Crowfoot: California is ‘putting nature back at the center of the agenda’
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA — In a windowed waterfront room at the Monterey Plaza Hotel, Secretary Wade Crowfoot walked past the official press conference backdrop and instead took a seat at the center of the table. He looked out at the sparkling waves of Monterey Bay and flashed a million dollar smile: "Boy, I wish every press conference was in a room like this.”
In attendance at the inaugural Sea Otter Summit, Crowfoot spoke candidly and directly about his work as head of the California Natural Resources Agency (“really our state’s approach to an ‘Outdoor' office”). Far more of a candid conversation than a formulaic “I talk, you listen” political press event, Crowfoot leaned in on numerous outdoor sector efforts, from the challenges of stewardship to ground level engagement tactics like making State park passes available for checkout from public libraries as well as creating a sustained funding mechanism for California parks through sales of a Los Angeles Rams affinity license plate.
He also spoke at length about his department’s top priorities, which include expanding equitable access to the outdoors and preserving the state’s iconic biodiversity — as well as focusing on nature as a key weapon in the war against climate change.
“It’s easy to be overwhelmed by the challenges we're all facing from climate change, but the way to be optimistic … or maybe energized is a better word … is to take action,” said Crowfoot.
And man, does he have a lot of action going on.
Boosted by one-time federal funding as well as unprecedented allocations from the state itself, Crowfoot is overseeing a $21b departmental budget which includes a robust commitment to "30 by 30” goals — the international movement to conserve 30% of public lands by 2030. He’s also a key player in leading Californias’ unprecedented three-year allocation of $15 billion in climate change initiatives, which includes building wildfire and forest resilience ($1.5b), supporting immediate drought response and long-term water resilience ($5.2b), and directly protecting communities across the state from multi-faceted climate risks, including extreme heat and sea level rise ($3.7b).
For some (like me) from far, far smaller states, hearing “billions” multiple times in the same budget conversation can be unintentionally overwhelming. There’s a weird combo of FOMO and imposter syndrome that results, which can lead to subconsciously downplaying what certainly seems like some historic commitments (i.e., “of course it’s a huge budget, it’s a huge state”).
Economically and culturally speaking, California holds an iconic and complicated role. In addition to being the world’s fifth largest economy (ahead of the UK and India), it’s also a thought leader and that perfect place you dream about, while simultaneously being a bit of a hot mess. What you see in California largely depends on where you look … on the same drive, down the same road, it’s easy to be struck by staggering beauty and remarkable opportunity just steps away from tragedy and struggle. That doesn't make it a bad place. Not at all. It makes it more real, more legitimate, more worth the time to think it through.
The importance of California’s $15 billion commitment to battling climate change isn’t to sit back and air clap and be duly impressed by the size of it all, or to dismiss it because it’s too big and somehow not relevant, it’s to use it as context -- and inspiration -- in how we all choose our own next moves.
The first step though (hat tip: Berejka) is to cut the numbers down. Too many zeroes. Divide the investments by a basic stat that can be compared to other states.
For instance, if you divide California’s $15 billion climate change commitment by household, it works out to be $1,157. If you split it by square mile, it’s $91,634. And if you divide it the carbon footprint of the state – each metric ton of CO2 – it’s $42.
Based on the same household calculation in other leading outdoor states, an equivalent investment in Vermont would be $300 million, in North Carolina it’d be $4.5 billion, and over in Colorado, it’d be $2.4 billion.
Based on square miles, the numbers would shift to be $800 million in Vermont, $4.9 billion in North Carolina, and $9 billion in Colorado. And based on annual carbon footprint, it’d be $243 million in Vermont, $4.8 billion in North Carolina, and $3.7 billion in Colorado (If you want to see all the states and all the calculations, you can check the nerdy math in the open spreadsheet here, LINK).
At the same time, you can flip the scales to gain perspective on the volume of local initiatives – like Vermont Governor Phil Scott’s proposed $22 million investment into outdoor recreation. To translate Scott’s budget into a California-sized scale, you just split it up among the Green Mountain State’s 260,000 households ($85 bucks per HH) then multiply it by the California population — and it’d be a little over $1 billion. Not bad.
Of course, it’s not just the size of a budget. It’s how you use it. Both refreshingly surprising and painfully obvious, California and Crowfoot’s approach to the war on climate change is the idea of making significant investments in the natural environment, not just behavioral modifications in the asphalt world.
“Traditionally, people’s actions on climate change haven’t really included nature,” said Crowfoot. “We’re working to put nature back at the center of the agenda."
LINKS
Round Table Introduces New Climate Change Adaptation Strategy for California (April 14, 2022)
Governor Newsom Signs Climate Action Bills, Outlines Historic $15 Billion Package to Tackle the Climate Crisis and Protect Vulnerable Communities