Government Stalemates

I'll never forget watching the previous Senator of Oklahoma Jim Inhofe bring a snowball onto the Senate floor to dismiss climate change as nonsensical. "Do you know what this is? It's a snowball," Inhofe said, holding the snowball aloft. "It's just from outside here, so it's very, very cold out ... very unseasonable. He continued. "We hear the perpetual headline that 2014 has been the warmest year on record, but now the script has flipped," Inhofe said.

There were two times I felt encouraged that governments across the globe would partner together to avert the worst impacts of environmental degradation. The first was in 2013, when China and the United States established the U.S.-China Climate Change Working Group (CCWG) to enhance cooperation on climate change and clean energy. The second was when the Paris Climate account was signed. The Paris Agreement, also known as the Paris Climate Accord, was signed on December 12, 2015. This international treaty was adopted by 196 parties at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21).

Many are familiar with the term "climate debate." The word conjures thoughts of an unsettled issue that needs to be contested before we reach true consensus about its actual existence. The term detracts from the overall scientific consensus surrounding the greenhouse effect and mankind's involvement in the production of the contributing emissions. Describing the crisis in this way has driven political divide and polarization of the issue. It has been used as a technique to detract and divide the public from practical action.

Political polarization has distorted the discourse surrounding climate change. It has lead to to misinformation, skepticism, and denial of the overwhelming scientific evidence. Efforts to communicate the urgency and severity of climate change are often hindered by ideological divides and partisan rhetoric, making it challenging to mobilize public support for mitigation efforts. Misinformation campaigns and politicized messaging further exacerbate polarization and hinder progress towards compromising solutions. This polarization undermines public support for climate action and mitigation measures, as individuals may dismiss or deny the urgency of addressing climate change based on their political affiliations. Consequently, policymakers may be less inclined to prioritize climate-related policies in response to public pressure or demands.

Political Oscillation

Most people's views on issues end up being somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum. However, because of party dominance and polarization we end up overlooking our commonality and shared perspectives. We miss out on potential alignment of values and the ability to cooperate towards implementing moderate solutions. We instead end up with little effective policies ever getting done at all. Sometimes things end up even worse where thing will get done but then will be undone as administrations change over time. The pendulum continues to swing from one side of the political spectrum to the next but never quite lands in the middle.

Because politics oscillates from one political party to the next, there is sort of a dichotomy of views that overlooks the centrist views. The general public wants things to adhere to the center, and most of their views gravitate towards moderate centrist views. Unfortunately, due to the dichotomy of two political parties, we oscillate back and forth rather than moving forward. Rather than gravitating and ending up as a centrist midpoint where everyone's viewpoints and policy goals is actually met.

The centricity of political views is one reason it is useful to avoid voting for fringe candidates on the ballot. Instead advocate for policies to convince the main stream parties. This is because most voters political ideologies fall into mostly three spectrums. Center (Independent in the US). Left, slight left of center (Democrat), or slight right of center (Republican). Most people don't gravitate towards the proposals of fringe political parties such as those held by the Green or Libertarian groups.

Remember when the Obama administration helped drive efforts to get world leaders on board for the Paris Climate Accord? The endeavor paid off only to be reversed by the Trump administration as soon as the next president took office. Then when the Biden presidency began the United States rejoined the climate account once again. What a mess political polarization has caused. It undermines collective action and cooperation, hindering global efforts to address the climate crisis effectively. Shifts in political power and changes in administrations can result in policy reversals and inconsistent approaches to climate change mitigation. In polarized political environments, climate policies enacted by one party or administration may face opposition or rollback by subsequent administrations with different ideological priorities. This policy instability undermines long-term planning and investment in sustainable practices, hindering progress towards decarbonization and climate resilience.

It's not particularly useful to define people solely by the political parties they support, as doing so overlooks the complexity and depth of individual identities. We are not the sum of our voting patterns; rather, we are human beings shaped by diverse experiences, values, and aspirations.

From a minimalist perspective, this kind of reductionism---labeling people by party---adds unnecessary noise to our understanding of one another. Minimalism is the practice of removing excess to uncover what's essential. Applied to our social and political lives, it means letting go of the clutter of polarization, judgment, and identity-based assumptions. Instead, it invites us to focus on our shared values, our interdependence, and our collective needs.

Minimalism isn't about political affiliation---it's about stripping away what divides us to focus on what truly matters: living authentically, fostering well-being, and encouraging others to embrace a more natural, healthy, and intentional life. When we let go of labels and lean into simplicity, we open the door to deeper connections and more effective cooperation. By shifting our focus from partisan divides to common goals, we can create communities grounded in mutual respect and a shared commitment to simplicity, sustainability, and human dignity.

* * *

I've realized there is a disconnect between state or federal level policy initiatives and the actual actions taken at the city level that impact day-to-day life. High level governing bodies make bold environmental plans. The reality on the ground driving what actually ends up being implemented at the community level though can directly contradict the broader goals.

I was so frustrated recently when many trees were destroyed. It bothered me quite a bit because trees provide vital shaded cooling areas as well as improve noise reduction, air quality, and neighborhood aesthetics. I tried to contact the city's public works department. That didn't work. I then tried to write a letter to the city council. The effort was in vain, I had to go speak on the issue in person. Hard to do that with a full time job and kids that need dinner and to be put to sleep.

It's problematic where different levels of bureaucracy do not line up to accomplish essential aspirations of the people they govern. Elected officials make promises in order to win elections but once they take office. the competing interests of lobbying and other entrenched interests end up contradicting many sustainability efforts.

This is why it is so important to become as aware as your time affords you of upcoming policy decisions that will impact your community. Sharing your concerns with others is both meditative and supportive. By engaging with others, you can help change the course of local decision makers. Change starts through our most personal aspirations, then connects more broadly with others through the shared concerns of others. Our collective endeavors are the most powerful way to change the world. Impactful change begins with small ideas that grow from the bottom up.

Many aspects of human nature are bewilderingly mysterious aren't they? I remember once I was on a trip with my friend in Austin for a few days. One morning I was preparing myself for the day in the bathroom. I tried to conserve water as I am accustomed to doing regardless of where I'm staying. After I left the bathroom it was my friend's turn to use it. I sat outside the bathroom reading some of the hotel booklets and such on the table. I was able to overhear him in the bathroom and noticed he took quite a long shower, longer then seemed necessary. He also left the water on while shaving. I asked him why he was using so much water and if it was part of his normal morning routine. He replied, "Not usually but since I noticed you were trying hard to save so much water, I figured there was more I could use for myself."

I learned something that day. The efficiencies and savings we realize as a society in our efforts to improve the health of ourselves and our environment are only fully realizable if we cooperate with one another and work together towards the goal of sustainability and continuity. Our planet is small but each one of us is part of a much larger force in the world. We are all part of a human experiment. This experiment can only be sustained if we practice minimalism together. As the world grows lowering consumption is the most important way to protect the health of our planet. This will afford us time to make additional efficiency gains. The reality is that only minimalistic consumption practices and efficiency gains coupled together will actually allow us to realize a truly sustainable existence.

No man is an island,

Entire of itself;

Every man is a piece of the continent,

A part of the main.

-- John Donne