COVID-19 – Climate Justice Now

Reflections on the Global Education System: Keeping Girls in the Picture

Luz Ramirez COVID-19, Global Future September 7, 2021September 7, 2021

“Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime. But teach a woman to fish, and everyone eats for a lifetime.”
~Ritu Sharma

One year ago, education institutions across the world were forced to shift to remote schooling. However, this interruption in the education sector has been shown to have disproportionately impacted children across the U.S. and globally, especially for young girls living in low-resourced communities. Offering girls basic education enables them to make choices over the kinds of lives they can live. However, endemic poverty, cultural barriers and remote geographic locations are some of the biggest hurdles.

Know the facts

UNESCO estimates that 11 million girls may not return to school.

Human Rights Watch explains that “girls are expected to take on greater housework burdens, [are] less likely to have access to the internet than boys, and due to societal or familial restraints sometimes faced greater constraints on their interactions with others.” Also, “as girls have to travel great distances to reach school, it multiplies the risks of their personal security.” – Zigya
“In 10 countries worldwide (Benin, Cameroon, Guinea, Haiti, Mali, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Senegal and Timor-Leste), the poorest girls spend less than 2 years in school on average. In Guinea, Mali and Pakistan over 80% of poor girls have spent only two years or less in school.” UNESCO
According to UN Women, in some countries, levels of abuse against women have increased five-fold.
Malala Fund research uses insights from the 2014-15 Ebola epidemic to help communities comprehend the short- and long-term consequences of terminating and discouraging education for young girls and women. Those consequences include;

“Increased rates of poverty, household responsibilities, child labor, and teenage pregnancy…”

But to what extent does education impact population growth and the availability of resources needed for human welfare?

Failure to prioritize the need for educating young girls has been directly correlated with issues of overpopulation. Population growth has gradually reached some public attention, but it fails to regard the environmental impact on future generations. Focusing on these aspects is not novel, as it was a subject that was conceptualized by a famous 18th-century Economist Thomas Robert Malthus in his book “An Essay on the Principle of Population.” In this book, Malthus explained that “the human population increases geometrically, while food production increases arithmetically [and that] under this paradigm, humans would eventually be unable to produce enough food to sustain themselves.” (Humanecologyreview).

Till today, understanding the link between population and natural resources remains controversial. A lot of the controversy stems from religious and cultural notions of the use of contraception. But perhaps the biggest concern of all is how incredibly disempowering these ideologies are on women’s rights to dictate over their bodies. In many developing countries, lack of access to contraception and sex education are the driving forces for millions of unintended pregnancies. This matter was discussed and proposed in the book Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming.

“When levels of education rise (in particular for girls and young women), access to reproductive healthcare improves, and women’s political, social, and economic empowerment expand, fertility typically falls. – Drawdown

Expanding the rights of girls and women to get an education can all be achieved through:

Family counseling on the importance of a child’s right to an education.
Ensuring that girls feel safe while in school.
Collective action among policymakers and the international community by expanding resources and funding for education. Leading examples of organizations and movements include;
- The #EQUALEVERYWHERE, one of the United Nations mobilizing campaigns fighting the birthright of equality for girls and women.
- The Barefoot College is a “first-of-its-kind, women-centered, global network dedicated to sustainable development by making educational opportunities accessible to women and girls from the most marginalized communities worldwide.
- The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, adopted by 189 countries, is the most robust global consensus to advance equality, development, and peace for all women.

Bottom Line

COVID-19 has exposed gender inequalities in and through a nearly 200-year-old K-12 school system. The disproportion of enrolled young girls in schools plays a role in the availability of natural resources. The vicious cycle of women’s inequality has long-standing implications for all life on earth. Devoting serious attention and resources to facilitate, mitigate, and correct the disparity in our education systems can help women;

Acquire the knowledge and skills needed to compete in the labor market
Navigate and adapt to a changing climate
Help them make educated decisions about their lives and when it’s best to bear a child

featured image by Zigya

Future of Sustainability: Hybrid Workspaces and Remote Work

Luz Ramirez COVID-19, Global Future, Sustainability August 18, 2021August 18, 2021

From mitigating the impact of coronavirus attributed deaths to lowering carbon emissions, here’s a review of hybrid and remote work.

Background

As businesses continue to contemplate the future of work, embracing hybrid workspace models and remote work can seem an attractive and sustainable path forward. This review will analyze all three pillars of sustainability (economic, social, and environmental) and determine whether digitalization is at all the sustainable future our planet needs.

A workspace is anywhere an employee works at any given time. A hybrid workspace is an evolution from a location-centric view of where work is done (workplace) to a more human-centric view of where work is done (workspace), with seamless mobility in between (hybrid workspace).
Cisco

Economic Factors of Remote Work

A major factor underlying the global workforce’s ability to resume operations during the pandemic is in how efficiently employees adapted to new working methods such as working from home. Contrary to what some articles claim, this innovative approach to working increased business prospects for many in the Global North. For example, Accenture’s consulting firm, which has more than 500,000 employees worldwide, told the New York Times Magazine that employees’ productivity increased while working remotely.

