franknews

Education Has To Be The Forefront of Civics

by frank news

November 20, 2018

April Snape [Hunter College] and Kat Martucci [Fordham] reflect on their roles as Democracy Coaches and educators.

April Snape

I wrote the blog below after my first semester facilitating Action Civics in order to educate young New Yorkers to find their civic voice. Not only did my students have the privilege of creating a new narrative through this program, but I am also fortunate because I have gained the confidence to stand up for what I believe in, too. This confidence has not only helped me in GC, but it has also helped me in school, work and in other areas of my life. Before Generation Citizen, I lacked the ability to speak up on issues that mattered to me in fear of being ridiculed. In addition to my lack of confidence, I also did not have a framework to navigate or explore issues further. Generation Citizen has become a vital factor in my development as a multi faceted leader. Not only has GC prepared me to step into the role of a Chapter Director where I am responsible for managing a Chapter of X volunteers,but GChas also prepared me to step into the role of being a member of GC’s Associate Board. Without Generation Citizen, I am unsure of where I would stand, and what I would fall for. Young women have been struggling to find their political voice because of sexist ideologies that are still prevalent in our society. It’s extremely important to me to be an example to the young women that partake in GC. Beforehand, I was not equipped to take on this leadership position, but being in GC pushed and prepared me to do so.

Serving as a Generation Citizen Democracy Coach, from the Hunter College Chapter, in the fall of 2017 gave me the platform and voice to not only help students learn the importance of being civically engaged, but to aid them in becoming college-ready. Although I was a very bright and promising student, my high-school to college transition was extremely challenging. In my students, I saw a direct reflection of who I was just 4 years ago, as a high school senior.

Like myself, many of them are amongst the first in their families to consider a higher education and I wanted to ensure that their transition was easier and that they had more information than I did.

By exposing Generation Citizen program participants from Bronx School for Law, Government and Justice to my former school, Howard University, I wanted them to know that college is within their reach and that I am a testament that you can make it there and beyond regardless of your family history. At Howard, I teamed up with my former classmate to compose a panel where current students at the University explained the challenges that they encountered during their high school to college transition and at Howard. I also scheduled one-on-one meetings with an admissions counselor to talk about their application.

By bridging this gap, I helped my GC students to redefine the status quo all while learning how to be civically engaged. Thankfully, Generation Citizen gave me the platform to help build a new narrative.

Not only did my students have the privilege of creating a new narrative through this program but I was also fortunate because I gained the confidence to always stand up for what I believe in. This confidence has not only helped me in GC but has helped me in school, work and in other areas of my life. Before Generation Citizen, I lacked the ability to speak up on issues that mattered to me in fear of being ridiculed. In addition to my lack of assertion I also did not have a framework to navigate or explore my issues further. Generation Citizen has become a vital part in my development as a multi faceted leader. Not only have they prepared me to step into the role of a Chapter Director but they have also prepared me to step into the role of being a member of GC’s Associate board. Without Generation Citizen, I am still unsure of where I would stand, and what I would fall for. Young women have been struggling to find their political voice because of sexist ideologies that are still prevalent in our society. It’s extremely important to me to be an example to the young women that partake in GC. Beforehand, I was not equipped to take on a leadership position, but being in GC pushed me to do so.

I want people to know that being a Democracy Coach is so much more than teaching a lesson, it’s about actively changing the atmosphere of each school that you walk into. I never want any student that I encounter to have doubts about their abilities to apply, attend and succeed in a college environment. I also want students to know that being civically and politically engaged is not as frightening as people make it seem. Thankfully, Generation Citizen gave me the opportunity to convey these message.

Kat Martucci

Four years ago, I joined Generation Citizen because I was interested in civics and leadership. Today, I’m still a Democracy Coach because of the ever-increasing necessity of youth engagement in politics. More importantly, I have learned that the core of Generation Citizen is community. It is the community that I have become a part of that sustains the energy and passion I bring every day to the classroom.

