The Outpost Observer

The role of racial equity in establishing environmental justice

out·post, \ˈaut-ˌpōst\, noun: an outlying or frontier settlement

ob·serv·er, \əb-ˈzər-vər\, noun: a representative sent to observe but not participate in an activity

Thursday, April 9, 2020 

By John A. Ostenburg

From 2014 through 2019, I served first as co-chair and then as chair of the Environment Committee of the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus, an organization representing more than 270 municipalities in the greater Chicago region, including the City of Chicago. Simultaneous with that service, I was active in the Race, Equity, And Leadership (REAL) Council of the National League of Cities, a group of 19,000 communities around the U.S., and had the honor of serving as co-chair of that group during 2017-2018. As such, I was very pleased last fall to be invited to address some remarks on climate and racial equity at the Regional Planning Kickoff Meeting that was hosted by the MMC. The following is the text of those remarks.

REGIONAL CLIMATE PLANNING KICKOFF MEETING

Metropolitan Mayors Caucus Environment Committee

October 8, 2019

233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 800 (Cook County Room), Chicago

SUSTAINABILITY AND EQUITY

John A. Ostenburg

Senior Fellow

Metropolitan Planning Council

 

When Robert Frost wrote the words, “The worst that you can do / Is set me back a little more behind,” in his poem “A Servant to Servants,” he wasn’t thinking about environmental justice or racial equity. Yet the admonition is applicable nonetheless when we consider how today’s problems relating to climate change have a disparate effect on those who already are suffering most greatly from many of the problems that plague our society.

 

A century after Frost wrote his poem, we find that much of our nation’s non-White population struggles to succeed on an unlevel playing field – already “set back” as it were – and the impact climate change is having on that population indeed is further setting it back, even more than just “a little.”

 

Racial inequity means that persons of some races or ethnic groups don’t enjoy the same opportunity to achieve success as do those who are White. That’s what White privilege means: that it’s easier for Whites to succeed than it is for non-Whites. It’s easier for Whites to gain good and full employment, more affordable and better housing, more educational opportunities for their children, better health care for their families, and so much more.

 

But now that the world finally has awakened to the reality of climate change, we discover another arena which is inequitable toward non-Whites. As a 2009 study by the University California, Berkeley, concludes: “Climate change does not affect everyone equally, and it is people of color and the poor who will be hurt the most.” In the decade since that study identified The Climate Gap – which was the title of the study – the evidence of its authenticity has been proven over and again.

 

Perhaps that is why the NAACP in April 2019 issued a toolkit that it titled Our Communities, Our Power: Advancing Resistance and Resilience in Climate Change Adaptation. Created by the NAACP Environmental and Climate Justice Program, the 478-page document has the basic premise that “The root causes of the problems our communities face – like climate change, racism, and economic inequality – are all deeply connected.” But, the authors note, “Since the problems are connected, so are the solutions.”

The NAACP toolkit offers a great opportunity for local elected officials to take a look at their jurisdictional settings and analyze how the effects of environmental problems in their regions may be disproportionately impacting their non-White residents. Although designed primarily as tools for local activists, the directives offered in the toolkit have great potential for opening the eyes of elected officials who previously may never have made the connection between sustainability and racial equity.

 

The authors of the toolkit explain that “Research has documented the link between where people of color live and where hazardous waste facilities and coalfired plants are located – the institutional racism of land use policy, industrial zoning and siting, and housing policies.” Even for communities that do not have such facilities as the two listed, the essence of the statement should be a wake-up call to the reality that zoning, economic development programs, road and highway construction, etc., must be undertaken with a concerted commitment to assure no harm comes to those who reside in the neighborhoods where projects are coming to fruition. If they cannot give that assurance, leaders need to abandon the projects or see that they are undertaken in places where the potential for harm does not exist.

 

As Katherine T. Egland, chairperson for the NAACP National Board of Directors Environmental and Climate Justice Committee stated when the toolkit was released, “Our communities must transition from a situation where we are on the losing end of too many socio-economic equations because of systemic inequities.” She added, “Climate change impacts are already deepening the marginalization that our communities face, and more is on the horizon.”

