Speaking before colleagues on June 9, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl
criticized an ambitious bill that would create carbon-emissions limits,
an “Efficient Buildings Grant Program” and a cap-and-trade system for
polluters. Rather than lauding the measure for its lofty goals, Kyl
called it a backdoor tax increase.

“At a time when the Senate should be looking at ways to reduce
rising energy prices,” he said, “it is considering legislation that
would do the exact opposite.”

Kyl then spoke in favor of opening more federal lands for oil
drilling to “address the rising cost of energy that is straining
Americans’ budgets.”

Then there’s Arizona Sen. John McCain, a rare Republican to actually
acknowledge global warming—he even introduced his own
cap-and-trade bill in January 2007 before largely downplaying the
threat during his recent presidential bid.

By April 2009, McCain was even criticizing President Barack Obama’s
strategy to fight global warming as “beyond irresponsible” in a
sluggish economy, and referring to current cap-and-trade proposals as a
“giant government slush fund.”

Two months after Sen. Kyl’s withering speech, and with Sen. McCain’s
blistering remarks still in the air, the Pima County Board of
Supervisors passed a resolution urging Congress to move on
global-warming legislation. And on Sept. 22, the Tucson City Council
passed a “memorial” requesting Congress to pass legislation aimed at
reversing global warming.

According to experts, this ideological chasm clearly reveals why
nearly all true progress on climate change begins at home. They also
suggest that local efforts are having an impact, regardless of
stances staked out by Beltway politicians.

“The way that local governments have been able to influence and
drive the dialogue has been in their symbolic and real actions,” says
Annie Strickler, a spokeswoman for ICLEI—Local Governments for
Sustainability, based in Boston. “Signing the U.S. Conference of Mayors
Climate Protection Agreement (Tucson Mayor Bob Wallkup is a signatory),
joining ICLEI (and/or) passing these resolutions locally—either
in support of particular legislation or actions—are extremely
important.

“Part of that is because, for the last 20 years, the federal
government has not been moving on any sort of federal climate or energy
policy,” Strickler says. “In that void, local governments have really
stepped up to the plate.”

Such efforts are meant to send a message, says Richard Elías,
who, as chair of the Pima County Board of Supervisors, introduced the
recent resolution. His goal was “to influence the legislation that’s
before Congress and continues to be before the Senate,” he says.

In April, Southern Arizona Congressman Raúl Grijalva
introduced the Climate Change Safeguards for Natural Resources
Conservation Act, meant to provide protections for natural resources
and wildlife. In the Senate, meanwhile, there are no fewer than six
committees currently fashioning climate-change legislation. Whether
anything will move to the Senate floor remains to be seen.

Meanwhile, Elías and other local leaders watch the
Washington, D.C., snail’s race with dismay. “It’s somewhat
frustrating,” he says. “But I think that a lot of great ideas in
government come from local jurisdictions. Social Security was a program
in a small county in Kansas before the (Franklin D. Roosevelt)
administration took it and made it one of the banner programs for the
United States of America.”

Elías also insists that local climate-change efforts go far
beyond mere proclamations. For instance, he cites Pima County’s
recently passed sustainability initiative, which, among other things,
emphasizes green-building practices, equipping the county with
fuel-efficient vehicles and reducing water consumption at all county
facilities. In turn, signing that August resolution “was meant to back
up our own actions,” says Elías.

Similar sentiments are found at City Hall, where Ward 2 Councilman
Rodney Glassman points to municipal programs encouraging more public
transportation, and an extensive rainwater-harvesting program which he
hopes will reduce the high-energy pumping of Central Arizona Project
water to Tucson. Glassman calls these efforts a win-win.

“It’s like chicken soup, in that it can’t hurt,” he says. “It
provides just another demonstration of the commitment by Tucsonans to
this issue.”

Not coincidentally, Glassman has formed an exploratory committee for
a possible U.S. Senate bid—a move he says is largely driven by
the inaction of McCain and Kyl on this issue.

Kyl’s office didn’t return a phone call seeking comment. However,
McCain spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan says that, rather than seeking
gridlock, McCain is just waiting for legislation he can support, such
as a measure that includes nuclear power. “The senator’s not going to
support something just to get it done. He wants to make sure it’s done
right.”

Still, over in Ward 5, outgoing Councilman Steve Leal concedes that
a different dynamic drives debate in D.C., often drowning out local
voices. “The fact is,” he says, “that money and lobbying interests have
more power in Washington than we do.”

As that power continues to stifle national discourse, state and
local jurisdictions continue picking up the slack, says Patrick Hogan,
a regional policy coordinator for the Pew Center on Global Climate
Change, based in Arlington, Va. “At the end of the day,” he says, “all
politics are local.”

To Hogan, those hometown politics are one of many forces pushing
Congress to act. “Other pressure comes from the international
community, and the increasing certainty of science surrounding climate
change, and threats of drastic action by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.”

Still, he admits that the gap between Capitol Hill and the folks
back home can seem vast.

“Sometimes, we’re surprised to find that members of Congress aren’t
really aware of what their own states are doing. I think there is
sometimes a disconnect going both ways, in which the desire for action
at home doesn’t real translate through to action in Congress.”

That leaves state and local governments in a crucial position, says
Strickler of ICLEI. “Local governments have proven that when Washington
fails to act, they can act. They can prove the benefits; they can find
the solution; they can really make things work in their community and
in communities across the country.”

This article appears in Nov 12-18, 2009.