As countries look to the post-pandemic future, many have recognized the economic value of shifting to remote work. So much so that in the U.S., 33 cities and three states have already developed incentive programs that will pay companies for job-creating investment.

The sensible decision to invest in hybrid virtual models is even more imperative in developing countries. Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) suggest that out of the 30 countries, middle-income countries faced the most challenges with the transition of remote work. The main reason stems from variation in demographics and limited access to supportive equipment such as high-quality internet access.

So is working from home/ hybrid better for the global economy?

The idea of remote work financially benefiting a country really depends on several factors. In higher advanced economies, businesses and financial services will find that supporting hybrid work models has substantially more economic benefits. On the other hand, lockdowns and working remotely revealed that middle and lower-income countries have a substantial disadvantage to adopting these kinds of work models for reasons like;

Limited accessibility to energy and specialized equipment (Explained Season 3 Episode 5 ‘The End of Oil’)
Internet infrastructure
Demand for occupations that require physical and manual activities (McKinsey).
Lack of formal education and skills needed to compete in the working world (Economic Observatory).

One other aspect to think of is that the building of hybrid teams (made up of full-time employees and freelance workers) has allowed companies to hire talent from across the world, often within underrepresented groups. This combination of socially inclusive hybrid models fosters and spurs innovation within the workplace.

The Environment

While most companies in the U.S dismiss commuting emissions in their annual emission reports, closures of businesses -driven by the global COVID-19 pandemic- have indeed taken a toll on the amount of emissions emitted. This next section will focus on the implications for energy use and greenhouse gas emissions if a significant amount of people continued to work hybrid or regularly working from home.

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

Two of the most discussed environmental benefits that remote work provides is:

Less commuting to work
Reduction in transportation congestion
Lowering fuel consumption

Other environmental benefits that remote and or hybrid workspaces provide are:

Digitized work has led to less paper usage
A decline in natural resource utilization and environmental costs, specifically from the construction of office building space
The hybrid workplace model allows companies to be less reliant on leases of ample office space while retaining similar levels of production and output from their employees or teams. A concept known as “hub-and-spoke offices,” which is the setting up of smaller presences in urban “hubs” and suburban “spokes” is already being implemented in the U.K and U.S.

However, there is no guarantee that personal car use will remain low, and thus negating the lack of commuting does not necessarily translate to overall greenhouse gas emissions reduction. In China, for example, a survey reported a 57% reduction in journeys made by bus and metro, but a doubling in private car use causing an overall rebound in oil consumption.

Energy Demands

The transition of work to home has also affected the average residential demand for energy. Regional differences, household size, heating, and cooling needs, and appliances efficiency must be considered when working from home.

For example, days after the lockdown, the United Kingdom experienced a 15% increase in residential electricity consumption, and in the United States, residential electricity went up by 20% to 30% (iea.org).

A report from the World Economic Forum, suggests that “the biggest energy savings are found when staff work from home full-time, rather than split time between the office and home.”

Can we claim that remote work is more environmentally friendly than conventional working models?

Since the impact of home-working on transport and residential energy consumption varies widely, it’s hard to claim that this is the most environmentally friendly option. That’s not to say that the potential for energy savings and GHG reduction isn’t there, especially in developed countries with access to efficient energy infrastructure.

Social Implications

The shift to remote working helped lower GHG emissions, but questions remain on whether flexibility to work from a place of convenience has been advantageous to our society. This section will focus on the social consequences that can come with working remotely.

The pitfalls of working remotely

Remote work has been reported to impact workers’ mental health. Microsoft, for example, explains that the isolation that people have experienced (as a result of lockdowns and working remotely) revealed that social interactions with distant networks have diminished. This continued isolation has created new mental health issues among workers.

“A 2019 survey by cloud infrastructure company Digital Ocean found that 82% of remote tech workers in the U.S. felt burnt out, with 52% reporting that they work longer hours than those in the office, and 40% feeling as though they needed to contribute more than their in-office colleagues.” Forbes

Accessibility to efficient technology in lower-income individuals can hinder and possibly instigate stress among workers.

Because working online is often tied to education level and access to higher education, many individuals are hampered by these requirements.

Cultural barriers. While remote work intends to bridge cultures, specific ways of dealing with business can also create uncomfortable moments and even invade cultural values on workers from other countries.

