Dear Umbra,
I have a friend who is a fellow environmental studies major, and he says he's not going to vote because he "doesn't agree with the system." I've had numerous discussions with him about how important it is to vote, especially when it comes to environmental issues, but he doesn't seem to want to listen. My question to you is this: Why, as an environmentalist, should I vote?
Nick
Wyoming, Minn.
Dear Nick,
I grant you, our particular system of democracy is flawed. But pouting on the sidelines is not effective. Politics contains no über-moms who will take your hand, listen to your complaints, and report your troubles to the president so he/she can take action on your behalf.
Adulthood brings with it the responsibility to be a good citizen, and citizenship requires voting. So does environmentalism. Environmentalists should vote in every election, and particularly in local and state contests for town and county officers, council members, state insurance commissioners, and state congresspersons. These are the people who decide on funding for schools, highways, and public transit, or who make laws forbidding people from marrying, or who allow developers to destroy wetlands.
Photos: Hilary McHone
Local politicians and their constituents strongly influence area land use and planning. I took a look at the website for Chisago County, where you live, and found quite a few examples within five minutes of rapid clicking. This summer alone, your county planning commission discussed a demolition landfill, a composting operation, and a green corridor for land preservation. The summer of 2007 was the 14th year of a water quality improvement program for the Chisago Chain of Lakes, northeast of Wyoming. The county Environmental Services staff has found septic systems that were imminent threats to public health and has interceded. Just a few examples of environmentally significant local politics.
Day-to-day work in towns and counties is carried out by hired staffers, but the agenda for their work is heavily (and sometimes completely) influenced by elected officials and political appointees. You can see this dynamic at work on the federal level as well -- in the Environmental Protection Agency, for example. With President Clinton at the helm, the EPA had one agenda; with George W. in the White House it's had quite another. Imagine a vote for or against a candidate who supports unfettered land development, or one who believes industry should police itself!
In Seattle, for another example, we are often called upon to vote for or against major transportation projects. The last time this happened, many of us voted against a proposition that would have authorized a giant highway expansion and some (but not enough) mass transit. The measure failed, thus sending legislators a message that citizens placed a high value on mass transit options. The non-voters (like your friend) might have had a message too, but no one could possibly get it. What are non-voters saying? "Whatever," basically.
State-level voting also makes an impact. As I'm sure you've seen, candidates often have major differences on environmental issues related to agriculture, watersheds, energy, transportation, and business vs. the environment. A state government not only makes policy within its boundaries, but can also choose (or refuse) to join with other states in environmental actions. You've read in Grist about states adopting California's auto standards, or about multi-state carbon cap-and-trade projects, or about Midwestern governors signing a greenhouse-gas reduction accord. City leaders can join hands, too, as we're seeing with the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement, signed by 884 mayors to date. This happens because environmentally conscious elected officials have the say-so. The local and state actions push the federal government to respond (no matter how much it wishes to ignore things). The trickle-up-and-push effect of our vote has been our main influence on national environmental policy for many years.
All of which is to say: Vote. It matters. Register today.
Simply,
Umbra
How to turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo
This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!
Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots
Comments
View as Threaded
Annie Rosenthal Posted 9:35 am
22 Sep 2008
Permalink
sindark Posted 10:01 am
22 Sep 2008
If people who care about the environment don't vote, there will be no environmentally minded votes to capture. As such, rational politicians will ignore environmental issues or court people who do vote and who take more short term perspectives on things like resource use and sustainability.
Permalink
francoise lehouck Posted 11:15 am
22 Sep 2008
Permalink
demolitionwoman Posted 11:30 am
22 Sep 2008
what if it does? why not take the 20 minutes out of his day to go to his local voting booth, see people from his neighborhood and cast his vote.
less than half of our country votes (on average) and christ, does it show...it's the raindrop effect: one raindrop might not seem like much, but when you put millions of 'em together - hello downpour!
there's a reason why people have been (and continue to be) excluded from the right to vote (black people, women, non-land owners, felons, poor people, etc.) why would the people in power work so hard to exclude people from something that "doesn't matter"? people have fought fiercely and literally died to have this right that your friend so casually dismisses.
and if he still doesn't vote? anytime he tries to talk politics to you or complains about the state of the environment, etc. - just ask "did you vote? no? well then, you do not have the right to bitch about it."
voting is the minimum we as citizens can do to participate in our communities.
Permalink
bailsout Posted 1:48 pm
22 Sep 2008
Permalink
pfletch Posted 2:51 pm
22 Sep 2008
Therefore, when i stand up in the council meeting or write to my representative, i can say (and know that they can check), "I'm an environmentalist and I VOTE every chance i get."
Permalink
jbantau Posted 2:16 am
23 Sep 2008
Permalink
megermano Posted 3:15 am
23 Sep 2008
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 6:59 am
23 Sep 2008
Think. This doesn't have to be an either-or, between-the-horns dilemma. Do the hard work of implementing IRV and you get the best of both worlds. Vote for your true first choice first (what a concept!!). If he/she doesn't get a majority of the votes, then your second choice does.
It almost makes too much sense.
Permalink