Through building relationships with high school students in the community, I learn what they care about the most and which community issues need the government’s attention. Originally, I was focused on developing a unique project, accomplishing our action goals, and impressing judges at Civics Day. Over time, my priority as a Democracy Coach has shifted. While Civics Day is still important, I take the most pride in helping my students; discover which issues matter to them, learn how politics affect their lives, and believe in their agency to make change through strategic civic engagement. The most memorable moments have been when students speak up and share their stories with the confidence that they have the power and tools to make a difference.

Above all, Generation Citizen has taught me to be community-centered in all that I do. After graduation, I plan to continue engaging with my community, wherever that may be. Generation Citizen has taught me that in any form of public service, whether education or policy work, the most important aspect is to ask, listen, and amplify the voices in my community, so that together we can make change.

A Revisionist History For Nonlinear Thinkers

by Max Moinian

April 22, 2019

This article was orignially published May 31,2018 in our Urban Planning issue.

Moinian is an urban planner from New York, researching climate change and urban design. This work is adapted from the Future Earth Catalog, a project done for her master’s thesis at MIT.

Earlier this year I wondered how the ozone layer was doing. I remembered being terrified as a kid and constantly drenched in sunblock. “This is a completely different Earth you are growing up in,” my mom would say. And she was totally right.

Climate change is the environmental narrative of our time. It occupies the same anxiety as nuclear warfare, the population bomb, and the ozone hole. It ebbs and flows from popular consciousness with big events like the Kyoto Protocol or COP21, and with extreme weather events like hurricanes, droughts, and fires.

The problem is the ebb and flow - where does a story start and where does it end?

We hold onto shocks delivered through sensationalist media but we cannot possibly grasp stressors - the slow warming of temperature, melting of glaciers and rise of the sea. When Trump tweets “this very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps, and our GW scientists are stuck in ice” he reveals a common misconception.

He confuses weather (a shock) with climate (a stressor): a cold day with global warming.

But weather that we can see and feel is not climate. Climate is the history of weather. It exists on an expanded timescale and involves incremental change that cannot be perceived firsthand. Climate is always mediated, and it’s pattern is irregular. Dr. John Holdren says we should call it “global climate disruption” rather than “global warming,” a misleading term which suggests that the phenomenon is uniform around the world, all about temperature, and gradual.

Climate’s official story is mostly told through data by scientists, journalists, and politicians. We listen without realizing we can be storytellers ourselves. Rebecca Solnit wrote about the power of the stories we tell in her book, Hope in the Dark. “Stories trap us, stories free us, we live and die by stories.” In the helplessness of climate change, I found agency in challenging the narratives I consume. I can reflect on many stories to tell my own.

Our ability to measure and understand the past seems to be directly proportional to our imaginative capacity for the future. It is hard to be hopeful when you are told to see the world as parts-per-million of CO2. This is a really big problem. Not only are we hyperaware of our past, but we can measure our individual impacts on the future — through efforts to make the world a better place, but also through carbon footprint calculators.

We might need to ‘unlearn’ some of these climate change communication and education logics (individual consumption as parts-per-million of CO2) in order to imagine a different future. Like a process of ‘unlearning’ candy as an adult, because the ingredients are ‘bad for you,’ the current narrative of climate may be bad for our society: an ingredient list full of toxic fear, individual responsibility, and irreversible loss.

Back to my mom, who used to give kids clementines on Halloween. Although I resented her for it, I take much wisdom from it now: we might not have the future that we wanted, but we can have something different that is just as sweet.

As you click through the timeline, choose your own adventure. There is no answer, no ‘aha!’ moment, only fragments I am suggesting to be part of our cultural construction of climate. In a quest for knowledge we struggle to accept that there might not be any to find. Uncertainty is a theme here: the uncertainty of climate models, 1-in-100 year storms, how we got here, and where we are headed. But the uncertainty of our future Earth means it is somewhat up to us. This is where Solnit finds hope: “the future is dark, with a darkness as much of the womb as of the grave.”

Albert Einstein said that imagination is more important than knowledge. We have always relied on it to explain uncertainty. To bridge the gap between what we observe and what we cannot understand, through myth, fiction, and fantasy. Our cultural construction of climate is a perception that has as much to do with science fiction as the science we call fact.

Fantasies of utopia or apocalyptic doom are powerful narratives. They indulge our senses and give license to world, a verb philosopher Martin Heidegger uses to describe the continuous process of world-building, perception-shifting, and responsiveness to our own realities. To world new worlds in the time of climate change is to break the barriers of our own capacities, whether these barriers be real or perceived.

In Space Colonies, Fabian Reimann writes, “heroism is successful foolishness; and is space travel anything but government-funded foolishness?” Space exploration, in fiction and not-fiction, is hope. We stuck our flag on the moon ten years after Kennedy declared the space race. What can’t we do?

By the way, the hole in the ozone is still there, it’s just growing slower.

A revisionist history for linear thinkers who prefer not to go down cycles and spirals of internet holes uncovering stories and events, and always working backwards. Grounded in the present, rooted in the past, and ready for lift off.

Climate Politics In America

by Michael Green

February 27, 2019

Michael Green leads Climate XChange. He’s served as a representative to the United Nations focusing on international climate science and policy since 2012. He was recognized as a Champion of Change by President Obama in 2016 for his focus on climate change as an equity issue.

There has always been a rift between the understanding of climate and energy policy and security in American politics. On the one side, policies are being introduced to guarantee that future fossil fuel needs and energy demand are met by American provided solutions. It focuses on developing our national resources and ensuring security through energy independence. On the other hand, are those who believe that the future security threats of global climate change create the need for a dramatic economic switch towards clean renewable energy through the further development of clean tech and innovation. The themes of energy reliability, security, and economic progress are championed by both sides, yet the reality of the divide between the two visions could not be greater.

On June 1, 2017, President Donald Trump announced that the United States would begin the process of pulling out from the Paris Agreement. Many feared that the international climate treaty’s days would be numbered under the current administration and when the President made the announcement that he wanted to represent “Pittsburgh not Paris”, it became all too clear that the administration would keep to their campaign promise of promoting a ‘new’ energy vision for the country. The decision not only had major ramifications for the United States as it furthered the political divide within the country, but also for global policy, as the administration’s exit from the Paris Agreement left a perceptible gap in global climate leadership.

Since the announcement, federal policy has been dominated by a series of subsequent energy policy and pollution standards rollbacks, all of which prioritize deregulation and short term fossil fuel gain rather than demonstrate a clear understanding of the direction the planet is heading. Over the past two years, policies such as the Clean Power Plan, which were set to reduce carbon pollution by 30% from the electricity sector by 2030, have not seen the light of day. The federal agencies tasked with promulgating and enforcing such policies have shown no interest or direction to see them progress. During this time we have also seen industries related to renewable energy and energy efficiency slow in pace. The administration believes that they will be able to bring back jobs in industries such as coal however during the last two years, we have seen close to no indication that those jobs are coming back.

Almost 20% of the existing coal plants in the country have closed their doors in the past five years, and there are currently no plans to build any new facilities in the country. One of the key drivers in this decline has been the economics of such an investment. Coal fired power plants can take upwards of 50 years to become profitable. At the same time technological development has done little to shorten this timeline, while progress in the R&D of distributed energy systems have cut costs in half, making them more profitable on a much shorter timeline, and therefore a safer investment.

The Republican party has struggled to articulate a clear vision of the american energy future and how they will meet the demands of a growing nation. They seem to be adamantly set on pushing back against, and undoing much of the policy work by the previous administration, without offering a viable or logical alternative. Unfortunately the anti-Obama sentiment is what seems to fuel these choices. They are taking away smart policies because of who put them in place, and not necessarily because what they set out to accomplish.

It was not until the Green New Deal (GND) started grabbing national headlines, and the most recent congressional hearings on climate change, that there has been any sign of interest in charting a new pathway forward from elected leaders in Washington. The Green New Deal has been heralded as ambitious and reflective of the urgency we currently face. The deal has also been the target of strong criticism from the political right and pundits who have branded it as a socialist ploy, and dramatizing cherry-picked talking points from the broad and far reaching policy. While a split down party lines on climate change and policy solutions is nothing new, the debate around the GND has been much more personal and nasty than any climate or energy debate in the past.