The social benefits of remote work:

A diverse workforce and opportunity for career progression. By removing the need to attend an office, companies have expanded the candidate pool by hiring people from different socioeconomic, geographic, and cultural backgrounds and with different perspectives (Fastcompany).
Neurodivergent Individuals still benefit professionally and mentally from working remotely. For example, “employees on the autism spectrum or people with mental conditions like OCD, benefit from working from home as loud noises, distractions, and pressure to appear neurotypical in front of colleagues takes an emotional toll and impacts performance.” –Vice.
Flexibility with work schedules and geographic locations allows employees to spend more quality time with family, save money on transportation expenses, and alleviated stress often triggered by commuting. More importantly, it has also given workers the flexibility to migrate out of high-cost cities and into the suburbs, cheaper urban centers, and remote areas.
As more people become vaccinated, experts have already started to report the mental health impacts of returning to work. The Limeade Institute’s Employee Care Report 3.0 found that “100% of formerly onsite workers said they were anxious about returning to the office, 71% said they were concerned about less flexibility, and 77% said they were worried about exposure Covid-19.” Provided that work becomes the new normal for individuals who need these types of accommodations will help them in the long term.

Bottom Line

In a post-pandemic world, building social capital from a digitalized work model takes effort, especially for the developing world. Working from home models depends on a unique set of factors such as industry, individual education, and accessibility to technology to thrive economically. Then you have the environmental aspects of remote work, which indicate that long-term sustainable climate goals can be attained if and when governments and companies invest in clean energy sources. It would also require accurate accounting of commuting emissions and energy demands (regardless of the workplace). Creating a culture where breaks are encouraged and respected, giving employees the liberty to choose the place of work, and creating a diverse workforce gives remote/hybrid work models the leverage.

featured image by Scholarly kitchen

Social Sustainability: Building Resilient Food Systems

Luz Ramirez COVID-19, Racial Justice, Sustainability August 1, 2021August 4, 2021

“The notion that the food system can be transformed through individual acts of consumption—rather than through lobbying, organizing, boycotts, mobilization, or direct action—fits nicely within the prevailing neoliberal economic rhetoric: that unregulated capitalist markets yield the most efficient allocation of resources.”

– Eric Holt-Giménez and Yi Wang, 2011

As this initial quote so eloquently puts it, post-colonial forms of domination have influenced practices and policies within food systems. Power of what colonists referred to as “barbaric” or “savage” nations continues to be embedded in the very structures of our society. What follows below is an abridgment/summary of some of the challenges that affect food systems and constructive ideas moving forward from the ongoing global coronavirus crisis.

Social Justice and Human Rights

Although there has been much media coverage of labor shortages and issues with global food distribution, there are underlying factors that are far more potent in terms of an actual threat. Such deeply rooted issues stem from public health concerns and social inequities faced by farmworkers, consumers, and all those, directly and indirectly participating in the food system.

Industrial farming and public health concerns:

Overcrowding on factory farms, where cattle, pigs and chickens are raised, is responsible for global health implications far beyond what we may have imagined. Industrialized factory farms can transmit zoonotic diseases via water, air, food, and directly through the transmission of farmers. Five modern diseases on the rise because of factory farms are E.Coli, MRSA, Mad Cow Disease, Salmonella and Obesity.

The need for intensive agricultural practices in monocropped corn, soy, and produce relies heavily on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Herbicide exposure, like that of Glyphosate, threatens human health while disrupting the ecosystem of numerous organisms. Growing evidence by Environmental Health Perspectives and Nature suggest that the human gut microbiome is subject to intestinal dysbiosis (imbalance of microflora), when exposed to xenobiotics, organic pollutants, and foodborne chemicals. More in-depth recent research has been able to associate the dysbiosis of the lung microbiome with the development of respiratory diseases. The severity of these findings implies that continued use of agricultural chemicals can increase the risk of human vulnerability to acute respiratory infections like that of (SARS-CoV-2).

The production of inexpensive, low nutrient food contributes to agricultural runoff. And because agricultural runoff impacts water quality, the likelihood of tap water contamination along with seafood poisoning is greater.

For the farm and factory workers who make up the agricultural workforce, their fundamental human rights and health are neglected. A recent article by The Guardian revealed some of the labor-intensive and hazardous conditions experienced by U.S farmworkers. These ranged from long working days, exposure to extreme heat, to lack of access to water. Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) reported in 2019 that an estimated 70,000 farm workers were injured and 815 killed due to heat exposure. Findings by the Agricultural Health Study suggest that certain pesticides are linked to kidney cancer in agricultural workers. Other studies conducted by the National Library of Medicine say that farming populations in countries like the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia, Canada, and the United States experienced one of the highest rates of suicide.

Social inequity/ human rights issues:

This section will examine some of the repercussions associated with incompetent policies and governments and their inability to protect different supply chain sectors.

Beginning with farmworkers, living conditions for workers vary depending on geographic location, immigration status, etc. Still, in places like the U.S., inflated housing prices accompanied by low-paying wages often force workers to live in “substandard housing conditions.” Similarly, living in remote areas deprives these workers of essential services, education, and support systems.

