that require change and solutions. CEQ’s mission, she said, is to coordinate the federal government’s efforts to protect, preserve, and improve public health and the environment. In her role, White-Newsome is helping to execute President Biden’s environmental justice agenda, ensuring the integration of environmental justice considerations across White House and federal agency initiatives. Her perspective on environmental justice focuses not only on ensuring clean air and water for all, but also fostering sustainable and healthy communities with a particular emphasis on communities with environmental justice concerns.

White-Newsome explained that, when confronting long-standing environmental injustice and inequities to make a positive difference in people’s lives, “we have to take action to protect public health.” Past public health efforts have included reducing tailpipe emissions in the transportation sector, replacing lead pipes, cleaning up Superfund sites, and strengthening air quality regulations and enforcement. These efforts also include ensuring the voices and perspectives of those with lived experience in communities with environmental justice concerns are heard and reflected in actions taken across the federal government, such as by seeking recommendations from the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council.

___________________

¹ More information about the White House Council on Environmental Quality is available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/

If the United States is to lead in addressing the climate crisis by establishing a clean energy economy, White-Newsome remarked, it will be important for the industrial sector—which was responsible for almost one-third of the nation’s carbon emissions in 2021²—to consider communities. Through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the Biden-Harris Administration is allocating approximately $6 billion to advance decarbonization initiatives that will enable and establish American manufacturers as global leaders in the emerging clean energy economy.³ The goal of DOE’s Industrial Demonstrations Program⁴ is to reduce the sector’s environmental impact by producing cleaner steel, aluminum, and concrete, which can be used in the construction of electric vehicles, wind turbines, solar farms, and sustainable transportation infrastructure. These efforts align with President Biden’s target of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 through focusing on the reduction of carbon in challenging sectors, as well as by the promotion of low carbon manufacturing and innovation throughout the United States. Many of the programs that are focused on decarbonizing the industrial sector, especially those led by DOE, are covered under President Biden’s Justice40 Initiative,⁵ emphasizing environmental and economic benefits for disadvantaged communities.

The Justice40 Initiative, White-Newsome continued, aims to ensure that 40% of the overall benefits from certain federal investments in climate, clean energy, and related areas reach disadvantaged communities. These communities, marginalized by underinvestment and overburdened by pollution, are a focal point for attention as funds are allocated. As the funding for these programs is deployed, agencies are working to listen to and address environmental justice concerns such as cumulative pollution burdens and maximize the potential for community benefits during program implementation. To achieve climate goals, as outlined in the U.S. Long-Term Climate Strategy,⁶ carbon management technologies are recognized as essential, White-Newsome noted, especially in the industrial sector for decarbonizing local and global economies.

She explained that under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Congress—having directed the current administration to advance carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (CCUS) research, development, and demonstration—has allocated funds for this purpose. When properly implemented, White-Newsome said, CCUS has the potential to reduce pollution and generate employment opportunities in communities nationwide. The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to ensuring that CCUS projects are designed, built, and operated safely, responsibly, and in a way that reflects the best science and responds to the needs and inputs of local communities. CEQ has released guidance to agencies to help ensure CCUS projects are environmentally sound and cut cumulative pollution in nearby communities. Additionally, the Biden-Harris Administration is focused on incorporating the perspectives and input of local communities into the design, construction, and operation of these projects.

Recognizing the multitude of concerns surrounding various technologies, especially in communities already grappling with multiple environmental impacts, White-Newsome emphasized that efforts are being made to ensure projects invite community input and address community needs. The White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council has provided a comprehensive set of recommendations to the White House Environmental Justice Interagency Council, and these recommendations will inform the Administration’s strategy and approach to carbon management.

