Bill Bradbury: Climate Reality Project
Across the ideological spectrum (though at varying rates), folks at the neighborhood-level are acknowledging the need to save their communities from climate chaos.
Bill Bradbury is the former Oregon Secretary of State.
The need for swift global action on climate change makes it clear why Mr. Gore did not stop at an Academy Award for “An Inconvenient Truth.” He started training climate leaders. The first 50 in 2006 has grown to almost 21,000 trained leaders from 154 countries around the world in 2020.
In 2019, all climate leaders attended an intensive 3-day training session with Mr. Gore, climate scientists, and community leaders (Mayors, Governors, City Councilors, County Commissioners). In addition to those large sessions, smaller versions have been held all over the world, including in China, Europe, and numerous sites in the United States.
Climate Mentor
I have served as a “mentor” at six trainings, ranging from Chicago to Beijing. Each mentor is assigned about 30 trainees. Mentors sit at the table with their trainees, running table exercises and coordinating participation. Mentors help trainees absorb the overwhelming dose of information. Some trainees talk too much, others sit silently. The mentor’s job is to even that out so everyone participates. At the end of a training, the trainees become Climate Reality Leaders.
COVID has not slowed down the spread of Climate Reality Leaders. Due to pandemic-related shutdowns, the first “virtual” training was held online over a 9-day period in July 2020. 11,000 participants from around the world were trained. More than 500 Climate Reality Leadership Corps members served as mentors and worked with trainees to deepen the training and commitment to action.
A second virtual training was held in late August 2020 for thousands of trainees from over 130 countries.
Climate Reality Leader is more than just a title. These Leaders have delivered almost 33,000 climate presentations and carried out almost 90,000 ”Acts of Leadership” examples of which include letters to the editor, communicating with elected officials or participating in a public demonstration.
These Acts accumulate into an avalanche of progress—spreading awareness and making the movement more inclusive and impactful. It is a strong global effort to educate about climate change and push governments, businesses, and citizens to act to address the changing climate.
These educational efforts are necessary and worthwhile. We know climate science-based education is valuable and always worth it, especially in an age in which misinformation can spread faster than poison ivy. What we do not know is whether education will lead to action soon enough to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
It seems a long shot, but we must keep working. The combination of community-based leaders and technological advances provides reason for hope. In the course of human events, especially recently, technologies change very quickly and, as a result, reshape society. Two examples tell the story: the transition of telephone landlines to cell phones; and, the global adoption of renewable energy.
The Explosion of Cell Phones
In 2005, the number of cell phones in the developing world exceeded the number of cell phones in the developed world for the first time. Since then, cell phones have increased a small amount in the developed world (to about 1.5 billion) and skyrocketed in the developing world (to about 6 billion users).
According to a 2015 Pew Research Center study on Communications Technology in Emerging and Developing Nations, a median of 84 percent of people in emerging and developing nations owned some type of cell phone.
The study also found that, while cell phone ownership has increased drastically over the past decade, particularly in Africa, landline connections have remained relatively low – likely due to the lack of infrastructure required for reliable connections. Instead of waiting for landline access, many in emerging and developing nations have bypassed fixed phone lines in favor of mobile technology (Pew, 2019).
Renewable Energy
The same rapid growth scenario is playing out with renewable energy installations around the world.
Chile has announced it will close eight coal-fired power stations by 2025. The country plans to switch entirely to renewable electricity by 2040. The Chilean solar market has grown dramatically in recent years from 1.6 GW at the end of 2016 to over 17.75 GW either approved or under construction now (Comisión Nacional de Energía de Chile, 2017).
India’s energy policy reflects a similar lesson. Policymakers in that country have recognized the obvious: the sun shines for free and the wind blows at no charge. By 2030, India plans 450 GW of renewable electricity capacity and it is projected to cost at least 20 percent less than the average cost of coal-fired electricity in India.
“You’d have to be quite courageous to invest in coal [in India] at this point,” said Navroz Dubash of New Delhi’s Centre for Policy Research in December 2018. The largest Indian coal power producers are looking to renewable projects to build new capacity. Adani Power has invested more than $600 million in a solar plant in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu (Mundy, 2019).
