Ariel Lovett (ELP 2022) | Projects Administrator, Nevada County Executive Office, United States
Rarely in life can I identify a specific turning point, that one moment of decision, but in this instance, it was clear. Rather short for a New Yorker article, it was an editorial written by Elizabeth Kolbert. I read it in the sunshine on my porch in the Sierra Nevada foothills on a hot April day. That month, I’d made the choice to move on from my work as CEO of a nonprofit substance use disorder treatment organization. After 20 years in social services, I wanted to devote the second half of my career to climate action and was weighing two options for my next move: economic development in Alaska promoting sustainable ocean harvesting practices or working in our local County Executive Office.
Kolbert wrote that we are in an unprecedented time in government as we prepare for opportunities that we have not seen since the New Deal. I wanted to be part of that, to serve in county government and work to leverage this opportunity against our most pressing threat: climate change.
Local government can play a unique and critical role addressing the climate crisis. Local governments have immediate impact on the daily lives of community members and personal connections to constituents. We have a clear line of sight to understand how climate change is impacting people on a daily basis. If leveraged correctly, local governments have the power to bring people together across party lines to address local issues with creativity and agility.
In last month’s New York Times article, “As Federal Climate-Fighting Tools Are Taken Away, Cities and States Step Up”, Maggie Astor asserts, “Across the country, local governments are accelerating their efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, in some cases bridging partisan divides. Their role will become increasingly important”. In Colorado, for example, she highlights how legislators in this historically coal state passed over 50 climate-related laws in the last 3 years. In Morris, a Minnesota city of around 5,000, leaders effectively erased national-level partisan politics that stymied discussions and moved forward with their own model despite political differences. The so-called ‘Morris Model’ calls for “reducing energy consumption 30 percent by 2030, producing 80 percent of the county’s electricity locally by 2030 (thus guaranteeing it comes from renewable sources) and eliminating landfill waste by 2025.”
Effective policy decisions are successful when all stakeholders are at the table and working together. The Morris Model exemplifies the unique position of local government to bring stakeholders to the table, enabled by the non-partisan nature of County government, and power in being able to have close, personal relationships with community leaders that go deeper than party alignment. In Morris, local administrators were able to put their political differences aside for their discussions around what was best for the community and use real relationships to achieve change. Furthermore, community strategies can be specific to the needs of the local economy, so the personal and fiscal benefits of climate action are more immediately tangible. “One advantage of community strategies is that they can be tailored to the needs of the local economy — in the case of Morris, farming.”
On July 8th, the New York Times Climate Newsletter editor Somini Sengupta wrote in her piece titled The Power, and limits, of local action: “The White House can’t get climate legislation passed. Congress is gridlocked. The Supreme Court has tied the hands of the federal agency entrusted to protect the environment”.
We need to act, and now—because the science is clear and because this is the work Americans want elected leaders to do. Public opinion polls reflect that two-thirds of Americans want the government to do more to address climate change. Pew Research center data “A majority of Americans continue to say they see the effects of climate change in their own communities and believe that the federal government falls short in its efforts to reduce the impacts of climate change.” Yale Climate Opinion maps from 2021 affirm this, with 77% supporting funding renewable energy research, 72% supporting regulation of CO2, and 59% stating their local officials should be doing more to address global warming.
When I started working in substance use disorder and mental health services in 2009, I saw addressing substance use disorders as a proverbial Archimedes lever to achieve positive outcomes to some of society’s most pressing and nuanced challenges, such as child abuse and neglect, homelessness, family violence, incarceration, crime, and poor health outcomes.
Local government is another lever, with the power to immediately affect daily life and to align diverse sectors and strategies—from transportation to waste to social supports—to synergistically create change. While we tackle climate change as an issue that is central to the survival of humankind, we can unify our communities and improve the daily lives of our constituents. Now is the time for that lever.