___________________

² Department of Energy. (2022, September 7). Biden-Harris Administration releases bold agenda to reduce emissions across America’s industrial sector. https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-releases-bold-agenda-reduce-emissions-across-americas

³ Department of Energy. (2024, March 25). Biden-Harris Administration announces $6 billion to transform America’s industrial sector, strengthen domestic manufacturing, and slash planet-warming emissions. https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-6-billion-transform-americas-industrial-sector

⁴ Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations. (2024). Industrial demonstrations program. Department of Energy. https://www.energy.gov/oced/industrial-demonstrations-program-0

⁵ More information on the Justice40 initiative is available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/environmentaljustice/justice40/

⁶ Department of State & Executive Office of the President. (2021). The long term-strategy of the United States: Pathways to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. https://whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/US-Long-Term-Strategy.pdf

NAVIGATING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CHALLENGES IN INDUSTRIAL DECARBONIZATION: PERSPECTIVES ON COMMUNITY IMPACTS AND TRUST BUILDING STRATEGIES

David Konisky, Lynton K. Caldwell Professor at Indiana University, focused his comments on the United States and noted they are likely relevant to other countries in the Global North, but that the conversation may diverge significantly when considering developing nations in the Global South. He began by addressing macro-level or thematic aspects, outlining an approach to environmental justice challenges within the context of industrial decarbonization.

Konisky suggested that ongoing discussions about industrial decarbonization often overlook the potential negative effects on specific individuals, households, and communities. Adverse impacts seen during the energy transition can manifest in various ways. For instance, the expansion of renewable energy infrastructure and corresponding changes in the electrical grid may lead to increased energy prices for consumers. With one in four U.S. households already experiencing energy insecurity, such price hikes intensify the existing struggle to afford reliable energy.⁷ He noted that this issue disproportionately affects people of color, families with young children, and those living in poverty. The downsides of the energy transition are felt by communities bearing the costs for siting new facilities—whether renewable power sites or CCUS infrastructure. These negative effects include disruptions to the workforce and local economies in fossil fuel-dependent areas, which could increase fossil fuel emissions.

While decarbonization may lead to overall benefits by reducing greenhouse gases, Konisky provided examples in which industrial decarbonization can disproportionately burden specific communities that are reluctant to bear the relevant costs. One example involved rural areas in which communities oppose altering agricultural landscapes, which would occur through the introduction of large-scale wind or solar projects. As a second example, he noted that low-income communities of color may continue to experience air and water pollution from industrial facilities (e.g., cement factories, steel plants, and chemical manufacturers) even if these facilities capture or store carbon emissions. He stressed that certain communities may face unwanted and uncompensated costs in these scenarios.

Konisky suggested that another macro-level environmental justice challenge arising from industrial decarbonization involves relationships between companies and communities. In numerous locations nationwide, companies find themselves without a credible “social license” to operate. Communities hosting these facilities may “no longer accept them as legitimate, a situation that is common among fence-line communities who live in close proximity to large industrial sources of pollution.” This issue is particularly acute for energy sector companies, with electric utilities, oil companies, and gas companies ranking among the least trusted industries in the United States. According to Gallup data, this lack of trust has persisted for an extended period.⁸ Factors contributing to this sentiment include inadequate historical safety and environmental protection records and unfulfilled promises of job opportunities for the individuals who bear the negative impacts of these companies’ operations. He clarified that not all companies are behaving irresponsibly by neglecting their pollution control responsibilities or community welfare, noting that many operate within legal boundaries and comply with environmental standards. However, Konisky emphasized that a fundamental issue remains—a significant number of people living in communities hosting industrial sources of pollution do not trust those companies. Communities may feel betrayed or excluded from crucial decision-making processes or may perceive the company’s operations to be harmful to the surrounding community, irrespective of legal compliance.

Konisky pointed out that in government or corporate actions, notions of procedural justice are key for environmental justice and need to extend beyond just public notice and comment periods. Genuine and ongoing community engagement, full disclosure of information, and acknowledgment of varied risk perceptions are all essential. In the context of industrial decarbonization, he said, it is crucial to avoid assuming that communities will view promises related to climate mitigation as credible. Dismissing community concerns as irrational or unimportant is counterproductive. Social scientists, Konisky emphasized, can contribute by developing a nuanced understanding and measurement of social costs experienced by communities, particularly by considering factors beyond direct health and ecological impacts like quality of life and other nonmarket values.