 

Certainly many municipalities – in the Chicago region and elsewhere – have identified the need to put in place specific programs dealing with a variety of ecological problems, including climate change. In creating such programs, most of those municipalities have tied them together by a “sustainability” plan that receives official codification by the local municipal council. In doing so, though, the local officials need to give full consideration to the word “sustainability” and thus assure that the plans they approve indeed fulfill the responsibilities that the word implies. Who or what needs to be sustained?

 

In the final analysis, it is the individual human citizen the plans are intended to sustain. The sustainability of human life requires clean water to drink, non-polluted air to breathe, the oxygen that is provided by trees, etc. If, in developing zoning policies, local governments allow for plants to be sited where they will be pumping pollutants into the air or into local water sources that will negatively impact those who reside near those plants, they certainly are not living up to the commitment of their sustainability plans.

 

According to the Berkeley study that identified The Climate Gap, “Research demonstrates that sources of toxic pollution that contribute to poor health are often concentrated in neighborhoods with the highest populations of low-income families and people of color.” The authors of the study point out that “Policymakers have an opportunity to be efficient and effective stewards of taxpayer dollars by focusing on climate polluters disproportionately responsible for regional greenhouse gas emissions and creating toxic air in the most polluted neighborhoods.” They acknowledge that taking such action will have some negative consequences, “but the benefits of fairness and public health far outweigh the modest costs of extra complexity in the system.” 

 

However, if local elected officials want to assure that their efforts truly are tools for an equitable sustainability of human life, their need to combat climate change must reach into a number of other areas also. For example, their basic responsibility for lowering global warming is to diminish the carbon footprint for the jurisdiction which they oversee. While doing so will have positive benefits for the whole of their constituencies, because it subsequently will reduce the potential for extreme weather events that impact everyone, The Climate Gap study shows that it will be of extraordinary benefit for non-Whites. The study points out that an analysis of nine counties in California during the period of 1999 to 2003, showed that every 10-degree increase in the temperature resulted in a 2.6 percent increase in cardiovascular deaths, but that the increase for African Americans was higher, as much as twice as high for Los Angeles residents.

 

In large part, the reason more African Americans and other non-Whites suffer from such weather changes as extreme heat or extreme cold is because of the level of poverty is so much greater in those communities. According to the Henry K. Kaiser Family Foundation, for example, in 2017 only 8 percent of the White population in America was at the poverty level, while 20 percent of African Americans and 16 percent of Hispanics were in that category. The Climate Gap authors cite studies that show far less access to air conditioning and other temperature-modifying amenities among poorer non-Whites than among others. Regarding heat-related deaths, the study states that “Nationally, African Americans were found to have a 5.3 percent higher prevalence of heat-related mortality than Whites and 64 percent of this disparity is potentially attributable to disparities in the prevalence of central AC technologies.”

 

Among the many responsibilities of elected officials is the twofold one of assuring that all public policies promote a sustainable existence for all residents and guaranteeing that all public policies are racially equitable. Unfortunately, these are not obligations that fit within the traditional framework of municipal government. As such, leaders have the obligation of forcing into the mix true and genuine consideration of each of these topics in developing public policies. When developing budgets and other long-range planning, assuring a sustainable existence for every constituent must be one of the highest motivators in the decision-making process.

 

Organizations that represent municipal leaders have tackled both the problem of racial equity and climate change. The National League of Cities, for example, created its Race, Equity, And Leadership (REAL) program with the goal of making more municipal leaders aware of endemic conditions in their cities and towns that may contribute to racial inequity. The Chicago region’s Metropolitan Mayors Caucus took on a broad range of sustainability issues – including climate change – in creating its Greenest Region Compact, to which more than 100 municipalities in the greater Chicago area have become signatories. A host of similar programs exist on both topics. The time may be at hand, however, to assure that the two subjects are not viewed separately but as one. As stated in The Climate Gap,

 

The climate gap is an issue of human rights, public health, and basic fairness. But it’s more than that. If we protect those who are most vulnerable, we will effectively protect all of us…by choosing policies that shield against the very real dangers facing poor neighborhoods and people of color we will insure that climate policy will be effective for the nation as a whole.