The Future
There was a time when implementing solutions to the climate crisis appeared unaffordable and politically impossible. Many were saying climate change was not costing humanity anywhere near as much as the proposed solutions. Technology and leaders around the world are reversing that narrative. It’s a development that has ramifications for people and policymakers in the Pacific Northwest as well.
I will never forget a frustrating experience in 2014 when I was serving on the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. Every five years the Council develops a twenty-year plan for affordable and available electricity in the four-state region of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana.
Columbia River hydroelectric power is the backbone of the Northwest’s electricity system, but as the region grows additional sources of electricity are needed. Conservation was our largest “resource” to meet new electrical demand, but it was estimated that conservation would leave us 15% short of our 20-year need. Members of the Council leaned toward renewable sources (solar and wind) to fill that remaining 15% need, but renewables were more expensive at that time than a natural gas peaker plant. The law required us to plan for the most affordable solution to meet our expected needs so that gas peaker plant stayed on our list. That same conclusion would not be likely today given the continued reduction in the cost of renewables.
In other words, technological advances are moving faster than our systems and laws often acknowledge. With just a little more foresight and information (as well as some legal flexibility), the Council would have been able to more proactively pursue more effective and more affordable solutions.
When Al Gore talks about solutions at the end of his slide presentation he focuses on renewable energy and conservation. Wind, solar and conservation are being developed world-wide because they are now the most affordable choice for anyone needing new electrical capacity.
So clearly, things can change very quickly. When it is not just “good public policy” but “less expensive good public policy” energy systems and transit will change faster than we ever thought possible, so long as our officials are aware of these changes and the law allows for such changes
As an advocate for rapid change to address the climate crisis I am obviously pleased at this turn of events—it’s encouraging to see countries around the world quickly move away from the planet-destroying practices of the past. I have always been frustrated by society’s slow acceptance of the warming problem and slow implementation of solutions. But, as fast as things have moved, there is still a very big question: how much damage will be done by the greenhouse gasses we have already released into the atmosphere?
Hurricanes, fires, droughts, and rain bombs are becoming more problematic every year. We have unleashed a climate catastrophe on ourselves. Science made it clear the problem would get worse and worse, and acting now would be less expensive than acting later.
The Political Angle
But the politics of climate change are very divided and government action is often thwarted. Polling shows clearly that Democrats and Republicans are on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to government actions aimed at climate change. That’s why the development of Climate Reality Leaders in every community is so important—these leaders can help cut through ideology and focus on the individuals being impacted.
Most individuals acknowledge that climate change has neighborhood-level effects. According to a Pew Research poll of over 10,000 Americans taken 4/29 to 5/5/2020, a majority of Americans (63%) say that climate change is affecting their local community some or a great deal. Fewer (37%) say climate change is impacting their own community either not at all or not too much.
Unfortunately, partisan thinking hinders our ability to act on that awareness. Partisanship is a large factor in views of the local impact of climate change. A large majority of Democrats (83%) say climate change is affecting their local community some or a great deal. By contrast, far fewer Republicans (37%) believe climate change is affecting their local community at least some; most Republicans (62%) say climate change is impacting their local community not too much or not at all (Kennedy, 2020).
This clear partisan divide may explain a major legislative conflict in Oregon at the end of the 2019 session, and again during the 2020 short session. Democrats controlled both chambers and proposed legislation to put a cap on carbon emissions in Oregon (HB 1250 in the 2020 session). The proposal passed the House and was debated in the Senate. When it came time to vote, the Republicans did not have enough votes to defeat the measure, so ten of them just walked out. That denied the Senate a quorum to do business. As long as Republicans stayed away no legislation could be considered, including the cap on carbon emissions.
Fossil fuel interests (gas and oil dealers, truckers etc.) shut down an Oregon effort to address climate change. Similar stop climate efforts are taking place nationwide as our planet gets warmer and warmer. Governments are likely to slow the transition to renewables because of fossil fuel’s huge lobbying power, but they are unlikely to stop it. Lower cost will eventually win. The only question: will it be soon enough?
Keep hope alive! Across the ideological spectrum (though at varying rates), folks at the neighborhood-level are acknowledging the need to save their communities from climate chaos. Focusing on that innate desire to protect one’s community can help unite Oregonians around the changes we need to see now.
*******************************
Keep the conversation going:
Facebook (facebook.com/oregonway)
Twitter (@the_oregon_way)
Check out our podcast: