Interview with Agustin, a Climate Justice Organizer in his 30’s.

What brought you into climate work and the climate movement?

It’s hard to pinpoint one exact moment but I would say it began during my college years, where I immersed myself in initiatives like river cleanups and beach restoration while embracing the ethos of Leave No Trace. It was my passion for sports and outdoor activities, particularly climbing, that initially sparked my interest in conservation efforts. As I took on more leadership roles within various grassroots organizations, leading diverse projects and activities, I underwent a career shift. I committed all my time and energy to advocating and organizing for Climate Justice. A pivotal factor in this decision was witnessing how climate action can serve as a healing force for individuals dealing with trauma or mental health challenges. This made me realize the untapped potential that public engagement can have when you find effective ways for people to feel seen and feel part of a community.

How would you describe your approach to organizing and mobilizing young people on climate?

I like to follow a more traditional approach towards organizing that it’s built on meeting people where they are. I put a very heavy emphasis on relationship and trust building and really focus on active listening and understanding where the community is coming from, their needs and where they find themselves. Strategies and plans should always be tailor-made to the needs of the communities you work with and they should play an active role in shaping what that vision looks like.

Building leadership and building capacity with our networks and communities is an essential part of my theory of change towards organizing, since we want to make sure that people feel empowered and equipped to take further ownership of the work and that self-sufficiency is being built in local groups.

Do you see any differences in your approaches based on age? 

I would say so yes. I think that younger organizers (and myself when I was younger) tend to lean a lot more on either a) organizing digitally or b) putting a heavier emphasis on mobilization as a way to reach audiences. As I’ve gotten older I have stopped relying as much on mobilization as a way to reach people since it can really limit who you reach and how they perceive you. Most mobilization work, without a strong backbone of traditional organizing, can largely lead to only talking to our echo chamber and those who already agree with us.

Thinking back to before the pandemic, pre-March 2020 – what did you consider the most effective way to engage and mobilize young people on climate? 

I’d say it was a healthy mix of digital mobilization such as social media takeovers during protests and marches as well as national gatherings with the goal of organizational building and national strategy. Young people were driven to engage in tactics and opportunities that would allow them to make their voices heard in a wide reaching platform as well as being a part of the development of platforms, movements and frameworks that could drive change at the national level.

During the pandemic, what were the primary ways that your organizing and your job changed? 

There was certainly a strong and swift swing of the pendulum. In my organizing work, we had started making a slow transition at the end of 2019 towards putting more emphasis on capacity building and less on mobilization and I think the pandemic sort of fastened that transition by quite a bit. Given that my work largely relies on in-person interactions, there was an adjustment period to shift all our trainings, workshops and capacity building opportunities to the online space.

And do you feel that positively or negatively impacted your ability to achieve your goals? 

I think in the immediate aftermath it did have a positive impact in that our trainings and workshops were able to reach a lot more people. Suddenly we were able to reach and engage hundreds of people in multi-week trainings which you can never quite achieve in-person without incurring massive costs. The drawback is that this was short-lived as most people developed a bit of zoom fatigue and from 2020 to 2021 you started seeing retention go down significantly in any and all online capacity building activities.

How has the transition to online organizing impacted your confidence in the movement’s effectiveness?

I think you can certainly argue that the effectiveness in terms of mobilization and turnout has decreased but I wouldn’t go as far as to say it’s just because of a pivot towards online organizing or as an aftermath of the pandemic. I think you can definitely say that those are factors, but I also believe that it is part of the natural cycle of movement ecology that you would reach a tipping point in your mobilization potential. There is definitely a heavier emphasis on policy engagement and electoral work and perhaps a de-prioritization of mobilization based tactics at the moment, but I would not call that less effective. Rather, I’d say it is a strategic pivot and a shift in the movement’s theory of change.

Do you think it’s important to build a sense of collective efficacy or confidence among peers? How does that change with online organizing and activism?

I think it’s a critical step in all organizational and movement building work. Collective efficacy, ownership and accountability is an essential part of a healthy movement ecosystem. I think a heavier reliance on online (over offline) spaces can sometimes make that a bit trickier. An essential part of organizing and movement work is framing and celebrating wins, and the online space can sometimes make that feel a bit less personal or easier to tune out. Same goes for factors that influence group retention, such as well-being and collective care. A strong strong culture of collective care and well-being is imperative in order to prevent or mitigate burnout in membership and this can be particularly tricky in online spaces where things feel a bit less personal.

Do you see any parallels between the ways in which the U.S. govt has handled Covid and the way that it could address climate change?

Partially yes. I think what we saw is what a swift and comprehensive (albeit not sufficient or necessarily timely) response to an acute crisis can look like in the future. Rapid mobilization of resources and agencies, streamlining or bypassing unnecessarily burdensome bureaucracy and processes and clearly articulating to the public how they can play an active role in a moment of crisis are all indicators of what a response to the climate crisis could look like. My only concern is that the climate crisis is here and it’s chronic in nature and the government’s reaction to the pandemic was, in essence, a rapid response plan. The safeguards that will have to be put in place and maintained for the climate crisis will have to be far more structural and sustained.

Similarly, do you see any parallels between the ways in which the U.S. public has handled Covid and the way that it could address climate change?

I think at the early stages of the pandemic we saw a window of hope in solidarity and how people came together but I think it was very short lived and it eventually succumbed to polarization and tribalism. This is particularly problematic since, as I mentioned before, the impacts of climate change will be chronic and sustained and the need for solidarity will be even bigger. I think the U.S. public is also particularly susceptible to misinformation and disinformation and I am particularly concerned about the role of the public in addressing the immediate impacts of climate change in years to come. This is why it’s particularly important for us as organizers to make inroads with a wider range of stakeholders and audiences.

How do you feel about the Biden-Harris Administration’s approach to climate action, and any actions they’ve taken thus far?

If we are grading on a curve I’d say that the administration has exceeded expectations and proven to enact some of the most ambitious climate legislation as of yet. The main issue is that it falls way short of what the crisis calls for. The IRA has laid the foundation for U.S. government climate action but the administration has also taken steps to undermine it by continuing to approve new fossil fuel projects. Boosting renewable energy is not going to be nearly enough to meet our climate targets. The administration needs to stop approving fossil fuel projects and revoke permits for new projects.

How about Congress?

I am not very optimistic about the role of Congress. Without a supermajority in the Senate and given the republicans shift towards MAGA it’s hard to see a roadmap by which you can codify climate legislation. I think pursuing climate action through executive order remains the most likely path.

How do you generally feel about the state of the youth climate movement and our prospects for progress? Are we moving in the right direction?

There are plenty of reasons to feel optimistic. While some might interpret dwindling or scaled-back mobilizations as a sign of a movement losing steam, I don’t think that’s necessarily so. What truly counts is the evolution within these mobilizations and movements. I’ve noticed a notable pivot towards strategic campaigning and more nuanced advocacy. This shift makes me optimistic because it signifies a growing comprehension of the broader systemic dynamics at play.

One area where I believe we should pivot is our reliance on the online and digital space. Don’t get me wrong, digital outreach remains crucial, but there’s unparalleled value in in-person community engagement. It’s imperative to connect with our neighbors, understand their perspectives on pertinent issues, and create inroads to amplify our initiatives and campaigns. The digital realm risks confining us to echo chambers and relying solely on youth activism won’t suffice in reshaping the status quo. Intergenerational involvement and grassroots community efforts play pivotal roles in driving policy change. Remember, in order to win we don’t need everyone, but we do need enough people.