 

Truly a lofty goal for any elected official. By joining efforts such as those of the National League of Cities and the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus, elected leaders take a giant step toward achievement of that goal. But it is not enough just to acknowledge that a problem exists: rather, elected officials have the obligation to take definitive steps toward solutions.

John A. Ostenburg retired in 2019 after 20 years as mayor of Park Forest, Illinois. He previously served in the Illinois House of Representatives, and before becoming mayor, served seven years as a member of the Park Forest municipal council. While mayor, he was an active member of the National League of Cities and served during 2017-18 as co-chair of the NLC Race, Equity And Leadership (REAL) Council. He was chair of the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus, a group of more than 270 Chicago-region municipalities, for 2018-19 and was a member of the MMC Executive Board for several years. He also was chair of the MMC Environment Committee for five years. He retired in July 2010 as the chief of staff for the Chicago Teachers Union after holding various CTU posts over a 15-year period. A former newspaper reporter and editor, he also has been a teacher and/or administrator at elementary, secondary, community college, and university levels. Presently he is a Senior fellow at the Chicago-based Metropolitan Planning Council. E-mail him at [email protected].

Economic development and environmental sustainability are friends, not enemies

out·post, \ˈaut-ˌpōst\, noun: an outlying or frontier settlement

ob·serv·er, \əb-ˈzər-vər\, noun: a representative sent to observe but not participate in an activity

Sunday, December 2, 2012 

By John A. Ostenburg

How much longer must we wait until our national leaders wake up to the reality that global warming and other environmental threats are not myths, and their negative impact on our cities and citizens is increasingly more than we can deal with as a nation?

By some estimates, Katrina cost the U.S. approximately $110 billion. In addition, approximately 400,000 jobs were lost across a seven-state region. Now the costs relating to Sandy conservatively are estimated to reach $71 billion at a minimum. Some areas of the Gulf region still have not caught up with production levels that were in place a decade ago, before the hurricane hit. Who can accurately predict how long it will be until the northeast not only repairs its infrastructure but actually catches up to the same employment levels, the same production levels, the same commercial levels that it experienced before that storm came ashore?

And that's just the economic impact. What sort of dollar amount ever could address the loss of life, the personal anguish, etc., suffered by residents of the devastated regions?

I’m aware, of course, that natural disasters have occurred numerous times over the last several centuries, and not all have been the result of global warming or other man-made causes. But scientists are fairly certain that the frequency of mega-storms over the last few years indeed is related to global warming. As Governor Andrew Cuomo said recently, New York “has a 100-year flood every two years now.” He continued, “Anyone who says there is not a change in weather patterns is denying reality. We have a new reality when it comes to these weather patterns.”

Recently I attended a meeting of the National League of CIties (NLC) Community & Economic Development Committee (CED), on which I serve, and I was somewhat taken aback when a committee member went to the microphone and cautioned that the work of another committee – the Energy, Environment, & Natural Resources Committee (EENR) – regarding hydraulic fracturing (fracking), could result in interference with efforts toward economic development in some cities. He suggested that the CED set as a goal to take steps assuring balance between environmental concerns and economic development.

I can appreciate the viewpoint that was expressed, and the person who made the comment has been a longtime leader within the NLC and has provided excellent leadership over the years. Yet, I'm troubled by the perspective that short-term benefits can outweigh the long-term effects of disregarding our natural environment.

Enough scientific suspicion exists regarding the side-effects of fracking, for example, that some nations have banned it outright. In the U.S., debate over its value vs. its potential negative effects continues; so many questions exist that both the United States Institute of Medicine and the United States Natural Research Council currently are engaged in studies of the procedure and its potential negative effects on ground water, air pollution, and the health of workers engaged in the fracking process.

A number of cities across the nation – mine included – rely on deep wells as the source for municipal water supplies. Should those water supplies become contaminated as a result of the fracking process, would that be beneficial for economic development? I think not. So, while I’m not closing the door on the potential value of fracking, I am saying that we should wait until studies are completed before we allow the practice to continue. Imagine what the benefits that such study beforehand could have meant to those who have suffered from asbestos contamination, or those who resided at Three-Mile Island, or those who have black-lung disease. Yes, jobs were created in all three regards, but at what cost?

