EESI: Working with Congress and Federal Agencies

Author: Alan H. McGowan, Lecturer, Environmental Studies Program, New School in New York City.

This Q&A was originally published in the journal Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, here (open access through June 7, 2023)

EESI held a "Back to School: Catalyzing Climate Action in K-12 Schools" Congressional briefing on Capitol Hill on September 28, 2022. This was its first in-person briefing since the start of the pandemic. EESI President Daniel Bresette served as the moderator.

EESI will be celebrating its 40th anniversary in 2024. What has changed since then? How is Congress different?

I was in kindergarten in 1984, so I think it is fair to say that I was unaware of anything related to Congress. But from what I have read and learned from people who served in Congress in 1984—including our co-founder, former Rep. Dick Ottinger of New York, and my old boss, the late Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont—a lot has changed. The political landscape is different, of course, for a long list of demographic, economic, and cultural reasons.
For EESI, we must understand how Congress has changed—and accept the realities of these changes—in order to help meet the informational needs of the institution. For a start, a day in the life of a member of Congress is different. They spend less time together in committees and social settings, which means they know less about each other and their mutual interests. Friendships and respect are harder to cultivate, and that affects their willingness and ability to work together.
Second, the realities of campaign finance—including the rise to dominance of political action committees and super PACs—mean that it is really expensive to run for office and get reelected. Successful candidates for Congress have to be very good at fundraising. Days in 2023 have the same number of hours as in 1984, so if fundraising takes up more time, then something else—like the hard work of forging policy through compromise—has to give.
And lastly, political polarization makes it harder for members to work together on a bipartisan basis. Issues of environmental stewardship were not always so polarizing. A primary goal of a representative or senator is to stay in office, and they are increasingly focused on the portion of the electorate that holds their fates in its hands every primary season and does not always look favorably on efforts to work across the aisle.
But Congress is still capable of acting on climate. The Energy Act of 2020, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, and CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 all passed on a bipartisan basis. That is extremely heartening. For all the ways Congress has changed since 1984, and given all the demands on our representatives and senators, they can still get things done. And then we have the historic Inflation Reduction Act, which, to be clear, was not bipartisan. It required many months of painful negotiations between House and Senate Democrats to finally get over the finish line. So when I say I find Congress to be endlessly and endearingly fascinating and frustrating, I say it with a lot of fondness and respect for the institution.

EESI’s website includes a lot of information on the actions of federal programs. This is obviously not a simple question, but what do you think the public most needs to know about these programs?

Let me try to answer it from a few different perspectives. First, I think it is generally underappreciated how important state legislatures and regulatory bodies are in forming environmental, energy, and climate policies. And, relatedly, it can be confusing to figure out where federal responsibilities give way to states, and vice versa. In the context of the Paris Agreement, the U.S. commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50% by 2030 compared to 2005 levels is often thought of as a national target. It is, but in reality, of course, the United States is comprised of federal, state, and local levels of government. It all adds up, and without aggressive state and local climate goals, we would be a lot worse off.
Second, there are a lot of federal programs that can help states and communities. We get a lot of value as taxpayers when programs initiate cooperation between the federal government, states, nonprofits, and businesses. These relationships are important to communicate, but success stories often go untold. To try to fix that, we hosted a briefing series in 2022, Agencies in Action, to highlight impactful federal programs that deliver climate mitigation and adaptation benefits. We covered the Rural Energy Savings Program (RESP) and efforts by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to make clean energy more affordable in rural areas; energy efficiency programs underway at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) that are leveraged by states and private-sector partners; multi-agency cooperation to help communities adapt to climate impacts; and landscape-scale conservation initiatives that bring together public-sector and philanthropic partners.
Lastly, accessing many federal programs can be really difficult, which makes it harder for people in need to realize the full range of available benefits. Agencies have a responsibility to take every step possible to lower any hurdles that might prevent the public from making the most of their programs. This is especially important when programs are designed to serve communities that are underresourced or disproportionately and unfairly burdened by climate impacts. A program that is out of reach to its intended beneficiaries is simply not acceptable.