Increased production demand is one challenge often faced by the food processing workforce. Demand for food production, especially during the pandemic, revealed the invisible issues in our food system. Worker shortages halted food production worldwide and created enormous demand for production workers who needed time off.

The issue of food security among urban, low-income ethnic minority groups is another outcome of our ailing food systems. Availability of nutritious food and its affordability neglects the needs and root problems of diverse communities. Yet, it seems like the most immediate solution to these problems is to provide greater accessibility to fast food chains. As if this wasn’t bad enough, food pantries, which are supposed to distribute food directly to those in need, are also stigmatized. Invisible inequalities in our food systems are the reason why “more than one-third of American adults, and 48% of African American adults, are obese” (CDC, 2015). Ultimately, all these problems raise a critical question: How can consumers eat locally, ethically, and sustainably without purchasing power?

Thinking ahead:

To build socially responsible and sustainable food systems, we will need to:

Take Collective Action by:

Subsidizing urban and suburban farming industries that protect and promote soil biodiversity. Minimizing soil disturbance while maximizing microbiome biodiversity directly through regenerative agricultural practices will eliminate any dependency on fertilizer, solve agricultural runoff issues, and protect public health.
Increase public health safety measures by improving the way food is processed, shipped, and distributed.
Provide technical assistance by documenting more studies on the challenges faced by farmworkers. One example is to amplify nationwide real-time heat stress monitoring programs.
Establish workforce unions that protect incomes, families and farmworkers.
Provide education sessions on structural racism within the food system.
Support infrastructure that focuses on the development of small, local, sustainable food enterprises and initiatives.
Introduce a food systems approach to our food supply chain. Since every step of the supply chain requires human and/or natural resources, knowing how to support not just good environmental practices but the rights and livelihoods of individuals along the food chain are crucial. And lastly, establishing food policies that are guided by a concept known as agroecology.

Individual Actions:

Support farm and food workers with more than just your purchasing power. For example, opting to support grassroots movements that work locally by volunteering, donating, or advocating for what they stand for.

In this last section, I would like to provide a list of valuable resources:

I want to finish this review with a powerful quote from Policylink “An equitable food system is one that creates a new paradigm in which all — including those most vulnerable and those living in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color — can fully participate, prosper, and benefit. It is a system that, from farm to table, from processing to disposal, ensures economic opportunity; high-quality jobs with living wages; safe working conditions; access to healthy, affordable, and culturally appropriate food; and environmental sustainability.”

Featured image from CSRIO

SUSTAINABLE TOURISM POST-PANDEMIC

Luz Ramirez COVID-19, Sustainability July 22, 2021July 22, 2021

New studies by the University of Georgia say that more people travel for the “likes” or the popularity that travel generates on their social media accounts. Besides the amount of positive feedback that social media generates, better, quicker, and more economically affordable travel are other important factors contributing to the rise in tourism. Tourism, however, has put enormous pressure on the earth’s natural resources, contributed to biodiversity loss, and increased air pollution. The deep decline of international travel due to the pandemic has alleviated some of these pressures, but the road to recovery will require innovative and bold actions. This review is intended to emphasize the relevance of responsible tourism practice and provide an overview of responsible tourism development.

Background

Sustainable tourism is a term used and described by the United Nations World Travel Organization as

“Tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment, and host communities.” All forms of tourism, including the various niche tourism segments like cultural, business, geographical, and family reunion tourism, impact the environment, society, and the economy.

Thus, it’s essential to identify practical solutions for each of these categories. Take, for example, business travel. How can business owners begin to minimize the environmental impacts of corporate travel? While the solution is not always a straight answer, one practical solution could be to implement efficient travel policies that prioritize sustainable efforts.

Challenges

According to Sustainable Travel International, tourism is responsible for 8% of the world’s global emissions. With the release of even more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, mitigating these heat-trapping gases is essential. The chart below separates each activity that contributes to carbon release and depicts transportation as the main constituent. Over the following sections, we will drive the attention towards the impacts generated by transportation and lodging. These two supply different forms of footprint like;

Depletion of natural resources
Pollution
Physical impacts and social implications

Transportation

Forms of travel for tourists include planes, cars, trains, ships (cruises), and even hot air balloons. The problem with our conventional tourism industry is that it’s driven by poor policies and investments that support nonrenewable fuel sources. The outcome of such unsustainable practices is leading to more and more natural oil and mineral depletion. We are also all too familiar with the forms of environmental and health effects of transportation systems. Long-term exposure to air pollutants, for example, is the cause and aggravating factor for stroke, heart disease, and even lung cancer, accounting for 4.2 million deaths each year (World Health Organization (WHO). Researchers report that there are other invisible threats to air pollution. These threats can impact worker productivity and mental health. Along with jeopardizing human health, air pollution is also responsible for negatively impacting wildlife and the environment directly through events known as; acid rain, eutrophication, haze, ozone depletion, and global warming.

