Red State America Acts on Climate Change--but Calls It Other Names about:reader?url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/red-state-a...

scientificamerican.com

Red State America Acts on Climate Change--but

Calls It Other Names

Rebecca J. Romsdahl,The Conversation

The following essay is reprinted with permission from The Conversation, an online
publication covering the latest research.

President Donald Trump has the environmental community understandably concerned. He

and members of his Cabinet have questioned the established science of climate change, and
his choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency, former Oklahoma Attorney General
Scott Pruitt, has sued the EPA many times and regularly sided with the fossil fuel industry.

Even if the Trump administration withdraws from all international climate negotiations and
reduces the EPA to bare bones, the effects of climate change are happening and will continue
to build.

In response to real threats and public demand, cities across the United States and around the
world are taking action to address climate change. We might think this is happening only in
large, coastal cities that are threatened by sea-level rise or hurricanes, like Amsterdam or New
York.

Research shows, however, that even in the fly-over red states of the U.S. Great Plains, local
leaders in small- to medium-size communities are already grappling with the issue. Although
their actions are not always couched in terms of addressing climate change, their strategies
can provide insights into how to make progress on climate policy under a Trump
administration.

Deliberate framing

My colleagues and I did a survey of over 200 local governments in 11 states of the Great Plains
region to learn about steps theyre taking to mitigate the effects of climate change and to
adapt to them. We found local officials in red states responsible for public health, soil
conservation, parks and natural resources management, as well as county commissioners and
mayors, are concerned about climate change, and many feel a responsibility to take action in
the absence of national policy.

1 de 3 28/02/2017 17:49
Red State America Acts on Climate Change--but Calls It Other Names about:reader?url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/red-state-a...

But because it is such a complex and polarizing topic, they often face public uncertainty or
outrage toward the issue. So while these local officials have been addressing climate change in
their communities over the past decade, many of these policy activities are specifically not
framed that way. As one respondent to our survey said:

It is my personal and professional opinion that the conservation community is on track

with addressing the issue of climate change but is way off track in assigning a cause. The
public understands the value of clean water and clean air. If the need to improve our water
quality and air quality was emphasized, most would agree. Who is going to say dirty water
and dirty air is not a problem? By making the argument climate change and humans are
the cause significant energy is wasted trying to prove this. It is also something the public
has a hard time sinking their teeth into.

In order to address the vulnerabilities facing their communities, many local officials are
reframing climate change to fit within existing priorities and budget items. In a survey of
mayors, we asked: In your citys policy and planning activities (for energy, conservation,
natural resources management, land use, or emergency planning, etc.) how is climate change
framed? The following quotes give a sense of their strategies.

In terms of economic benefit & resource protection. This framing was deliberate to garner
support from residents who did not agree with climate change.

We frame the initiative as: energy savings (=$ savings), as smart growth/good planning,
and as common sense natural resource management. Climate change is only explicitly
referenced in our Climate Protection Plan adopted in 2009. Most initiatives fall under the
"sustainability umbrella term.

"We mask it with sustainability, we call it P3 (People, Planet, Prosperity)

The initial interest in climate change came about as a result of concern about the potential
for poor air quality affecting economic development in the City. Air quality and climate
change were framed as being extremely related issues.

Climate change is framed as one of several benefits of conservation measures. Other

benefits of conservation, recycling, walking, etc. include its good for the earth (regardless
of climate change), healthful, economical, etc.

The results show that energy, economic benefits, common sense and sustainability are frames
that are providing opportunities for local leaders to address climate change without getting

2 de 3 28/02/2017 17:49
Red State America Acts on Climate Change--but Calls It Other Names about:reader?url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/red-state-a...

stuck in the political quagmire. This strategy is being used across the Great Plains states,
which include some of the most climate-skeptical areas of the country.

Local needs and values

Every region of the U.S. will need to address practical questions of how states and local
communities can reduce emissions and adapt to climate impacts. Under the Trump
administration, it is likely any progress on U.S. climate policy will continue at these
subnational levels. Thats why a variety of experts argue that we should encourage the types of
pragmatic strategies now being employed by local leaders in red states.

In the Great Plains in particular, local officials are facing severe impacts from higher
temperatures, which will place greater demands on water and energy.

In our research we found local leaders focus on regional and local issues such as drought,
energy and flooding. These are problems that are tied to climate change, but are already a
priority on the local level. And the sought-for improvements, such as energy savings, health
benefit and flood management, fit well with local needs and values.

For example, Fargo, North Dakota mitigates some of its greenhouse gas emissions and
created a new source of city revenue by capturing the methane from its landfill facility and
selling that gas to the electricity company. The city trash is now providing renewable energy
for local residents and an industrial facility.

Perhaps the question facing us is: Should we reframe climate change and other environmental
problems to fit the Trump administrations priorities with a strong focus on practical solution
ideas? For example, Trump has stated that infrastructure projects will be a high priority. That
could easily translate into fixing the drinking water crisis experienced by Flint, Michigan and
many other cities where it is likely to happen; Trump has also highlighted mass transit, which
could help reduce air pollution and carbon emissions.

With an administration eager to expand fossil fuel development and consumption, the
outlook for federal action on reducing climate-altering greenhouse gases is dire. Given that,
reframing climate change to address cobenefit issues seems a logical strategy, and we can look
for local government leaders in red states to show the way.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

3 de 3 28/02/2017 17:49