___________________

⁷ Energy Information Administration. (2020). Residential energy consumption survey. https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/

⁸ Gallup. (2024). Business and industry sector ratings. https://news.gallup.com/poll/12748/Business-Industry-Sector-Ratings.aspx

He emphasized the need to address historical discrimination and strong place attachment in communities, which can ultimately improve the effectiveness of Community Benefits Plans (CBPs). Social scientists can create analytical tools for policy or regulatory impact analyses to appropriately assess the costs on communities and ensure adequate consideration of local perspectives. Additionally, social scientists can move away from adversarial debates and legal disputes by identifying effective community engagement processes for emerging technologies like CCUS and improving their understanding of siting and permit processes that effectively engage communities. He added that an industry that is “clean” cannot be assumed to “overcome or compensate for otherwise dirty processes.”

Konisky observed that addressing social science aspects can enhance CBPs, better account for local social costs, and improve industrial decarbonization efforts, ultimately helping to rebuild trust within environmental justice communities—all of which can assist industries in securing a social license to operate.

NAVIGATING CHALLENGES IN COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND METRICS DEVELOPMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN INFRASTRUCTURE SITING

Based on her work on community engagement with respect to promoting or siting new infrastructure, Patricia Romero-Lankao, Canadian Excellence in Research Chair, at the University of Toronto Scarborough, observed that many initiatives are primarily driven by an instrumental approach. Through this approach, promoters seek community acceptance for specific infrastructures in particular locations. However, she said, scientific literature indicates that this strategy is often misleading and can result in backlash, including opposition to new facilities. To make sure the transition to new facilities succeeds, she noted, a crucial challenge is to ensure that community engagement efforts promote listening to community members and receiving feedback from the affected population.

A second challenge Romero-Lankao described involves the need for metrics that account for both the specific context in which they will be developed and the type of industry being established or upgraded. It is important, she continued, to find a balance between keeping metrics development simple while remaining highly conscious of the context, the specific industry involved, and the populations affected.

The third challenge she described arises from the inherent profit-driven nature of industries in contrast with the protective aspect of equity, which is geared towards safeguarding populations from potential harm. The tension lies in reconciling the economic, profit-focused perspective with the social equity perspective concerned with maintaining community well-being. In her observations—and reflected in the findings of other scholars—situations with conflicting values and objectives share a common challenge, requiring interventions that strike a balance between opposing goals. Achieving this balance is difficult and both time and energy consuming.

Romero-Lankao proposed establishing methods to reconcile these opposing goals while simultaneously ensuring environmental protection. In conclusion, she emphasized that these three challenges need to be addressed inclusively, with a focus on actively engaging with communities.

MEASURING AND NAVIGATING THE COMPLEX LANDSCAPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Offering a series of follow-up questions, Prakash began by asking the panelists, “How do we measure environmental justice? What are the different measures from a social science perspective?” He explained that complexity arises from the multitude of claims presented, prompting the need for a mechanism to arbitrate between diverse perspectives. Acknowledging the contextual nuances, he said the challenge lies in developing a social science-based process that can be used to evaluate and navigate the array of environmental justice claims while simultaneously fostering a comprehensive and informed understanding of the issues at hand.

Romero-Lankao said that she believes environmental justice entails scenarios in which there are both winners and losers. She commented that advantages currently associated with energy systems, including access to technologies and innovations, are distributed unevenly and result in varying perspectives on potential new technologies. The difficulty of reaching an agreed-upon definition of environmental justice complicates decision-making processes, she said, particularly when it comes to determining who will benefit and who will face challenges. For example, in the United States, race is a significant marker associated with disadvantage. However, decision makers face chal-

lenges with regard to incorporating race as a key indicator of disadvantage due to fears of potential legal action. She commented that indicators used to define disadvantage are a matter of dispute and that navigating this challenge is both a technical and political concern. The social sciences excel in comprehending and analyzing issues related to which individuals or entities are involved in the decision-making process to address decarbonization challenges, which parties stand to benefit or be excluded, and the potential harms that may arise. She emphasized that these decisions are not solely technical or research-based and are highly contentious and challenging to navigate.