Lodging

The revolution of the lodging market has granted tourists a wide variety of accommodation options at even economical rates. However, collectively they are a significant source of resource consumption. Below are just two examples of how the hospitality industry is deteriorating the world’s natural resources.

Intense use of natural resources like water for landscaping and cleaning, leading to severe water shortages.
Excessive reliance on fossil fuels used to power water heaters, lights, refrigerators, laundry machines, and lights.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that hotels and other lodgings consume 15 percent of the total water used by commercial institutions in the United States. What’s less talked about but equally important is the pollution this industry creates. Hotel operations can lead to:

Enormous waste in landfills emits methane, a greenhouse gas.
Water pollution is in the form of littering of plastics and hazardous chemicals that contaminate water supplies.

Plastic aquatic debris is much more than just an aesthetic problem. As the EPA says, plastic, when consumed by marine animals, fills their stomachs, causing them to starve. Despite their impact on aquatic life, human consumption of micro-plastics (MPs) also can affect human health. An article published by Science Direct says, “MPs act as vectors for microorganisms & toxic chemicals posing further health risks.” The construction of new hotels, which tend to be located near sacred natural sites, has tremendous impacts not just on the ecosystems but also on locals. Intrusion or provision of infrastructure marks a dark history for Indigenous people. There’s also the destruction of carbon sinks which is caused by the clearing of tropical forests. These are just a few examples of the footprint that’s left behind by tourism infrastructure.

Building Sustainable Travelers

Opt for Greener Modes of Transport

To minimize as much carbon emissions from travel, consider more innovative ways of air travel.
By booking direct flights and flying in economy class, you can begin to cut down on emissions.
Fly on newer aircraft that are equipped to be more fuel-efficient.
Invest in progressive airlines that are already implementing alternative forms of fuel. Check out sustainablejungle.com for more information on airlines using renewable biofuels.
When you reached your destination, do your research and find the most sustainable form of transportation available. This may be as easy as renting a bike to get around.
Invest in carbon offsetting programs when air travel is essential. Goodwings is one company that lets you book your entire vacation, and they promise to remove carbon emissions associated with your flight, hotel stay, and even your meals. Double your carbon offset, so you are actually lowering your carbon footprint.

Eco-friendly Accommodations and Hotel Tips

Minimize travel footprint by using some of these hotel hacks:
Consider planning ahead so that your travel doesn’t contribute to large amounts of plastic waste. One example would be to inform hotel management that you will be bringing your bathroom toiletries and thus reduce single-use plastic.
1. Leave the ‘do not disturb’ sign on the hotel door to avoid unnecessary washing of bathroom towels.
2. According to Reconomy, Food Waste accounts for more than 50% of waste in the hospitality industry. Thus, avoid booking through all-inclusive or all-you-can-eat hotels.
If you can, try to invest in sustainable hotels that optimize environmental resources, conserve ecological processes, and respect indigenous lands. Ensure you look for green certifications like Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED).

Support Locals

Buy local! Supporting the local economy by eating and shopping locally. Check out Green Suitcase Travel’s Tips on Supporting Local Artisans for more information.
Staying in local accommodations is another excellent way to give back to the local communities.
Support eco-friendly local tour companies. Sustaining Tourism provides a list of sustainable tour operators.

Preserve Wildlife

Animal tourism can be unethical before booking your tour, do your research. Avoid anything that allows tourist to touch or ride animals. A great way to invest your money on tours is to visit restoration projects and rehabilitation centers. Check out 10 of the best ethical travel companies for more information.

Developing a Sustainable Tourism Sector

Environmental Sustainability

Mitigating emissions attributed to the transportation sector need effective policies that no longer subsidize oil companies but rather support renewable forms of energy—upgrading battery efficiency and upgrading electric vehicle infrastructure. Lastly, promoting sustainable travel methods by building more pedestrian sidewalks, integrating cycling traffic, and bolstering cleaner ways of travel.

The pandemic offers hotels the unique opportunity to reshape operations. Adapting sustainability within hotel operations can begin with resource efficiency.

Instead of wasting food, hotels can repurpose food to feed local animals, use it as biofuel or donate it to local shelters. There is also the concept known as FARM TO TABLE, which provides guests with nutritious organic food and minimizes GHG emissions attributed to the transportation of food.

To cut down on plastic waste, a hotel recycling program that uses high-impact recycling bin graphics can be a great resource. Minimizing paper/plastic use through technology for check-ins, room entry, and event bookings.

Energy use can also be minimized by replacing appliances with Energy Efficient appliances; Energy Star-rated heating and cooling systems; replacement of HVAC systems; high-efficiency washers, and smart lighting. Lastly, investing in green infrastructure such as solar panels/biofuels/CHP (combined heat and power).