Sustainability means that we take the beneficial things that are present to us now and we develop a way to assure that they continue to be beneficial into the future. Our cities are beneficial to us, the health of our citizens is beneficial to us, our natural resources are beneficial to us. Why should any of these be placed in jeopardy under the premise of economic growth, when that jeopardy itself – long-term – is the greatest threat to economic growth imaginable? Environmental caution isn’t a threat to economic development; it’s the means by which we can assure that economic development is sustainable.

Clearly, based on what highly regarded scientists have asserted, the increased devastation that's being caused by mega-storms is the result of climate change. Thus, equally clearly, climate change has set economic development back a legion of years. So, who would say it makes sense to put off dealing with environmental issues destined to cause major damage in the years ahead just to further economic growth now? Especially when the opportunity exists to make environmental sustainability a major tool for cultivating economic development.

My town of Park Forest recently adopted a comprehensive sustainability plan and I’m optimistic it will be one of the major tools in our economic development kit as we move forward. We plan to show businesses that potentially could locate in our community that we value energy-efficiency, that we want to isolate them from damages relating to flooding, that we are guarding our wells so that the water supply they depend on is not contaminated, that we believe giving their employees the opportunity to breathe clean air is an important quality-of-life benefit. I believe these are positive steps for both our businesses and our residents. 

So, the bottom line is this: let’s not make environmental sustainability and economic development into enemies when the far greater course is to make them friends. Whether it’s cutting down trees in rain-forests, emitting greenhouse gases, or engaging in fracking, the potential dangers and long-term effects are not conducive to economic development. In fact, they are quite the opposite.

The more governmental figures who get on board with this philosophy, the better our world will be.

John A. Ostenburg is in his fourth four-year term as mayor of Park Forest, Illinois, and formerly served in the Illinois House of Representatives. He retired in July 2010 as the chief of staff for the Chicago Teachers Union after holding various CTU posts over a 15-year period. A former newspaper reporter and editor, he also has been a teacher and/or administrator at elementary, secondary, community college, and university levels. E-mail him at [email protected].

Government's role in assuring we maintain a 'green' world

out·post, \ˈaut-ˌpōst\, noun: an outlying or frontier settlement

ob·serv·er, \əb-ˈzər-vər\, noun: a representative sent to observe but not participate in an activity

Saturday, September 24, 2011 

By John A. Ostenburg

“Going green” is a bit of a cliché these days. Nonetheless, what the phrase represents is as meaningful as ever. Indeed, it may be even more meaningful than ever before.

Our earth is abundant with natural resources and every one of them has been a major contributor to the wonderful quality of life enjoyed by so many. When natural resources dwindle or are altered, the results are famine, ill health, and overall deterioration of the human condition.

How ironic that man has taken many of the earth’s natural resources and restructured them into debilitating chemical combinations that have resulted in contamination of air, earth, and water. Those actions, in multiple cases, are the very causes for the land not to produce food, for the air to do harm to the lungs, and for water to spread disease.

Against this set of circumstances, how can it be anything short of a mandate for governmental leaders to fight pollution in all its forms and to promote sustainability within our natural environment.

Persons who are elected to positions of leadership within government have an obligation to look out for the common good. That’s true whether they be elected to federal, state, or local offices. Each individual has the responsibility for his or her own well-being, but the collective well-being is something entirely different. We pick leaders precisely with the intent of having them protect us from the harm that can be imposed on us by others. That’s why our military forces fight against tyrants who threaten our nation; that’s why our police officers guard us against murderers and thieves; and that’s why legislation is needed to outlaw environmental threats to our human condition.

Oliver Wendall Holmes Jr., an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1902 until 1932, once opined that “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.” That’s an admonition that all lawmakers always need to keep at the forefront of their minds. As a fiercely independent people, we Americans value the right of the individual to make decisions as regards his or her personal way of living. However, as members of a democratic community, we also recognize that each of us has an obligation to make sure his or her personal liberty doesn’t do harm to the fellow next door.

