Turning Individual Action into Systemic Change

During this course I had the opportunity to work with Citizens’ Climate Lobby on HR 763, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend act. CCL is a national, bipartisan, grassroots lobbying organization that supports volunteers through online trainings and connects them to groups in their area. We started social media campaigns on Facebook and Twitter and learned how to lobby.

HR 763 would put a price on carbon that would reduce US emissions by 40% in the first 12 years. Economists agree that this is the most effective and cost-efficient way to reduce emissions which is why it has drawn support from Republicans and Democrats. Additionally, the Act is revenue-neutral which means that the government doesn’t keep the tax collected. Instead, it gets sent back to low- and middle-income American taxpayers who will be most affected by the higher prices of a green economy.

Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act. Effective, good for people, good for the economy, revenue neutral.

In working with CCL, I found that the politics of food and the politics of climate change are similar in many ways. People tend to be very opinionated on both sides, both issues are complex and affect everyone differently, and both require a combination of personal choices and systemic government change to be solved.

It is key that the Act is bipartisan because the only way that we can fight climate change is together. A resolution such as this is only the first of many legislation actions we will need to take, so it is important that everyone is behind it.

Systems theory shows us that everything is connected, and climate change is no different. A lifecycle analysis of any product shows the ecological impacts along the entire commodity chain. Ecological impacts are usually higher during the production/processing stages, so the externalities are often placed on low income communities. This is just one example of the Triple Inequality of climate change.

Scene of the Oncler's factory from the Lorax by Dr. Seuss.

Stories like the Lorax teach us that it’s okay to replace traditional citizenship duties with purposeful individual consumption, and it shifts the blame from producers to human nature (Maniates). When people are made aware of a dangerous product, they can make the individual choice not to buy it (Szasz). This protects them from the product but does nothing to address the problem for others. We need more than individual choices to combat climate change. HR 763 is one way of collective change, but people still have to make the individual choice to be politically active.

This is a picture from Environmental Lobby Day in Olympia, WA in 2019 that I went to with WashPIRG.

Lobbying for Climate and the Unknown about Industries

In this class, I had the chance to examine the world food system from closer perspective. Indeed, the system thinking that we have been discussing all along the quarter perfectly applies to the industrial system.  Industries and companies are quintessentially looking for a maximum profit by using additives, pesticides, and fertilizer to increase the yield and minimize losses. Without looking at the consequences, for instance, food additives that are always used by industrials company are harmful for our body, causing obesity and other diseases, and also have an impact on the biosphere such as monocrops cultures, declining wild fish stocks, GMS crops, biofuels uses, etc.

However, the real wrongdoers in this situation are all people, especially politician, who know what is happening but do not lift a finger to change our mode of production, and therefore consumption. In fact, it is the role of our politician to establish regulation and make sure that companies who are not respecting norms and rules will be punished.

In these ideas some of my classmates and I decided to join a group of lobbyists who support the Energy Innovation Act. This Act should reduce America’s emissions by at least 40% in the first 12 years, and create 2.1 million new jobs, thanks to economic growth in local communities across America. Such results could be attained by taxing all companies who are producing greenhouse gas and giving benefice to U.S consumers. Therefore, consumers are not the one paying for a better carbon footprint. Nonetheless, this regulation has exemptions for fuels used for agriculture, the U.S army, and others. Otherwise, it could have the impact of a bomb in all the mass food industries such as in production of pesticides and fertilizers who are required to keep high yield. This policy will force industries to adapt their greenhouse emission effectively in order to keep making money as they meant to do, but with a better respect for our planet.

Until now politics are protecting industrials processed food because it brings a low food price to the population (U.S spend under 10% of their income on food). Therefore, industries in generals have very few regulations to leave the room for them to produce mass cheap food such as the industries who are not constrained, therefore polluting the environment further. Indeed, if a majority of us are showing support and interest to new type of regulation such as the Energy and Innovation act, we will force industrial companies to adapt their mode of production. Let’s not be naïve and wait for industrial companies to deliver us real food and be sustainable!

https://citizensclimatelobby.org/energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act/

https://beef2live.com/story-americans-spend-under-10-income-food-0-124534

Picture 1: https://www.carbonpricingleadership.org/blogs/2019/2/3/bipartisan-carbon-fee-and-dividend-bill-now-before-us-congress

Picture 2: http://www.ecobase21.net/Lesmotsduclimatsmartphone/Companies.html