California Governor Jerry Brown recently commented on President Trump’s denial of climate science. In reference to the possibility that a Trump administration would end funding for NASA’s climate science research, Governor Brown told a crowd “If Trump turns off the satellites, California will launch its own damn satellite.” He continued: “We’ve got the scientists, we’ve got the lawyers, and we’re ready to fight.”
With each passing day, it appears more and more like it will take leaders outside of Washington, like Governor Brown, to lead the charge against climate change. The bulk of President Obama’s environmental legacy was built on executive orders and the work of executive agencies like the EPA. While it can be argued at length if this strategy was effective or if he had any other choice, this foundation is shaky at best. Many of his executive orders, as well as the programs set up by his executive departments, are dependent upon whether the next president will uphold them or whether Congress will maintain their funding. With a president who has repeatedly vilified the EPA and a Republican Congress who will not hesitate to block any environmental bill, the foundation of President Obama’s environmental legacy looks like it will collapse any day now.
If we want a solid foundation, one on which progress and new solutions can flourish, we’re going to need a new plan. Any viable plan will need to build a foundation from the bottom-up, coming first from the state and local level. Fortunately, lawmakers are currently taking the battle to the state and local levels. Devoid of a federal government willing to shoulder some of the burden, states are readying their own environmental plans.
California has already signed laws aimed at cutting greenhouse gases by 40 percent of 1990 levels. To help achieve this ambitious goal, California has also passed measures to increase the presence of electric vehicle charging stations, as well as setting up electric vehicle sharing and leasing programs for low-income populations. These new programs are on top of already existing state-level incentives and rebates for electric vehicle purchases, as well as efforts to diversify its energy portfolio to include renewable energy sources. Other areas in the Pacific Northwest, such as Vancouver, Washington and Portland, Oregon, have been utilizing local government zoning powers to block the import and production of fossil fuels, a model that is easily replicable in other cities with similar ambitions.
The actions being undertaken at the state and local level extend well-beyond blue states. Georgetown, Texas, has become one of the latest towns to completely embrace wind and solar power, citing cost savings and increased reliability as the main reasons for the shift away from fossil fuels. The town joins Burlington, Vermont as two of the first cities to go completely renewable. You would be hard-pressed to find many other similarities between those two towns, yet both share a common belief: economic goals and environmental goals are not always opposing forces. Moreover, mass transit ballot propositions were surprisingly successful in 2016, passing in Midwest cities such as Indianapolis and Kansas City as well as southern cities like Atlanta.
Outside town halls and governor’s mansions, non-profit groups are taking an increased role in the fight for climate progress. Mainstays such as the Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, and National Resources Defense Council continue to flex their activist muscles, as well as utilizing every legal tool at their disposal. But a more surprising trend is the emergence of conservative-leaning groups such as ConservAmerica and Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship. These groups are pushing more and more for conservative solutions, such as revenue-neutral carbon taxes and the sustainable management of public lands, to address the environmental questions facing the United States.
I went into painstaking detail about the efforts of these various groups to show that there is not just one path to enacting lasting change on climate policy. Rather, there are hundreds of different of paths, and many more to be forged along the way. No matter your ideological leanings or your views on government, there is a seat at the table for you.
So if you adhere to the scientific consensus that the climate is changing, and that humans are the likely culprits, don’t simply vocalize your concerns to the Capitol or the White House. Your cries will fall on ignorantly deaf ears. And we can march in solidarity as much as we like, but this will not achieve much outside of verbalizing a message that can easily be brushed off as soon as the crowds dissipate. Instead, I propose a different approach.
Call your governor. Email your state representatives. Visit your mayor. Talk with leaders in your community. But more importantly, utilize your education and equip yourself with enough knowledge to outlast any who attempt to write you off. Articulate a compelling argument, without compromising your position. Build an inclusive and firm coalition. Outwork the climate change-deniers and help craft an environmental legacy that will survive the test of time.
In essence, don’t expect the top-down change we witnessed under President Obama. Instead, look to create change from the bottom-up. And when faced with ignorant opposition, I encourage you to take a page out of Governor Brown’s book: talk smack to the deniers, then back it up by outworking them.
Nathan Campbell is a junior majoring in environmental engineering. His column runs biweekly.