So, while “Going green” may well be a cliché, the obligation of governmental units to protect the natural resources that provide for the well-being of the citizenry cannot be viewed as a fad whose time has passed. Call it what you may, but government must develop ways to assure that our natural resources are sustained.

An effective governmental policy on sustainability must incorporate federal standards along with state and local dictums. Climate-change, for example, might best be addressed by federal legislation; guarding against air and water pollution from factories might best be handled by state officials; local leaders may be in the best position for fostering attitudinal changes among the populace through such efforts as curbside recycling, regulating lawn-chemical usage, promoting community gardening, etc. Bottom line: the gestalt of sustainability requires all governmental entities working in concert.

It’s somewhat troubling that the current attitude among so many lawmakers, whether in Washington, D.C., or in a number of state legislatures, is to insist that government should stay out of the business of environmental protection. A major reason they do so is the argument that government regulation interferes with the right of some persons to make a living. That’s the argument some lawmakers give in opposing U.S. adherence to international climate-control measures. It’s the argument some lawmakers give in opposing curtailment of off-shore oil-drilling. It’s the argument some lawmakers give in fighting regulation of air and water pollution by major corporations.

Yes, it’s true that regulations might affect the ability of the persons involved in these endeavors to earn a living by continuing them. But it’s also true that drug laws affect the ability of drug-dealers to make a living by practicing their trade. It’s also true that laws against bank-robbing affect the ability of those practicing that trade to earn more money. It’s also true that arresting “coyotes” who traffic in illegal immigration affects the ability of those individuals to earn through the work of their choice. All of those restrictions are in place, though, because the actions involved cause harm to the general welfare. That’s also the reason for governmental restrictions that protect our environment and natural resources.

In addition to enacting rules and regulations to protect the public from harm, however, government also must engage in programs that enhance good living conditions. Governmental actions to make it easier for individuals and businesses to maximize their uses of energy are in the best interest of everyone involved. Environmental research financed by tax dollars is akin to medical research financed in the same manner. Both are intended to improve the quality of life for citizens who might not be able to afford the improvements individually but certainly are better able to afford them when contributing collectively.

Lots of harmful things have been done to our environment over the years because of ignorance. Many of those who caused negative effects often did so with no harmful intent whatsoever. They thought their actions were contributing to improvements of society because they failed to see the harmful side-effects. Today’s research makes it obvious that those side-effects truly are present. No one in good conscience can claim ignorance to the harm that is being done to our environment by legions of pollutants.

The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States proclaims that one of the reasons behind the creation of that great document is to “promote the general Welfare,” and that’s exactly what is done by governmental regulation of pollutants and other elements harmful to our environment.

John A. Ostenburg is in his fourth four-year term as mayor of Park Forest, Illinois, and formerly served in the Illinois House of Representatives. He retired in July 2010 as the chief of staff for the Chicago Teachers Union after holding various CTU posts over a 15-year period. A former newspaper reporter and editor, he also has been a teacher and/or administrator at elementary, secondary, community college, and university levels. E-mail him at [email protected].

Viewing Theodore Roosevelt as our 'green' mentor

out·post, \ˈaut-ˌpōst\, noun: an outlying or frontier settlement

ob·serv·er, \əb-ˈzər-vər\, noun: a representative sent to observe but not participate in an activity

Saturday, September 11, 2010 

By John A. Ostenburg

President Theodore Roosevelt probably did more to create a culture of ecology in the United States than any other of our presidents. Yet, if he were alive today and undertaking some of his favorite pastimes, he'd be thought of as an environmental charlatan.

 

As Douglas Brinkley records in his wonderful biography, Wilderness Warrior: Theodore Roosevelt and the Crusade for America, TR -- incidentally, he hated being called "Teddy" -- is the reason why America today is blessed with so many wonderful national parks and forests.

 

Mr. Roosevelt was aggressive in working through the administrations of Benjamin Harrison, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, and especially his own, to set aside large segments of the American landscape so citizens of future generations might enjoy a little of that magnificent natural state that once was the American territory. Because of him, far fewer species of North American birds and animals have become extinct than otherwise would be the case. 

