as an intern at a federal agency for the past 4 months, i had the opportunity to contribute to an organization-wide transition toward more efficient and accountable business practices. working in the program management department responsible for implementing the transition exposed me to a variety of obstacles common to large-scale change. the issues the program management department addressed were chronic and relevant to almost every employee in the agency. the decision-making process for middle management was not only often inefficient, but also overly hierarchical and opaque to normal employees. nevertheless, there were contrasting visions of how the agency could improve its work and best serve its clients. some were too stubborn to adjust their own management methods to new standards, while others interpreted the new process as a burden to employees who already had numerous documentation requirements.

clashing perspectives and priorities were pervasive even among those in support of the program management department’s efforts. even minute details of the program management tools required many layers of review from different groups of stakeholders. my internship was relatively brief, but these fault lines within the agency were immediately apparent. however, there were passionate civil servants across these divisions who seemed genuinely dedicated to improving the agency’s work and serving the public.

the media often portrays the government as a monolith that is unresponsive to new circumstances and inflexible to change. bureaucratic impediments in government surely exist, however, i was exposed to a much more complex and optimistic reality. many government employees are aware of and enthusiastically strive to resolve systemic issues in their agencies. the process may be time-consuming, but thorough deliberation is necessary to any process that affects thousands of employees and uses public funds. being bold enough to demand radical change is just as important as understanding how both large public and private systems process transitions.

this perspective developed my own outlook as i considered the scope of work necessary to make the world more sustainable. while an organization’s “culture” of sustainability is typically judged by its environmental impact or social awareness, management-employee relations and the distribution of day-to-day decision-making power also deserves scrutiny. aside from fair compensation and benefits, organizations can empower its employees by providing structural opportunities for collaboration and meaningful contribution to the business process. distinct organizational hierarchies are often necessary as a practical matter of mitigating risk and matching competency with a proportional degree of responsibility.

however, imbalanced power dynamics in work environments can undermine the importance of collaboration and even dehumanize the individual entry-level employee. changing these dynamics is not always possible in the short-term, however, looking for opportunities to improve the way that people interact with their social and professional environments is at the core of developing innovative sustainable solutions. as more organizations begin using the language of sustainability, it is important that those in power have the tools and incentives to initiate bold conversations and ideas regardless of how difficult they are to implement.

president trump withdrew from the paris climate agreement because he did not believe it was fair that it put most of the blame on the united states for global climate change. despite the fact that the united states is the second biggest contributor to global climate change, president trump explained that he cannot support a deal that punished the u.s. but does not pose any punishments for the world’s greatest polluters.

let us all remember that whether china is the first or the last on the list of polluters, the u.s. has the means and resources to make a huge impact and an enormous influence, if not more. instead, president trump cries victim and masks his reality of wanting to live in the now, “put americans first” and allocate fiscal resources to other programs and treaties that put the united states on the top and… the military.

the best part about the accord was that it forced countries like the united states and other wealthy nations to help “developing countries,” but really the global south, to build renewable energy sources for their countries that suffer the biggest burden in the first place.

certainly climate change is not a priority for the current administration but that does not mean it isn’t a priority for humanity. the hottest year ever recorded was 2015. then 2016 stole that record. so. are we going to continue to abide by the status quo, or are we going to strive to make systemic change and also become conscious citizens.

originally the u.s. agreed to contribute $3 billion to the green climate fund, and under the obama administration, $1 billion had been transferred. the white house could easily have stayed in the paris accord, even as it opted not to pay into the climate fund or impose emission cuts. why did he do it then? to make a point? to urge and force people to act on their own part for the next four years? to make local and individual impacts instead of always relying on someone else to do it? that’s the positive way to look at it at least, and the wise way to examine it.

i do hope his decision galvanizes people and pushes them to engage in their own sustainable acts so the planet doesn’t melt over but also to finally acknowledge and take responsibility — the same way it is inspiring me to continue my efforts to save the planet and its people.

now, more than ever, it is imperative that we immerse ourselves into the experiences that are being felt all over the planet. we need to listen to the stories of the refugees of climate change, the global citizens whose environments are shifting in sudden and dangerous ways.

although it seems as if president trump is shying away from american leadership, on second thought, his shortsighted decision is inspiring citizens to act. perhaps surprisingly, leaving the paris accord isn’t stalling breakthrough innovations to reach sustainability but, instead, advancing efforts.

all around the country, companies, mayors, governors and even college presidents are declaring to solemnly act on the climate pledge to continue to support climate action. ideally we want to go beyond the paris agreement’s plea, but it does represent a major step in the right direction. india and china are ahead of schedule in meeting the paris commitments. can the united states, along with other wealthy nations also serve as pacesetters — or at least followers — in the most crucial battle of our age?