Water savings can be approached through a combination of different methods like;

■ Encouraging guests to reuse towels

■ Leak detecting water systems and water-efficient bathrooms

■ Rainwater harvesting tanks to irrigate gardens

In terms of a hotel’s natural impact, hotels can begin restoring natural habitat by promoting native plants as part of the garden.

Placing stringent standards and penalties not just on national parks but also on vulnerable natural areas can be the best way to eliminate ecosystem disruptions caused by tourism.

Social Sustainability

Across all tourism industry sectors, improving health and safety for workers and guests is the immediate factor that needs to be tackled.

Building awareness of the impact COVID-19 placed on vulnerable communities and implementing policies that economically reinforce their businesses.

Hospitality and tourism sectors should also ensure fair wages to all staff and only hire local workers.

Hotels can also directly support local artisans by selling traditional crafts, artwork, and clothing at the gift shop.

Economic Sustainability

The government should provide incentives for industries that seek to adapt sustainability across all operations. This can be done through stimulus recovery programs.

Reducing the impact of food waste by implementing on-site composting can help save hotels money. Waste can simply be composted and turned into fertilizer for hotel gardens.

Hotels can save money on utility costs when efficient energy systems and renewable energy are used.

Featured image from worldatlas.com

What Now? Reflecting on 2020

Francesca Von Krauland COVID-19, Global Future, Racial Justice December 19, 2020December 19, 20202020, business, future, pandemic, politics, social justice, sustainability

There are a few weeks left of 2020. They might take a few days, or perhaps another few months, to pass—time didn’t move quite logically this year. It seems like a lot of people just want to fast forward through to get to 2021, a year still full with the hope that the vaccine will bring everything back to normal. I’d like to make a counterproposal: what if instead of wishing away what was for most people a bizarre year, we stop for a moment and look back at it? And what if instead of wishing for a return to the normal, we embrace the good that comes of change?

2020 was the year of COVID, of race protests, of isolation, one of the most dramatic U.S. elections in living memory. It was the year of the unprecedented. The borders closed between European countries for the first time since the establishment of the European Union. The border between the U.S. and Europe closed for the first time ever—and seems to be staying that way. Everything we accepted as normal, the good and the bad, tore away to reveal a messy, imperfect world. It’s a dark planet, but even from space it glitters with the lights of all our cities, grids connecting billions of people’s lives and stories. Perhaps in this year’s darkness the lights shone even brighter, because there was so much good in 2020, too.

This year, global conflict became unavoidably personal for everyone. This article phrases it perfectly, “In some ways, the pandemic has been a dress rehearsal for the climate crisis. Human beings throughout the world have been called upon to embrace science, change their lifestyles and make sacrifices for the common good.” This year was about awareness—maybe that’s why Americans’ concern about the climate crisis rose from 44% to an all-time high of 60% this year. Perhaps they realized that it’s no coincidence emissions dropped 9% at the same time that travel and consumption slowed—the biggest yearly drop on record. Though emissions are expected to increase again next year, they still won’t be higher than any year since 1990. Yet another reason this year’s timeline feels off: in some ways we’ve been time traveling. In San Francisco, traffic levels across the Golden Gate Bridge fell to levels similar to the 1950s, resulting in coyotes wandering across. The drop in noise from our usually bustling cities caused a change in bird song: “While it might have seemed to human ears that bird song got louder, the sparrows actually sang more quietly,” explains Dr. Elizabeth Derryberry of the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville.

We also moved forward in time, making huge and exciting progress toward the future of global energy, renewables. During shutdowns, with reduced demand for power, grid operators relied more on cheaper renewable energy sources, and almost 10% of electricity generation in most parts of the world were sourced from renewable energy sources. Denmark, already a leader in wind energy, just announced that it will stop providing licenses for oil exploration in the North Sea, preventing the extraction of about 150 million barrels of oil by 2050. The plan, which Climate and Energy Minister Dan Jorgensen announced as a historic step toward a fossil-free future that will “resonate around the world,” was created as an economic response to the pandemic.

So with the present as an exciting conglomeration of the future and past, all de-familiarized by the fact that we’re still living through it, I ask…now what? What does the future need to look like, across government, business, and society, to create a clean and just world? In the United States, leaders would do well to learn from Nordic countries, China and India, and Sub-Saharan Africa. President-elect Biden’s outline of some of his climate goals, including rejoining the Paris Agreement, is cause for hope, but the support of the judiciary, in addition to the executive and lawmakers, is necessary. Globally, a total of 1,587 cases of climate litigation have been brought between 1986 and mid-2020: 1,213 cases in the U.S. and 374 cases in 36 other countries and eight regional or international jurisdictions. These numbers are increasing rapidly, and according to this LSE study, “These cases play an important supporting role in ensuring the national implementation of international emissions-reduction commitments, the alignment of national laws with the Paris Agreement, and the enforcement of laws and policies relating to climate resilience.” This year, in the U.S., a federal judge ruled that the highly controversial Dakota Access Pipeline be shut down because federal officials failed to adequately analyze the project’s environmental impact. Also this year, in Portugal, six young people filed a lawsuit with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, demanding accountability from 33 top-emitting countries for the climate crisis and that funds for economic restoration from the pandemic are spent in a way that ensures a rapid transition to renewable energy. While individual executive leadership is important, the role of other branches of government, and of international organizations, cannot be dismissed.

