Acting on Climate Change: Why Bother

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may abandon its obligation to address climate pollution by rejecting decades of sound science. The 2009 Endangerment Finding is the EPA's own determination that greenhouse gases threaten public health. It requires them to regulate emissions like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide from power plants, facilities, and cars and trucks. Now, the agency is proposing to repeal that finding.

At first, the agency allotted two days to hear spoken public comment about this idea. But after hundreds of people signed up to testify, the agency added two extra days and reduced speakers' time from three minutes to two and a half. More than 850 people testified-overwhelmingly in opposition-during the four-day virtual hearing.

It was my first time speaking at anything like it. I imagine at least a few others were also participating in a public hearing for the first time, because the proposal on the table raises serious alarm bells for anyone concerned about pollution, climate change, and the future of our planet.

Agencies are required by law to host public comment sessions, but they're under no real obligation to take those comments into account in their final decisions. So… what's the point?

Here's why I decided to speak up:

1. "Proof of life" for the climate movement

The agency officials on the panel aren't the only ones who could be paying attention to what happens during public hearings. News outlets, elected officials, and advocacy groups on both sides have a vested interest in identifying which issues mobilize the public and generate conversation. These actors in the political process are constantly evaluating and reevaluating their priorities: in other words, they want to see which fights are worth picking.

Advocates for a stable climate, clean air and water, and accountability for polluters need to prove-over and over, in many different forums-that we're still fighting. Best case scenario: it stops or reverses bad policy. But even if not, seeing the pushback may help deter new bad policies from being introduced. That's crucial on climate issues: each fraction of a degree that the planet warms means the potential loss of another species, more intense heat waves, further melting of Arctic ice sheets, and the consequences that follow.

2. Hearing from others with unique perspectives

While I was waiting for my own turn to speak, I heard more than a dozen other testimonies. Speakers included science and public health experts; concerned parents; environmentalists from many different backgrounds; and two industry representatives speaking in support of the repeal. Listening to these varied perspectives, which I might not come across in other spaces, informs my own thinking and strengthens future activism.

3. It's quite easy to lend your voice

Motivated by my own alarm about climate change and armed with pre-written resources, it took me less than an hour to write out my testimony. I spent about 30 minutes waiting my turn on the Zoom call, and spoke for just under 150 seconds.

Everyone has limited time and energy to work with; advocacy doesn't always have to be a huge lift to be effective.

4. Action leads to more action-building momentum

Generally, doing something you've done before is easier than doing something new. Becoming familiar with the public hearing process means I'm more likely to testify at another one, or to take other, similar, actions-like signing petitions, calling my state and Congressional leaders, or getting involved in community-led projects.

This matters because citizen advocacy can make a major difference. One recent example: members of Congress scrapped a proposal to sell off millions of acres of public lands earlier this summer after fierce opposition by a coalition of hunters, anglers, recreationists, and wildlife supporters. And it's not always obvious when activist voices could tip the scale for decision-makers.

So why get involved? Because just as Women's Suffrage, Civil Rights, Anti-Apartheid, and other social movements did-progress has always been driven by organized and consistent advocacy. Why can't the same be true for climate change?