 

However, to the revisionist ecologist, TR must be viewed as little short of a great despoiler of wildlife. He was an ardent hunter and in his early days was fond of serving as his own taxidermist in preparing for exhibit birds and small animals that he killed. He hunted bison and bears and other animals that today are endangered; and he shot many exotic specimen of fowl that rarely are seen today.

 

Simultaneous with those actions, though, TR was highly critical of buffalo-hunters who slaughtered bison in order only to help the westward advancement of the railroad, leaving thousands of their bodies to rot on the prairie landscape; in fact, he wanted them imprisoned. Likewise, among his greatest enemies were the killers of beautiful birds whose feathers then would be used by milliners to create the latest salable fashion-ware.

 

So, was Theodore Roosevelt a great conservationist or not? Indeed, he was. Yet, he also was a man of his times, albeit a little ahead of most others when it came to elements of natural history. He hunted because that was what the men of his era did; yet he abhored what he viewed as the wasteful slaughter of animals. As much as for any other reason, he wanted to preserve some of America's wildlife so future hunters also could enjoy the thrill of tracking bison for the kill and the danger of pursuing both cougar and bear, but their meat would be used as food. Likewise, he wanted to provide carcasses of exotic birds and animals for naturalists to study and classify. But, in accomplishing all of that, he just happened to create a national system of reserves that has protected various forms of wildlife against arbitrary slaughter to this day.

 

It's not that Mr. Roosevelt was a contradiction. Rather, it's that man's view of things has evolved since his day and as such we see as evil now many things that were simply commonplace in times gone by. 

 

I use Theodore Roosevelt as an example because I think too many contemporary environmentalists are myopic in their criticism of citizens of the past for their failure to protect our environment from the damage that it has suffered over the last few hundred years. Truth is, the vast majority of our predecessors simply didn't recognize the danger incumbent with so many of their actions.

 

I was astonished, for example, when I recently read a passage from Henry Miller's Big Sur and the Oranges of Hieronymus Bosch, published in 1957, in which he stated "Even at the threshold of this new era, it has become evident to all that the resources of this planet are inexhaustible," adding that "I refer to physical resources." Now, I recognize that Mr. Miller was a master of satire and often spoke tongue-in-cheek, but this observation is one that is far from inaccurate as regards the attitudes even of many learned folks as recently as the late 1950s.

 

The lesson for us today, I believe, is to recognize that some of the attitudes about sustainability that we adhere to strenuously may be things that tomorrow's generations will see as misguided. But that's no reason why we shouldn't be trying to make things better nonetheless. We cannot abandon our commitment to improvement of our air, water, and good earth just because we might be traveling down paths that wiser persons of the future will recognize as too circuitous if not actually heading in the wrong direction. We must be TR-like in our determination to do all that solid scientific evidence and our good judgment may dictate to make our planet a better place on which to live.

 

One of the greatest annoyances for me personally is to hear someone say, "If it's not broken, don't fix it." It's been a too common position among many who oppose governmental action to preserve our natural resources. To me, such an attitude suggests that nothing ever is in need of fine-tuning and that corrective actions should be taken only after ruin has occurred.

 

When it comes to matters of ecology, we cannot wait until things are broken before we begin the fix. Should we wait until the streams are devoid of fish before cleaning them up? Should be wait until everyone must wear a gas-mask for a stroll outside before we clean up the air we breathe? Should we wait until our soil is so saturated with pesticides and other chemicals as to be incapable of producing food before we put in place laws to ban the use of such items?

 

So, just as did Theodore Roosevelt, we may in good conscience be doing some things today that will have to be altered or put to a halt in the future. However, if also like TR, we're on a course that takes at least two steps forward for every one we take back, I think future generations will be kinder to us than they would be otherwise.

 

After all, unless we make some efforts today for our planet's sustainability, there may not be future generations to pass judgment on us anyway.

 

John A. Ostenburg is mayor of Park Forest, Illinois, and formerly served in the Illinois House of Representatives. He recently retired as the chief of staff for the Chicago Teachers Union. E-mail him at [email protected].