Change on a government level is infamously slow—passing progressive plans through multiple levels of bureaucracy and special interests can hardly be the only way to enact change, though it’s undoubtedly an important one. Businesses also have a role to play in ensuring a rapid transition to sustainability. From simplifying global supply chains to replacing physical structures with digital platforms, businesses occupy a unique position that enables not just rapid reaction to shifting norms but also the ability to spearhead change. One hundred companies are responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions, and massive corporations must be accountable for their impact on the planet. In this area, there is good news. Walmart has cut 230 million metric tons of greenhouse gases out of its supply chain in the past three years, Uniliver vowed to replace the petrochemicals found in its detergents and household cleaners with renewable or recycled alternatives, Apple committed to becoming carbon neutral by 2030, and Lyft said 100% of its trips will be in electric vehicles within the decade. In the realm of startups and investors, a changing mindset is even more evident. Green startups are more common than ever, reimagining everything from how nitrogen fertilizer is created for global agriculture to how to simultaneously reduce food waste and hunger.

More than simply building back better, we need to build back equal, creating social change that reduces inequality as we focus on green growth. What a just transition entails varies by country, depending on the place’s particular culture, norms, and historical legacies, so there is no one solution to be prescribed in order to ensure equality and effective reform everywhere. But there is one commonality, one overarching goal we must keep in mind as the world pulls itself out of this chaotic year, and this unsustainable epoch of human history: what comes next is entirely up to us. The actions that governments, businesses, and individuals take now will affect everyone for generations to come. There is only one global climate future—the one whose foundations are being built by the decisions we make today.

Featured image from La Croix

Mental Health and Activism in 2020

Francesca Von Krauland COVID-19, Global Future, Racial Justice, Uncategorized December 16, 2020December 16, 2020activism, black lives matter, climate change, mental health, pandemic, racial justice

Earlier this year, the previous Climate Justice Now blogger, Dominique, wrote an article entitled Taking Care of Yourself and the Environment. As 2020 winds down, I think mental health, especially as it relates to activism, the events of this year, and racial factors, is an important topic to readdress. No one’s life was unaffected by COVID-19, but rather than giving into the despair that sometimes accompanies massive upheaval, many people focused on working toward positive change in areas they felt more control over—addressing racial injustice, making progress in the climate movement, and (particularly in the U.S.) political campaigning to ensure that we have forward-thinking leaders to guide us into the next year.

While admirable as a coping mechanism, and a necessary part of creating change to protect others in the future, those who engage in activism often experience adverse mental health effects because of their work. Often, the issues that people fight for are deeply personal, fueled by identity and trauma. Having such a stake in the outcome of one’s work makes for powerful activism, but also poses a threat to the emotional stability of those who engage in it. Activists are at a higher risk of developing PTSD and suicidal ideation when their identities are wrapped up in the causes they champion, and even those whose identities aren’t experience vicarious trauma and compassion fatigue, which also pose a risk. This organization points out that movements struggle to hold onto their most passionate, committed activists because of burnout. For people who make careers out of activism, the effects are magnified: the hectic schedules and low pay associated with activism can result in stress from familial tension, a lack of access to medical services, and anxiety about the future in regards to retirement or even homeownership. Those in the field emphasize that addressing activist mental health is essential to the protection of both individuals as activists and the movements themselves.

While mental health has long been an issue in relation to activism, this year, with the added stress of the pandemic and all of its associated disruptions, our collective mental state is perhaps more precarious than ever. The WHO explains, “Fear, worry, and stress are normal responses to perceived or real threats, and at times when we are faced with uncertainty or the unknown. So it is normal and understandable that people are experiencing fear in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.” In addition to the very-valid fear of microscopic particles floating about, ready to send any non-mask wearing person to the ICU, there’s the added burden of isolation from all the joys of life that usually help with coping: seeing family and friends over a meal, working out at the gym, and browsing one’s favorite stores, for example. Added to this, the fact that unemployment is rising, many people have lost loved ones to the virus, and living situations are altered, the rise in anxiety, depression, substance abuse, insomnia, and other mental health conditions is unsurprising. To compound the issue, the pandemic has disrupted or halted critical mental health services in 93% of countries worldwide at a time when they are most needed. As Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization, urges, “World leaders must move fast and decisively to invest more in life-saving mental health programmes—during the pandemic and beyond.”

