If you’re in the United States and you turn on the TV,
accidentally open twitter, or start to read a newspaper app,
chances are you’ll see a bunch of people talking about the upcoming federal election.
But what you might not see much of - coverage of the local elections where you live.
Let alone, information about those policy makers’ climate ideas.
Which is frustrating to me because, I’m going to let you in on a little secret now:
a lot of climate policy happens at the state and local level.
Sure, big federal bills like the National Environmental Policy Act or the Clean Air Act,
or international agreements like the Montreal Protocol and Paris Agreement
can have huge impacts, but…. The people who decide if your neighborhood has compost,
or who is allowed to install solar panels where or how many public buses are available-
well, they’re probably your neighbors.
Compared to the federal government, local and state lawmakers are typically more
efficient - they get more done in less time. They’re often easier to get in contact with
and just physically closer than your federal lawmakers working in DC. Plus, local laws tend
to have a lot more direct impact on your life and how your community responds to the climate crisis.
For example, a lot of your local tax money probably goes to fund education. Your locally
elected school board is in charge of how that funding is used, and they get to decide if your
local school district buys electric busses, or adds a climate change section to the curriculum.
Your city and state representatives are the ones choosing where new bike lanes go,
what packaging is allowed, and they’re creating zoning plans that decide how dense,
green, and walkable your neighborhood is or isn’t.
But why is that? Why is your local government so much better set up for
implementing climate solutions than the federal government?
Time for a mini civics lesson.
Because - it isn’t just climate here - pick an issue you care about - chances
are your local lawmakers should be the first people you turn to to help fix it.
The US government was founded to be pretty flexible: There’s this strong
federal government that’s in charge of doing big things - like managing our monetary system,
responding to national emergencies, and fighting the British… well, not that last one anymore,
hopefully. And then there are all the states, who, as the constitution puts it have: The
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States…
If that isn’t totally clear, that’s kind of the point. Where the powers of the
state governments end and the federal government begins is pretty blurry.
But here’s the practical part of all this: the federal government is really big,
and can do broad sweeping things, or move a lot of money around quickly,
but it isn’t great at dealing with the minutiae of our day to day lives.
And depending on your political opinions this can be great, or not. Some folks really want the
federal government to swoop in and say: this isn’t allowed - because that’s a super fast way to get
everywhere in the country to do something at once, and have the widest impact.
Other folks don't really want the federal government, or really the state government having anything to do with their lives or choices.
This is a gross simplification of the diversity of political opinion across the United States.
But it demonstrates the basic challenges the climate movement faces when it aims to enact changes at the various levels of government.
So what does that mean irl for the climate movement?
Well it means, where the state and city governments have elected officials that
recognize the climate crisis - stuff gets done.
Where I live, in New York City - the local government passed one of the strongest climate
plans in the world - and its power - comes from being designed specifically for New York City.
Here, buildings make up more than 70 percent of all emissions - that’s from things like the
gas burned to keep apartments and office spaces warm and the incredible amounts of electricity
needed to keep skyscrapers lights on and air conditioning running during the summer. Enter:
Local Law 97 - the biggest bill in the climate plan. Not the most inspiring name, but it says
buildings have to reduce their emissions 40% by 2030, and a further 80% by 2050. And New Yorkers
are already trying to expand the number of buildings included - through an amendment
called Introduction 1947 - I know, the city council’s naming conventions aren’t great.
But the idea here - to pinpoint where the most emissions are coming from and tackle
that first and hardest - is why this plan will probably succeed at reducing our emissions.
Around the world and around the US we’re all emitting different amounts of greenhouse
gases in different ways. There isn’t one single solution to climate change, and state and city
offices are able to tailor solutions to best fit their local challenges. In NYC,
buildings are the biggest emitters by far, but in San Diego, California where
cars and trucks account for more than 40% of their emissions, it's transportation.
The rest of the state has a similar greenhouse gas breakdown, which is probably why their governor
just signed an executive order saying cars sold in the state must be zero emission by 2035.
And down in Austin, Texas, where Joe and the rest the team who make this show live,
transportation and energy production are both big emitters - so the city’s climate plan is focused
on getting 65 percent renewable energy use by 2027 along with other initiatives like alternative
fuels for busses and a commuter rail initiative to tackle the transportation section of the pie.
Of course, local progress on climate action isn’t just for the most populous places.
Cities and states across the US have set ambitious 100% renewable energy targets,
like Columbia, South Carolina, Traverse City, Michigan,
Hawaii, Maine, and Puerto Rico - to name only a few of the hundreds of places.
These targets and policies don’t come out of nowhere, they come from politicians,
and locals who elected them, who recognize the importance of tackling climate change right now.
Added together, these small climate wins add up - and start looking just as, and if not more,
powerful than federal climate policy. This is incredibly true today, when the federal government
is actively rolling back climate and environmental protections. Cities and states are stepping up.
More than 450 mayors across the United States agreed that their municipalities will
honor and uphold Paris Climate Agreement goals regardless of what the federal government does.
These mayors come from some places you might expect, like New York City and San Francisco,
but also from perhaps unexpected cities like Bethlehem, Pennsylvania and Birmingham, Alabama.
Of course, ideally, it isn’t federal versus local climate solutions - we want
both. A federal government that sets strong emission standards across the country, that
works internationally to make sure we aren’t just exporting our emissions and pollution elsewhere,
and has the money to funnel into places that can’t support climate solutions on their own.
Coupled with local governments that are quick and responsive to local needs - we
could actually bring emissions down and tackle environmental injustices.
The beauty of local elections and local offices is that the distance between you,
the voter, and your representative is really small. I picked up trash with one of my state
representatives a couple weeks ago, and I talked to him about community solar.
I ran into my city council member in front of a subway stop. You and your friends showing
up at or calling your reps office in support of a bill is going to make a big difference.
We’ve talked about public policy climate wins at the local level - but - none of
this actually matters unless you use your vote and your voice, on not just the national level,
but in state and local elections too. Democracy comes in many sizes.