June 2021

June 13, 2021

The two-week learning intensive for the inaugural Climate Action Leadership program ended recently, leaving me with many ideas to unpack. At the June 8 webinar titled Designing with Policy in Mind, panelist Beth Gibbons, Executive Director of the American Society of Adaptation Professionals, introduced the concept of working within “enabled environments” when advocating for stronger climate policy (Gibbons et al., 2021). In this context, enabled policy environments are spaces in which elected officials have the willpower and ability to draft and pass strong climate policy.

Yet what happens when the political will to act on climate is not present? Or politicians are met with partisan obstacles (such as a minority government)? Or politicians are downright hostile toward climate action? Before this panel I considered these periods to be major setbacks in the journey of climate action. Upon reflection however, perhaps ‘non-enabled’ policy environments (which I will refer to as ‘latent’ environments) hold the key for long term resilience.

Cycles of intense productivity followed by latency are commonly found in nature. Consider how a tree drops its leaves for the winter only to regrow them again in spring, or a cicada enters a cyclical period of dormancy before emerging above ground in the billions. These periods of rest – or perceived inaction – are critically important to the health of ecosystems. Without rest, organisms can begin to suffer. For example, artificial light in urban areas can result in foliar damage (leaf injury) because the artificial light tricks trees into retaining their leaves late into the winter (Bennie et al., 2016). Retaining leaves out of season can be harmful for trees, as it prevents the tree from investing in repair and defence processes that are critical for long term health (Vollsnes et al., 2009). Periods of rest are vital for long term resilience in ecosystems.

Perhaps periods of latency are just as critical for long term climate action resilience. Teika Newton from the Climate Action Network suggests these periods provide “an important moment to build a network and build a movement” (Gibbons et al., 2021). Effective policy should not be drafted quickly for the sake of efficiency. Rather, for policy to be truly effective, it requires research, diversity of thought, and meaningful consultation. In a personal conversation with Michael Lickers, the Indigenous Scholar in Residence at Royal Roads University, Michael encouraged us to take an extremely thoughtful approach to policy and decision making, recognizing that rushed policy is a colonial approach to a wicked problem (M. Lickers, personal communication, June 7, 2021). Cameron (2012) points out that colonial history “is replete with examples of sweeping interventions that were justified precisely through their urgency” (p. 112). In the climate sphere, fast policy is not necessarily effective or decolonial policy.

So, although enabled policy environments are times when strong policy can be mobilized into action, latent periods provide time for meaningful policy formation. By taking the time to research, reflect on past mistakes, and engage in meaningful dialogue, the policy that is eventually mobilized when the opportunity arises will likely be much more valuable than policy undertaken in a frantic environment.

Yet, in the climate sphere, even periods of latency feel laced with urgency. I argue that meaningful policy formation requires a dismantling of toxic productivity culture. Researchers Bellezza et al. (2017) assert that the practice of busyness has become a status symbol, as society shifts focus away from the scarcity of goods to the scarcity of skilled individuals. I see this myth of scarcity in my climate advocacy work: fellow colleagues and volunteers working tirelessly, under the belief that they are among the few that take the problem of climate seriously enough. They believe there are not enough people to get the job done, so those who are working on climate need to work even harder. Feeding into productivity culture – believing the work will not happen without you or that your value comes from what you produce – is an excellent way to become jaded, cynical, or burned out. It is hard to develop well crafted policies and relationships when you are working frantically alone.

Meaningful policy formation requires network weaving, movement building, research, dialogue, consultation, and analysis, but above all – it requires a culture of trust. It asks individuals to trust one another, trust the institutions they are part of, and trust themselves. Engaging in meaningful policy formation requires the ability to see beyond the urgency and trust the challenges, the setbacks, and the latent periods.

As I move through the rest of my time at Royal Roads, I aim to deepen my trust so I can meaningfully engage – whether the policy environment I am working in is enabled or latent.

References

Gibbons, B., Milne, K., Morrison, D.L., Netwon, T., & Reed, G. (2021, June 8). Climate Action: Designing with Policy in Mind [webinar]. Royal Roads University webinar series, Victoria, Canada. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUQHld3k4to

Bellezza, S., Paharia, N., & Keinan, A. (2017). Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of Leisure Time Become a Status Symbol. Journal of Consumer Research 44(1), 118-138.

Bennie, J., Davies, T.W., Cruse, D., & Gaston, K.J. (2016). Ecological effects of artificial light at night on wild plants. Journal of Ecology 104(3), 611-620.

Cameron, E.S. (2012). Securing Indigenous politics: a critique of the vulnerability and adaptation approach to the human dimensions of climate change in the Canadian Arctic. Global Environmental Change 22, 103-114.

Vollsnes, A.V., Eriksen, A.B., Otterholt, E., Kvaal, K., Oxaal, U., & Futsaether, C.M. (2009). Visible foliar injury and infrared imaging shows that daylength affects short-term recovery after ozone stress in Trifolium subterraneum. Journal of Experimental Botany 60, 3677-3686.