As outlined in the popular New York Times piece, Losing Earth, the politicization and partisan divide on climate policy has been going on for almost thirty years. The reasons behind this change and the wider divide on the issue are vast, among them are the current administration, the rise of young political leaders, and their threatening popularity.

Only a few months prior to the Green New Deal making headlines, there was a bipartisan supported climate bill that was making its rounds in Washington D.C., The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act. Unfortunately, the bill did not garnish nearly as much attention and was unable to capture the news cycle as the GND has been able to. The bill was introduced by a small team of Democrats and Republicans and aimed to put a price on carbon pollution, a policy approach to reducing greenhouse gases, one that has broad support among economists, business leaders, and activists alike. A fee on carbon emissions is a way in which policy can serve to incentivise the move towards a low-carbon economy, without imposing regulation, therefore allowing consumers and industry to make the transition in their own terms. It can also raise vital revenue, that can be used in different ways. Where the bill begins to lose its appeal however, is in its plan to rebate the raised revenue from back to households equitably. A carbon rebate has long been studied and championed as a way to get the a carbon tax away from being perceived as well, a tax. While this may be a smart policy wonk fix, it fails to acknowledge two key points in engaging the larger public in the political process and gaining their attention and support.

First, the left puts too much weight on the idea that conservatives are inherently anti-tax. It is not that they don’t want to see public services provided, and many would acknowledge that these things need to be paid for through government spending. Their skepticism is rooted in a distrust of government more generally, and the ways in which money is spent. When told that all the money is going to be rebated, the first thing that crosses a skeptics brain is, “no it wont. Due to a complexity of historic and very real precedents set, people have lost their trust in our government.

Second, when polled on the issue, a majority of people want to see the money spent on programs that further advance the goals of building a clean energy economy. An approach that would use revenue from a carbon fee could also invest that revenue to create more jobs, fund energy efficiency programs, advance clean transportation access, and restore our natural habitat to further protect us from the impacts of climate change.

The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act came up short because it failed to aspire towards a vision of the future in the way the Green New Deal does. While it might seem that a carbon fee at the federal level is at an impasse, it does not have to be. There is a world in which a price on carbon emissions and the GND can work together to garner true bipartisan support and a feasible way forward. The Green New Deal sets forth a vision for the country where we regain our footing as a global leader, and sets the pace for a national mobilization that would rival that of World War II. From providing meaningful employment in low carbon sectors of the economy, transitioning our energy needs to 100% renewable, reimagining our transportation system and shifting our food systems, the resolution reads like a list of policies previously only imagined in climate policy textbooks. While it covers a wide range of pollution reduction strategies, the framework to fund such ambitious projects is noticeably absent. A Green New Deal for Energy and Innovation would be able to overcome that hurtle.

It fits ever so clearly into the psychic of what has made the Trump administration popular in the middle of the country. By bringing the two bills together we would be building a clean energy economy and have the polluters responsible for causing the problem pay for it. This would strengthen our country, create millions of jobs, and reinstate our leadership globally as a champion on climate action.

While a split political system and constant bickering around policy may be good for the endless cycle of breaking news, it is not what most Americans want. It has done little to support the kind of economic growth and innovation we should be striving for, has provided little certainty to the role we hope to play in the global community, and failed to address the vulnerabilities of communities already facing climate change impacts. Political leaders need to break down their entrenched camps and begin to find solutions where they can work together. Having the Green New Deal provide the vision, and the Energy Innovation Act provide a bipartisan framework, we could bring a larger segment of the american public along in the conversation. The global scientific community believes that we have 12 years left to take dramatic action. We need the creative and brave to step up to the challenge and provide action and meaningful leadership in these challenging and uncertain times.

frank news is dedicated to storytelling across all mediums. A space for debate, discussion, and connection between experts and a curious readership. Topics are presented monthly with content delivered daily.

Founders

Newsletter

Issues

Categories