Search

Rural communities is Alaska—predominantly Alaska Native Tribes—are at the forefront of climate change impacts and climate justice concerns in the United States. According to the 2019 Alaska statewide threat assessment report, 29 communities are currently experiencing significant climate change-related erosion. Further, 38 communities faces significant flooding, and 35 have major problems with thawing permafrost. Some Alaska Native communities have explored community relocation to adapt to these impacts. Because federal law does not recognize gradual environmental impacts like thawing permafrost and coastal erosion as disasters, these communities are ineligible for disaster funding and struggling with how to adapt to the very urgent—albeit less immediate—issues that they face.This article analyzes the chalenges of Alaska Native Tribes attempting to access federal assistance for community relocation. While some posit that the federal trust responsibility for Tribal Nations might help leverage federal help with community relocation, the status of Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) extinguished almost all claims of aboriginal title and reservations in Alaska. General access to federal disaster funding and programs may be another avenue for assistance; however, the limited definition of "disaster" and overly burdensome requirements for federal programs mean that many Alaska Native communities are left to struggle on their own.In response to these challenges, this article explores possible solutions to help these communities with their relocation efforts. It examines the newly adopted Building Resilient Communities and Infrastructure Program as a potential funding opportunity for community relocation efforts, along with programs focused on climate justice. Finally, the article concludes by proposing the expansion of a state role in helping coordinate federal grant programs on behalf of Alaska Native Tribes and the funding of resilience officers by the federal gov

Participatory approaches to science and decision making, including stakeholder engagement, are increasingly common for managing complex socio-ecological challenges in working landscapes. However, critical questions about stakeholder engagement in this space remain. These include normative, political, and ethical questions concerning who participates, who benefits and loses, what good can be accomplished, and for what, whom, and by who. First, opportunities for addressing justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion interests through engagement, while implied in key conceptual frameworks, remain underexplored in scholarly work and collaborative practice alike. A second line of inquiry relates to research-practice gaps. While both the practice of doing engagement work and scholarly research on the efficacy of engagement is on the rise, there is little concerted interplay among 'on-the-ground' practitioners and scholarly researchers. This means scientific research often misses or ignores insight grounded in practical and experiential knowledge, while practitioners are disconnected from potentially useful scientific research on stakeholder engagement. A third set of questions concerns gaps in empirical understanding of the efficacy of engagement processes and includes inquiry into how different engagement contexts and process features affect a range of behavioral, cognitive, and decision-making outcomes. Because of these gaps, a cohesive and actionable research agenda for stakeholder engagement research and practice in working landscapes remains elusive. In this review article, we present a co-produced research agenda for stakeholder engagement in working landscapes. The co-production process involved professionally facilitated and iterative dialogue among a diverse and international group of over 160 scholars and practitioners through a yearlong virtual workshop series. The resulting research agenda is organized under six cross-cutting themes: (1) Justice, Equity, Diversi

13-C-AJFF-PSU-031, This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Please cite this article as: Korkut E and Fowler LB (2021) Regulatory and Policy Analysis of Production, Development and Use of Sustainable Aviation Fuels in the United States. Front. Energy Res. 9:750514. doi: 10.3389/fenrg.2021.750514, The United States, spurred in part by international developments, is expanding its law and policy to incentivize the use of sustainable aviation fuels. While the U.S. has agreed to participate in the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO’s) Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), it has only recently adopted federal rules that define greenhouse gas emission reduction standards for certain classes of airplanes (effective January 2021). However, such standards focus on engine efficiency rather than the fuel burned. For sustainable aviation fuels, the U.S. continues to rely on voluntary programs at a federal, state, and regional level. The federal Renewable Fuel Standard program allows producers to opt in. In addition, states have started to allow sustainable aviation fuel producers to “opt in” to their programs; this includes California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Oregon’s Clean Fuels Program, and Washington’s newly adopted Clean Fuels Program. Other states are also starting to consider such programs. Elsewhere, states like Hawaii are starting to support SAF production in other ways, including through tax mechanisms. In addition, regional and private efforts to adopt and/or promote sustainable aviation fuels are underway. This piecemeal approach—due in part to the lack of cohesive U.S. federal policy—stands in contrast to the European Union’s Renewable Energy Directive and Emissions Trading System, and adoption of policies by European countries. Because of aviation’s international nature, tracking what is happening in Europe matters greatly for U.S. carriers. As the U.S. works to meet its international obligations through CORSIA, finding a way forward with sustainable aviation fuel in the United States may depend on a more defined federal policy. Actions taken by both the EU and European countries offers some guidance for actions that could be taken by the U.S. Even in the absence of more defined measures, better trackin