Creating a personal environmental sustainability program

out·post, \ˈaut-ˌpōst\, noun: an outlying or frontier settlement

ob·serv·er, \əb-ˈzər-vər\, noun: a representative sent to observe but not participate in an activity

Friday, August 21, 2009 

By John A. Ostenburg

Environmental sustainability is the terminology applied to planned efforts to preserve natural resources with minimal dependence on synthetic products, especially those that emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The sustainability movement is focused on concerted efforts to slow down the earth's current warming process.

Global warming is an international concern and has caused leaders of various nations to come together to establish certain standards they hope will help preserve our planet as we have known it for centuries. Agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol have codified standards that some countries now are applying to the everyday activities of their citizens and to industrial/commercial endeavors within their borders.

Media attention on global warming -- especially that which resulted from the production of Al Gore's video lecture, An Inconvenient Truth, that won an Academy Award and positioned the former vice president subsequently to win the Nobel Prize -- has led to widespread concern within the general public. More and more Americans are looking to their federal, state, and local governments to take significant steps toward reversal of the current global warming trend.

While the administration of former President George W. Bush gave scant attention to environmental problems, the current administration of President Barack Obama seems headed in a different direction. Under the leadership of Secretary of Energy Dr. Steven Chu, himself a Nobel Prize winner, a program has been developed to promote energy savings by both governmental entities and individual citizens, which in turn will reduce the production of greenhouse gases. Much of the economic stimulus money allocated by Congress at the direction of the Obama administration, is earmarked for energy-saving projects that include both more and better research and also the creation of jobs in industries designed to promote environmental sustainability.

Municipalities also are becoming more involved in the sustainability effort. The Mayors Climate Protection Agreement and activities of such organizations as the National League of Cities are driving more and more local government leaders to develop sustainability plans for their cities and towns.

But individual citizens also can contribute to the environmental sustainability effort on their own. Each individual no doubt sincerely asks himself or herself the question, "What can I do?" without realizing that the combined effect of doing the same thing as numerous fellow citizens will be significant. Just stopping some daily actions -- those that contribute to environmental instability -- will have positive results; actually taking even small steps to reverse the way this currently are heading will be even more meaningful.

Recently I attended the first Green Cities Conference sponsored by the National League of Cities and was stirred by the comments of one of the speakers who was addressing the problem of plastics in landfills. He mentioned the number of plastic water bottles that are discarded every day and I suddenly got a rush of guilt feelings. At that time, on average, I was drinking about 10 bottles of water a week, either at home or at work. On the spot, I made a personal commitment not to drink bottled water again.

That was about four months ago, so I figure I now have eliminated about six and one-half cases of plastic bottles from landfills. If I live to be 70, that's a little more than 3,000 plastic bottles that I alone will keep out of the waste-stream. Those figures make me realize that indeed, one individual can make a difference.

So here are a few things that I think every individual can do as part of a personal environmental sustainability plan.

• Stop drinking bottled water, which -- incidentally -- is not as pure as your average tap water.
• Set one day each week on which you won't drive your automobile.
• Take canvas bags with you when you shop, rather than carrying home your goods in plastic bags.
• Run your dishwasher in the evening at a time when overall electric consumption is lower.
• Get a rain-barrel to use at your home as a means of watering plants in a more natural way.
• Buy produce that is locally grown and thus does not need to be transported across the country by fuel-guzzling vehicles.
• Use public transportation as much as possible.
• Walk more; it not only promotes environmental sustainability, but also human sustainability.
• Take plastic covers received with dry cleaning, tie the bottoms, and use them as garbage bags.
• Recycle, recycle, recycle.

These are just 10 steps that any individual can take to help preserve our plant. None is dramatic. None requires any great amount of sacrifice. But all will help to keep our planet green.

Meanwhile, encourage your local leaders to create sustainability programs for your city or town. In my community of Park Forest, we're doing that right now. The elected officials, the professional staff, and volunteer community members are joining efforts in establishing a program that hopefully will have long-term positive effects for the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the good earth on which we live. The more communities that do the same, the better chance we have of passing on to our children and grandchildren an earth on which it is a pleasure to exist.

John A. Ostenburg is mayor of Park Forest, Illinois, and formerly served in the Illinois House of Representatives. He is the chief of staff for the Chicago Teachers Union. E-mail him at [email protected].