Prakash then posed a question to Romero-Lankao, inquiring about potential insights from the pursuit of environmental justice in Latin America might offer to inform the social science agenda in the United States. Romero-Lankao replied that Latin America has much to teach the United States about developing community-driven approaches to understanding environmental problems faced by informal or Indigenous communities. In terms of the complexities of the current energy transition, Romero-Lankao added that there are effective approaches to both understanding and addressing community challenges and developing inclusive solutions. Significant challenges arise, she added, with regard to implementing actionable solutions shaped by community-driven insights and grassroots mobilization.

Addressing Prakash’s comments on the need to establish appropriate metrics, Konisky pointed out a growing focus over the past few decades on identifying disparities in fields such as economics, geography, political science, and sociology. Significant progress has been made, Konisky noted, in terms of pinpointing environmental justice disparities and understanding their variations based on race, income, and other factors. The approaches employed in such efforts rely heavily on standard practices commonly used in these fields, including geographic information system and statistical methods.

The U.S. government, Konisky continued, has devoted considerable attention to the matter of metrics through the creation of environmental justice mapping and screening tools. Various initiatives have attempted to integrate aspects of environmental injustice by combining demographic indicators with factors such as pollution, hazardous waste sites, and proximity to roadways. These tools, including the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) environmental justice screening and mapping tool,⁹ are being progressively expanded to include additional indicators such as health outcomes and anticipated climate impacts. Konisky added that the Department of Health and Human Services has also developed an Environmental Justice Index.¹⁰ Numerous endeavors are underway to verify and authenticate empirical claims, he continued, with some states employing their own tools to guide decision making.

While mapping and screening tools offer advice and direction, Konisky noted that in the context of industrial decarbonization, they struggle to effectively address cumulative future impacts and prior effects. The capacity to handle cumulative impacts varies among tools and most of them do not adequately incorporate the dynamic nature of climate impacts. For example, a project focusing on carbon emission reduction, he said, might not comprehensively address other forms of pollution. He emphasized that existing tools do not adequately incorporate the dynamics of costs and benefits, especially as relates to the complexities of geographical factors. Suggesting that social science could significantly improve mapping and screening tools by addressing such dynamics, he pointed out that it is crucial to recognize common differences between the way communities perceive themselves and how these tools portray them. There is a need to validate and ensure accuracy in the representation of people’s lived experiences, he said, since sincere community engagement is vital. Konisky noted that additional work remains in terms of bridging disconnects and addressing contested ideas to ensure that tools and efforts employed by social scientists truly capture the sentiments of affected communities.

NAVIGATING THE TENSION: PROCEDURAL JUSTICE CHALLENGES AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Prakash said that when discussing community engagement one could argue that adherence to procedural justice might inadvertently result in substantive injustice. He noted the concern that an open policy process—which allows

___________________

⁹ More information on the Environmental Protection Agency’s EJScreen is available at https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen

¹⁰ More information on the Department of Health and Human Service’s Environmental Justice Index is available at https://www.hhs.gov/climate-change-health-equity-environmental-justice/environmental-justice/index/index.html

affected communities to litigate—can delay decarbonization projects. On this point, he asked panelists whether they see a tension between procedural justice and the potential for substantive injustice.

Romero-Lankao responded that while tools exist to identify who is either excluded or benefiting from electric vehicle access, for example, as well as those affected by industrial facilities, the challenge lies in effectively engaging with communities within the solution space of the current energy transition—a task that is both important and challenging. Through her experiences working with communities and implementing procedural justice, Romero-Lankao observed cases in which community input was requested and delivered to inform priorities, but community members expressed fatigue. These community members felt that, despite promises of meaningful engagement, their input was not genuinely considered in decision making. Romero-Lankao said it is crucial to be cautious, understand these challenges, and explore ways to carefully navigate them. She noted the importance of involving communities and populations in decision-making activities through proper due process. Engagement needs to be mindful of historical harm, exclusion, and the trauma or disappointment communities have faced in the past. She emphasized that failing to acknowledge and address these issues may lead communities to continue to feel they are being neither heard nor understood.

