The Problem with Lexington’s Climate Activism

In the past, Lexington High School’s student body has protested against gun control and Trump’s presidency, but now we rally around a new evil: climate change. One group, in particular, Lexington Sunrise, has become the face of Lexington’s protests, organizing a climate strike in conjunction with youth-led strikes throughout the world. 

Upon examination of Lexington Sunrise’s website, viewers are immediately directed to the “Demands” section. While some demands seem reasonable, others appear uninformed. By describing these requests as “demands,” the group tries to embody a forceful position on their agenda, which may convey arrogance to a reader. This group, with their polarizing language, hinges on an “us versus them” mentality which disrupts any hope of collaboration between the two sides.

One demand stands out in particular: a shift to electric busing. A recent report by the U.S. PIRG Education Fund, “Paying for Electric Buses,” found that changing to electric buses has an additional cost of about $120,000 per bus (plus the $110,000 of the bus itself), and doesn’t actually save money until twelve to sixteen years down the line. Lexington’s records show that there are twenty-six bus routes to the High School alone; this would amount to over six million dollars in spending to upgrade all the buses. In a town where teachers are underpaid and student populations are rising, it is hard to justify a six million bill with a return on investment in twelve years. While combating climate change is necessary, the impact of twenty-six electric buses replacing diesel buses is minimal. 

Furthermore, the Lexington Sunrise organization has ties to Youth Climate Strikes US. This group shares many ideals with Lexington Sunrise but also focuses on the Green New Deal. While the idea of the Green New Deal is appealing, many of the legislative reforms are questionable in practice. Youth Climate Strikes US demands that we “remove entrenched racial, regional, ability, and gender-based barriers to income and wealth” while  “[creating] a public bank to finance a transition for the benefit of all Americans,” and “ensure access to safe and adequate housing for all.” While these ideas have their merits, it is hard to group them with an environmentally-friendly agenda. The deal also suggests a pipeline for turning inmates and fossil fuel workers into “green workers.” While this seems ideal, it showcases the shallowness of the Green New Deal: it aims to stop climate change almost exclusively through government spending and doesn’t account for the lives of average Americans who survive on fossil fuel industries. 

It is nice to champion environmental protests, but when looking further it is hard to see a feasible solution. Many current solutions are too radical and stand little chance in a Republican senate. If we want to change, there needs to be some compromise. 

by AARYA TAVSHIKAR