Avoiding Classism and Ableism When Discussing Energy Conservation
In-person or online, you’ve probably heard someone in recent months or weeks complaining about the price of gas, or energy in general. Whether you’re managing the social media account of a news organization, agency, or company with a greener mission, or thinking about personal commentary in this area, many nuances should be kept in mind when discussing solutions if you want to do so in an equitable way. Not all of your suggested solutions will be accessible to everyone.
Electric cars: With prices of both new and used cars reaching all-time highs, compounded by very little availability in the used electric car market, replacing older gasoline-powered vehicles with electric cars is not affordable for many. The upfront cost to purchase is high, or for someone choosing payments or leasing, excellent credit is required. (The same is true for solar panels on a home.) Electric cars also require charging infrastructure, which is not evenly deployed in most areas - they don’t require homeownership, but it’s much easier for homeowners to install a plug than for non-homeowners to find a charging station, and fast chargers at charging stations are often more expensive to use.
Walking and biking: While an enjoyable alternative to driving for some, suggesting this as a blanket solution can be ableist. Walking and biking also require sidewalk or bike lane infrastructure which may not be available in all areas and assume that the person is traversing safe areas during daylight hours. Additionally, weather can make it problematic, especially if the person is walking or biking to/from work.
Moving closer to work: For most, living far from work is a necessity rather than a choice, particularly if they work in an affluent neighborhood of a city, or a resort area. Family units may also have chosen a location where one member is closer to work. And some types of work, like manufacturing or warehousing, are intentionally situated away from residential areas.
Working from home: In recent weeks, we’ve found ourselves having to remind many people that working from home is not possible for most roles that require work other than being in front of a computer. Companies will sometimes announce this as a benefit without realizing that it does little to help some of their lowest-paid employees who perform work like manufacturing, maintenance, or serving customers. And - something that may come as a surprise to those of us who enjoy working from home - not everyone has space for a home office, high-speed internet, or the ability to work without interruptions at home, so they’d prefer coming into an office.
When you make suggestions on a 1:1 level, it’s easier to recommend solutions that aren’t ablest or only accessible to those of different socioeconomic statuses. But, for the most part, recommending blanket solutions is best avoided. Whether in your personal communications or incorporate or marketing materials, it can be better to advocate for solutions and policies, like accessible public transportation and increasing the availability of housing, or to look at what, specifically, can be done in your industry (for example, arranging busing from an area accessible via public transit to and from factory or warehouse areas or building housing for resort employees).
Are you part of an organization that is creating internal strategies or programs to help employees with their commuting costs, or crafting messaging for a product that can create a greener future? We’d love to chat about making sure that your message is inclusive.