Konisky echoed Romero-Lankao in suggesting that the need for extensive engagement, including the acknowledgment of past injustices, is a significant challenge when striving for an equitable energy transition. The problem, he added, is that addressing these challenges can be a slow process, which is a significant hurdle given the urgency of climate change. The real and pressing dilemma lies in finding an efficient way to rapidly reduce emissions while responding to the needs of communities that have endured a variety of harms over many decades. He emphasized the urgency of addressing this matter within the social science agenda. Resolving this question, Konisky summarized, would undeniably offer substantial benefits to humanity.

ADDRESSING PLACE-SPECIFIC CHALLENGES IN INDUSTRIAL DECARBONIZATION: SOCIAL SCIENCE INSIGHTS

Susan Tierney, Planning Committee Chair, suggested that assessing the impacts on communities is inherently place-specific. It is unclear, she said, whether universal methods can be applied across places. At the same time, she is curious about emerging decision-making tools that address this issue and how these tools can be further advanced. Given that the National Climate Assessment highlights a disproportionate impact of climate change on disadvantaged communities, she asked if panelists were aware of any specific actions social scientists could take to establish connections between emissions reductions from certain activities and positive place-based impacts of transitioning to industrial decarbonization.

Noting the tendency in social science to concentrate on problems without adequately addressing solutions, Romero-Lankao suggested creating a strategy to bridge the gap between identifying problems and proposing solutions. She is part of a Canadian initiative that is creating tools to recognize potential stepping stones or options—not predefined routes of change but rather opportunities and solutions that can be swiftly seized upon to depart from the current situation. She noted that generating such tools involves not only identifying solutions proposed by community members but also evaluating the feasibility of these solutions, including their political viability. Organizationally speaking, she pointed out that a continual-engagement approach can be established, even with limited manpower allocation by using elicitation tools and social science techniques to navigate and overcome organizational power dynamics within the decision-making sphere. She added that this approach entails generating options while remaining aware of inherent uncertainties.

Konisky suggested that the challenge with cumulative impacts arises from the common approach of addressing issues one at a time, which is frequently used in the United States. He emphasized that the benefits from addressing climate change will disproportionately favor communities historically burdened by environmental injustices, such as communities residing in flood zones or urban heat islands. However, he continued, the challenge lies in the geographical distribution of these beneficial impacts. The key consideration, he noted, is not whether communities desire the advantages of lower greenhouse gas emissions or enhanced resilience to climate impacts, but instead revolves around whether communities should bear the additional costs associated with these initiatives. He stressed the need to consider both cumulative risks and existing challenges potentially compounded by climate

initiatives tied to decarbonization, noting that the lack of a straightforward policy solution highlights the complex nature of the challenge. In summary, Konisky said that social science research can play a vital role in unraveling and understanding these complexities.

EXPLORING THE NEXUS OF JUSTICE AND RAPID DECARBONIZATION

Benjamin Sovacool, Professor of Earth and Environment and Director of the Institute for Global Sustainability at Boston University, presented a graph (see Figure 7-1) from a study by Newell et al.¹¹ depicting the tension between a just transition that takes an extended period of time and an unjust transition that occurs more rapidly. Noting his uncertainty about whether transitions can be both just and rapid, he invited panelists to offer insights regarding scenarios in which justice criteria are met alongside swift decarbonization.

Alan Krupnick, Senior Fellow at Resources for the Future, pointed to the screening tool that New York state is using to designate marginalized or disadvantaged communities. Modifications in the algorithm for prioritizing various metrics resulted in diverse categorizations across the state. He said a comprehensive national-level study could explore various screening tools employed and, simultaneously analyze discrepancies in designations. He noted that such a study could instigate discussions on suitable methodologies and metrics and pointed out that if such research has not already been conducted it could be a valuable future project.

