Sustainability. It’s one of the latest buzzwords being thrown around by political leaders in campaigns, activists pushing for a brighter tomorrow, and occasionally, the upset resident at a city council meeting. 

But what does it actually mean for those working in local government? Why is it so controversial: tree-hugger idiocy to those on the right, yet a nonnegotiable to those on the left? How does this ever-growing concept fit into a finite budget already funding the most basic of city/county services, such as police, fire, and transportation?

These are the questions local government officials nationwide are asking themselves or soon will be. After a deep dive into what academics are concluding on the matter and a series of in-depth interviews with city officials and business executives, it becomes abundantly clear that sustainability isn’t going away as a local government matter. However, there are specific strategies that local government officials interested in implementing sustainability programs can use to make them less political and more appealing to elected officials and the public, regardless of political identity.

Why Is Sustainability so Controversial?

The most accepted definition of sustainability —“meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (United Nations Brundtland Commission, 1987)—is not inherently political or controversial. Arguably, all people are interested in protecting and improving the future. Nevertheless, the term “sustainability” has become strongly associated with liberal politics and, therefore, opposed by conservatives. 

In our current polarized political landscape, this means that policy discussions labeled as “sustainable” immediately become acrimonious and disliked based on the association of this term with a liberal political agenda. While there is research supporting that most Americans are not that divided when it comes to shared values, most Americans value partisan identity more than policy preferences. As such, sustainability policies often fall victim to political polarization and fail to get enacted.

Sustainability Is Multidimensional at the Local Level

Sustainability issues are inherently multifaceted, often requiring simultaneous consideration of environmental, economic, and social factors. At the local level, the dynamics of sustainability issues and initiatives often manifest across municipal departments and budgets. For example, a city or county converting to an electric vehicle fleet from a gas-powered one has implications for air quality, infrastructure, and long-term cost savings. 

Likewise, local tree and shade plans affect a local government’s water usage, resident equity, and heat islands. It is imperative that local government officials understand how to move sustainability policies forward in a way that limits political controversy so that appropriate measures can be taken to reduce the impact of related issues.

Navigating the Political Minefield

Supporting or implementing sustainability policies and programs by city/county officials requires objective data from well-respected sources, especially regarding ways of explaining the vaunted “return on investment.” This helps prevent such initiatives from being associated with a particular political agenda alone. It is especially important for local government officials to use local data, when possible, since national and global data may not resonate well with local residents.

While it may seem obvious that facts and data can minimize polarization, facts have become negotiable and politicized in today’s political climate. As such, local government officials need to employ a variety of strategies to reduce polarization and political stalemates on sustainability programs of importance to community well-being, such as public transit, air quality, energy affordability, heat island effects, and many more. Based on extensive research with practitioners, the following strategies are recommended:

1. Emphasize potential cost savings and other co-benefits of sustainability initiatives.

In many cases, sustainability initiatives can boil down to simply promoting greater efficiency and being smart business decisions. For example, policy objectives that encourage renewable energy can be also discussed in terms of their economic development benefit and operational savings. This can encourage those who oppose sustainability based on environmental or social benefits to support the policy anyway.

2. Engage the public.

If the public advocates for sustainability actions, elected officials—who most always want to court favor with voters—may ultimately champion them. As such, local government officials may need to bolster their communication efforts to fully explain the benefits of a proposed or enacted sustainability initiative to garner public support.

3. Use politically neutral language.

To prevent sustainability programs from being pigeonholed in one political identity, sustainability issues and initiatives should be framed and discussed in a politically neutral way. For example, “resilience” may be used in place of “sustainability” to appeal to a more politically diverse audience and prevent them from tuning out. Local government officials should thus be strategic in the terms they use to describe sustainability initiatives.

4. Encourage everyone to champion sustainability.

Because sustainability is, ultimately, about ensuring a better future, all city and county departments should consider embedding sustainability into their mission. Even if there is a dedicated office of sustainability, policies and initiatives should not be structured in ways that burden other departments existing work. Rather, they should be crafted with a holistic approach, complementing the ongoing efforts already underway with the help of other departments.

5. Build Bipartisan Relationships.

Sustainability at the local level requires cooperation across departments, budgets, and political identities. To achieve this cooperation, trust is key. Local government officials should look to build trusting relationships with coworkers across the aisle so that there is more potential for objective conversations regarding sustainability. When individuals in government only have relationships with those on the same side of the political aisle, groups become further polarized and the likelihood of sustainability solutions being implemented is substantially reduced.

This is by no means an exhaustive list of strategies to help overcome the political polarization that typically accompanies potential sustainability policies and programs. However, the strategies mentioned can aid in getting important sustainability initiatives implemented, despite political connotations associated with sustainability in today’s divisive political arena.

RILEY BARLETT is a former research aide at Arizona State University and is currently participating in NASA’s DEVELOP program.

Coauthors: Rob Melnick of Arizona State University and Braden Kay of the California Governor’s Office.