Mr. Inglehart argued that citizens were apt to prioritize environmental concerns only if they were rich enough not to have to fret about more basic things like food and shelter. Environmentalism was part of a larger “postmaterialist” mind-set, focused on human self-realization and quality of life, that was naturally to be found in the world’s economically advanced societies — and especially among better-educated, wealthier citizens. Mr. Inglehart anticipated that growing prosperity, rising education levels and increasingly dire environmental circumstances would translate into the further spread of environmental consciousness in the years to come.

In some ways the situation in France fits this theory. France is wealthy and well educated. And environmentalism is big there. A 2017 study, for instance, found that 79 percent of the French population believes climate change to be a very serious problem. It is plausible to think that some of the anger the Yellow Vests are unleashing on Paris revolves around the cultural gap separating those French citizens privileged enough to be able to devote time, attention and money to matters like the environment from those not as fortunate.

Thought-provoking as Mr. Inglehart’s thesis is, however, it’s not hard to identify weaknesses. Here’s an obvious one: The United States, like France, is a prosperous country with a well-educated population. Yet according to a survey conducted this year by the Pew Research Center, only 44 percent of Americans say they care a great deal about climate change.

More recent research bolsters this skeptical view. Work by the sociologists Riley Dunlap and Richard York, based on a wider range of data, turns Mr. Inglehart’s finding on its head: They have discovered that the publics of poorer countries facing imminent resource loss from environmental destruction often hold the strongest pro-environment attitudes. For example, the island nation of Fiji — which stands to be decimated by global warming, rising sea levels and storms — ratified the Paris climate agreement on a unanimous parliamentary vote before any other nation did.

Another study, by the political scientist Matto Mildenberger and the geographer Anthony Leiserowitz, has found “no evidence” that people became less attuned to climate change when their economic prospects dwindled after the 2008 financial crisis.

Mr. Dunlap and Mr. York emphasize the contingency and variability of public support for environmental causes and practices. How much backing there will be — and in what quarters — depends on the specific environmental, economic and political conditions countries face. Environmental protection efforts can advance if the environmental movement acts strategically.

The notion that there are few hard-and-fast rules when it comes to public support for environmentalism has influenced the response of environmentalists to the Yellow Vest protests. While raising taxes to reduce fossil fuel consumption or fund green energy transitions is essential, they say, depending on how and when such policies are proposed, they may spur a backlash. So smart rollouts and messaging matter. Mr. Macron’s environmental policies, for example, were announced from on high, without meaningful input from all the communities that would be affected.

Environmentalists insist that there is no reason in principle why a more effective communications strategy could not be found to pull together urban dwellers and the rural working- and lower-middle-class in a broad environmental coalition. The fact that the French public is sympathetic to the cause of the Yellow Vests but also concerned about the climate shows that the protests were never really about the environment in the first place.

Such a perspective is comforting. But it arguably understates the magnitude of the problem the environmental movement now confronts. Yes, contrary to the theory of postmaterialism, the well-off aren’t the only ones who care about climate change and the environment. Yet in many of today’s capitalist democracies, class and status resentments, fostered by rampant inequality and whipped up by opportunistic politicians, have developed to such an extent that issues like the environment that affect everyone are increasingly seen through the lens of group conflict and partisan struggle.

Differences between urban and rural, new economy and old, college educated versus working class and cosmopolitan versus local loom larger than ever. Although the research of the sociologist Dana R. Fisher shows that in the United States, climate change activists have been working to diversify their ranks, the trust needed for truly large-scale environmental coalition building is wearing thin.

Thus a different interpretation of the Yellow Vest protest may be warranted. Without a concerted effort to address inequality — which some in the environmental movement consider someone else’s department — the bold policy changes needed to slow global warming risk never getting off the ground.

Neil Gross is a professor of sociology at Colby College.

Link  to original article.

The centerpiece of the forum was the unveiling of a Chicago Agreement on Climate and Community. The agreement outlines a set of principles and commitments by the city’s neighborhoods, institutions, and organizations to curb climate change. Just as the Paris Agreement facilitates collaboration among nations of the world, the Chicago Agreement offers a way for community members and local organizations to contribute to practical climate solutions.

Members of the Green Community Connections/One Earth Film Festival leadership team helped conceive and plan the Climate Forum, which took place on the eve of the North American Climate Summit organized by the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate Change and Energy. Mayors from around the world convened in Chicago Dec. 4-5 to discuss municipal commitments to the Paris Agreement to curb climate change.

A call to action

The forum was, in part, a response by Chicago environmental advocates to plans by the U.S. to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. They decided to mobilize and convene discussions for taking local action. Planners spent about seven weeks pulling together funders, speakers and a guest list. When RSVPs surged beyond expectations, the planning team had to request a larger space within the cavernous museum.

Generous support for the forum came from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Based in Chicago, MacArthur is one of the nation's largest independent foundations. Since 2014, the foundation has made $200 million in grants to accelerate climate response and bring new voices to the fore.

In opening remarks, Julia Stasch, MacArthur president, said cities, like Chicago, are on the front lines of climate action. “Cities represent climate vulnerability, but also opportunity,” Stasch said, noting that 54 percent of the world's population lives in cities.

“There's a myth that we're safe because we live in the Midwest,” she continued. “No hurricanes, forest fires … But our economic productivity is threatened. Chicago is the 6th worst city in the U.S. for allergy impacts due to ozone.”

In his remarks, Chris Wheat, chief sustainability officer for the City of Chicago, referenced climate change’s “disproportionate impact on certain communities” and the need for intersectionality when creating policy.

Newspaper columnist, political analyst and Field Museum trustee Laura Washington  was the evening’s mistress of ceremonies.

People power

Keynote speaker Mustafa Santiago Ali, a former senior adviser at the Environmental Protection Agency, who now serves with the Hip Hop Caucus, delivered part pep talk and a rallying cry, telling the crowd: "It's time to get focused to make necessary change. If we win on climate, we must also address the most vulnerable communities." Quoting his grandmother, Martin Luther King Jr. and others, Ali ended his remarks by asking audience members to hold up their hands and yell, “Power! We have power unless we give it away.”

Following Ali, who has trained more than 4,000 people across the country in environmental justice techniques, was a panel comprised of local environmental activists, including Goldtooth.

One of the panelists, Anthena Gore, a project coordinator with Elevate Energy, shared a painful and personal story centered on environmental justice issues. She recounted being diagnosed with lead poisoning when she was 2 years old and how her family dealt with the expensive hospital bills. Gore finished by asking: "Who is the two year old you are trying to reach today?"

The youth dance and spoken word ensemble Kuumba Lynx  ended the program with a performance of their “Black B4 Green” production, a powerful commentary on racial and environmental injustice. The program also included a short video featuring voice from a cross-section of Chicago’s environmental activism community.

A reception featuring food and music rounded out the evening, with interactive “Co-Lab” (collaborative) spaces set up that fostered dialogue, learning and networking, along with tools and resources to help people start taking action on climate change.

In all, a festive air characterized the event, even focused as it was on the serious issue of climate change.