Konisky spoke up in support of Krupnick’s suggestion for a comprehensive national-level study exploring various screening tools to analyze discrepancies in designations. There are numerous questions, he said, regarding the algorithms and mathematical calculations employed in these screening tools. He emphasized that even minor alterations in algorithms can result in significant variations in real world outcomes. If these tools are utilized not just for screening but also for decision making, it is imperative to ensure their accuracy in providing reliable indicators of disadvantaged communities.

___________________

¹¹ Newell, P. J., Geels, F. W., & Sovacool, B. K. (2022). Navigating tensions between rapid and just low-carbon transitions. Environmental Research Letters, 17(4), 041006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac622a

Udayan Singh, Planning Committee Member, noted that processes like carbon dioxide (CO₂) capture and storage have been observed to not only result in mandatory reductions in CO₂, but also to bring about substantial reductions in other air pollutants. For instance, sulfur dioxide breaks down within CO₂ capture equipment—a synergy that is frequently disregarded, Singh said. Mitigating air pollution is among the most extensively studied co-benefit, he acknowledged, along with important potential collaborations between social scientists and engineers. One proposed approach, he suggested, is to create a framework or Excel sheet—similar to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change method—through which engineers can submit technology data that could then be utilized by social scientists. Despite apprehensions about carbon capture and storage among social scientists, Singh has observed a desire to explore ways for engineers to collaborate with social scientists to address concerns.

Romero-Lankao acknowledged that achieving a balance between the goals of justice and decarbonization represents a significant challenge. She called for recognizing and addressing the trade-offs and synergies existing between these two goals.

DECODING METRICS: UNRAVELING DYNAMICS IN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE

Prakash asked the panelists, “Why are certain metrics privileged over others?” Romero-Lankao suggested that research has focused on the significance of a weighting matrix. The conclusion she draws is that a set of indicators—for example, access to water and sanitation—may receive varying weights based on the context. In Mumbai, lack of access to a toilet within a house is a key indicator of vulnerability, whereas in other cities in Latin America access to sanitation is weighted as a more important indicator. Therefore, various indicators can exert diverse influences on measured outcomes used to determine who will benefit from programs, as demonstrated by studies in New York City, New York and Los Angeles, California. She noted that this process becomes a political discussion wherein the definition of thresholds for disadvantage carries implications for program beneficiaries. Managing this delicate issue necessitates meticulous analytical work and a thorough understanding of the political dimensions involved.

Emily Grubert, Planning Committee Member, emphasized the point by questioning whether social science is being used to identify metrics for measuring outcomes and environmental justice post-project decision, or if the agenda is perceived as a framework for envisioning the future. Defining what decarbonization outcomes should entail is crucial, she said, adding that another recurring concern is the tension between a rapid transition without justice and a gradual transition with justice. She said there is skepticism about whether these timeframes are genuinely conflicting, as their conflict has not been conclusively demonstrated within either social science or engineering.

Prakash ended the panel’s discussion by highlighting two important issues that could be addressed by future social science research. First he noted the need for additional metrics, both for assessing impact and exploring potential solutions. He said it is crucial to understand not only which metrics are most suitable for specific communities, but also the underlying politics of metrics selection—how they are formulated and which ones are chosen in various contexts. Second, he noted tension between the urgent need to achieve climate goals and concomitantly maintain an open policy process that considers various viewpoints through stakeholder engagement. To identify best practices, he noted, it would be beneficial to draw parallels with analogous situations—not only in the climate domain but in other areas as well. The challenge lies in whether achieving certain standards is a matter of power dynamics or if universal guidelines exist. Given the complexity of the problems at hand, Prakash underscored the importance of greater collaboration between engineers and physical, biological, and social scientists. In summary, Prakash said that addressing these challenges represents a positive and collaborative approach to tackling one of the most difficult problems of our time.