This page is referenced by:

• 1 2025-02-13T01:00:24+00:00 Taking Action For The Climate 17 plain 2025-05-20T05:56:33+00:00 The issue of climate change is so huge, so world-encompassing, it is easy to feel that any action taken by an individual is so tiny as to be entirely futile. Yet many, many people have joined together to change the narrative around climate change, emissions targets, and climate justice. How this plays out in people’s everyday lives, and the choices they make, is a fascinating question.
  
  
  

  Patricia DeMarco: I was sort of a volunteer, but I really got back into the world of engaged activism in the [19]90s, when I was working for the Public Utilities Commission and I went to work in Alaska, and was the director of the Economic Development Corporation for Anchorage, and I served on the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, as a commissioner. And at that point, I was in a position to actually make policies that could change things. It was clear to me that, if you don’t listen to people and take input from the bottom-up, you get into a situation where you’re not ruling by consent-of-the-governed. You have to rule by consent-of-the-governed. What I see as a major flaw in the way things are now, is that the level of trust in the government as an agent of action and the general public interest has been basically shattered. This morning I was at the DEP listening session on environmental justice, as a component of their updated climate plan for Pennsylvania, and finally somebody in the room actually stood up and said, “why should we even talk to you? We keep showing up at these meetings, and we give you our input and we never see it reflected in what you come out with. So why should we even talk to you? You said, you can check the box. Yes, we have a stakeholder (box), meaning we listen to the people. But we don't see any evidence that you've heard. You listen, but you don't hear”. And she left. And I said, “you have just offended a person who represents the North Braddock Residents for our Future?” [Narrator laughs.] I told the DEP lady afterward, you have no idea who you pissed off, because you will never get them back in the room. It was frustrating because I spent months making connections with these people, and they’re friends now. I can go to Edith afterward and commiserate with her and say, “I'm really sorry that you were offended by these people, but it's true.” They (the DEP) held the meeting in a place you couldn't get to by public transportation. They said, “oh, we want to hold it in the Net-Zero building!” I said, “yeah, okay, we have a Net-zero Building, I'm really happy about it. But don't invite my neighbors from North Braddock and the SouthWest Pennsylvania region to come here. You can't get here from there! I said it first!” I said, “why did you do all this here? Because nobody can get here, in the middle of the morning. From 10-12 a.m., you’re holding a listening session- your break. You're not going to hear from environmental justice people from 10-12 a.m. on a weekday, in a place you can't get to by public transportation. Not going to happen.” And they’re like, amazed, you know. Why do you need to tell these people this? How can they do their job without knowing how to reach people? Any of the environmental community, any of the organizations that were in that room could have told them, if you really want to hear from the people we work with, you need to do it a different way. They just looked like deer in the headlight. [Both laugh.]

  
  

  Cedric Loy: C'est pas à moi d'agir, parce que c'est mon président, ou à mon gouvernement, ou alors, à la rigueur, à mon maire, ma, ma mairesse, etc. C'est pas à moi d'agir, c'est aux gros pollueurs, ou aux entreprises. Mais, en fait ça, ce que je réponds dans ce cas-là, c'est qu'il y a un triangle de l'inaction, ça s'appelle le triangle une inaction. Donc, il y a trois côtés. Un côté, c'est justement, bah, les pouvoirs publics, collectivités locales, territoriales, régionales, État, ça peut être bah, justement, les membres du gouvernement, l’Europe, le monde, on va dire. L’autre côté, donc, si, on va dire, si on se place de ce côté-là du triangle, l'État pourrait très bien regarder l'autre côté du triangle, les entreprises, et dire « C'est pas à nous d'agir, c’est aux entreprises, c’est elles qui ont la recherche et développement, qu'ont les moyens, et nous à part, imposer ok, mais imposer, au bout d'un moment, enfin, ça va être trop, c'est. On sort un peu de la démocratie ». A l'inverse, les entreprises pourraient dire bah, « Non, attendez, c’est pas à nous d'agir, c'est que l'État pourrait très bien, pour qu’il y ait une concurrence loyale, agir sur la TVA, nous donner des aides », etc. Donc, ça, c'est déjà deux biais du, du triangle. L'autre côté, ça pourrait être le citoyen qui dit, « Non, ce n’est pas à nous d'agir. Nous, on vote ok, mais c'est à l'État, justement, d'aider les ménages les plus précaires de taxer les entreprises les plus riches ». L'État pourrait dire, ou encore une fois, les collectivités, « Vous êtes gentils, mais vous avez des citoyens qui ont des bulletins de vote, qui peut s'engager dans une association », etc. Et puis, les entreprises pourraient dire aux citoyens, « Ben, nous, au final, on produit les produits que les consommateurs achètent ».

   

  Translation: 
   

  Cedric Loy: It's not up to me to take action, because it's up to my president, or my government, or my mayor, etc. It's not up to me to act, it's up to the big polluters, or the companies. But, in fact, what I'm saying in this case is that there is an inaction triangle, it's called the inaction triangle. So, there are three sides. One side is precisely, well, the public authorities, local, regional and national authorities, the State, it can be well, precisely, the members of the government, Europe, the world, so to speak. On the other side of the triangle, the State could very well look at the other side of the triangle, at the companies, and say “It's not up to us to act, it's up to the companies, they're the ones with the research and development, they've got the means, and we're just going to impose, okay, but impose, at the end of the day, well, it's going to be too much, it's... it wouldn’t be democracic”. On the other hand, companies could say, “No, wait a minute, it's not up to us to take action, it's that the State could very well, for there to be fair competition, take action on VAT, provide us with financial aid”, and so on. So, that's two sides of the triangle. The other side could be the citizen saying, “No, it's not up to us to act. We vote, okay, but it's up to the State to help the most vulnerable households and tax the richest companies”. The State could say, or once again, local authorities, “Oh, come, on seriously, citizens can cast votes in elections, they can get join an association working in climate chang”’, and so on. And then companies could say to citizens, “Well, at the end of the day, we produce the products that consumers buy”.

  
  

  Joseph B.: I suppose my first early bit of awareness was when we were having issues with the ozone layer in this country. I remember very strongly that my mum was very vocal about it, she would tell me about it. In school, they're already learning elements about climate change and about the environment much more strongly than I'd say than we did. There's a much bigger emphasis. In fact, some of the stuff that my six-year-old comes home and tells me about are stuff, or things, topics that we wouldn't have touched probably until sixth form. This oral history project, I also thought, again, this is a good thing, sharing people's opinions about, well, more than people's opinions, isn't it? How people have grown up with environmental thoughts or not, and understanding what that research is is quite important, I'd say, especially if you want to gently encourage any change. I think it's important to understand where people have come from and the tolerances that people have.