As the sun sets earlier and people retreat indoors, people who struggle with Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) are more at risk than ever of experiencing overwhelming symptoms of low energy, poor mood, and social withdrawal, among others. Dr. Desan of Yale Medicine states, ““We are seeing an obvious increase in the number of people seeking help for anxiety, and that’s not unreasonable. People are anxious about catching COVID-19, among other related issues,” Dr. Desan says. “This is a major mental health event.”

As with most other major issues, the collective suffers, but a particular segment of the population feels the effects most acutely. On the topics of both mental health as it relates to activism and mental health during the pandemic, while U.S. adults reported considerably elevated adverse mental health conditions this year, younger adults, racial/ethnic minorities, essential workers, and unpaid adult caregivers reported having experienced disproportionately worse mental health outcomes, according to the CDC. Particularly for people of color, who this year led the Black Lives Matter movement through emotional protests deeply tied to their identity, heightened rates of anxiety, depression, and suicide compound the pressures associated with the discrimination they protest in the first place, in addition to the pandemic, and the climate-related problems, and so much more. It’s no wonder that the term self-care was coined by black woman activist Audre Lorde when she famously said, “Caring for myself is not self-indulgence, it is self-preservation, and that is an act of political warfare.” After a year like 2020, everyone, but especially those most impacted, must look after themselves—starting with mental health.

The language we use for particularly successful activists—”champions” of a cause—reveals the underlying psychology that fuels the mental health problem in activist movements. Linda Sarsour, one of the founders of the Women’s March and a Muslim Palestinian-American activist, says, “Activists often become caricatures to people, for some even super-human. Many don’t realize the deep depression and anxiety we experience. The work is overwhelming and [it’s] compounded by not feeling safe and worrying about your life and the lives of your children.” Recognizing that caring deeply for the world is a kind of emotional labor that taxes the mind and body is a good first step in the direction of protecting one’s mental health. Next, mental health care needs to be made more accessible to everyone, especially those from marginalized communities who most need it. And finally, until then, the most powerful tools activists, and anyone struggling with mental health has, is self-care.

Dominique’s blog wisely recommends that people feeling overwhelmed spend time in nature, reach out to others, and “remember that anxiety is rooted in love for the people and places in your life.” I think that last one is particularly important—gratitude is perhaps the strongest cure for despair. It is a privilege to love something so deeply as to ache at its absence, its obscuring. Acknowledging that pain is often rooted in one’s ability to imagine better means that hurting and hoping go hand in hand. This is the power of language: we can rephrase the problem. 2020 changed almost everything for almost everyone. This is a time of opportunity, not of crisis. We’ve ripped the bandage off of a wounded world and it burns. The world in 2020 is a messy gash with still-drying blood, but without the bandage, we can imagine what the skin will feel like when it’s healed.

Healing, despite its poetry, is a science. The world will not heal with hope and imagination alone—certainly, those need to be there, along with despair at how things are now, but most of all, we need science. Thought and logic and clear-headedness drives movements. Science makes up vaccines and holds the solution to climate change. Logic battles the judgement we have for the parts of us that are struggling: what is more logical a reaction to the horrors of 2020 than to, in fact, feel horror? And then to acknowledge it, and then to channel the horror into yet more logic, that needed to solve the problem. All is not as it should be—but only because the work isn’t quite done yet. We’re getting there. Painfully, hopefully, and with science and gratitude.

Featured Image from AmGen

Building Back Equal

Francesca Von Krauland COVID-19, Global Future, Uncategorized December 1, 2020December 1, 2020care work, economics, feminism, femtech, marketing, sustainability

“Historically, pandemics have forced humans to break with the past and imagine their world anew. This one is no different. It is a portal, a gateway between one world and the next. We can choose to walk through it, dragging the carcasses of our prejudice and hatred, our avarice, our data banks and dead ideas, our dead rivers and smoky skies behind us. Or we can walk through lightly, with little luggage, ready to imagine another world. And ready to fight for it.” So ends a Financial Times article penned by author Arundhati Roy earlier this year, when the extent of the COVID-19 situation was just beginning to become clear. Her words hold truer than ever as we near the final month of this chaotic, tragic, wake-up call of a year. Everything has changed, but have we as a society changed enough to make the most of the times to come?

In my last article, I gave a sketch of the vision of some feminist climate activists, one that involves knocking down the capitalist world order and replacing it with a collectivist and egalitarian framework. I now want to highlight some of the work already being done, within the system, to reform and rebuild the economy with both social and climate justice at the forefront.

First, some hopeful facts, as explained by Joni Seager, a feminist geographer at Bentley University. Renewables have passed non-renewables in the EU for electricity. The BP oil company says that the peak of their output has passed. The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund has said it won’t put any more funding toward fossil fuels. As a whole, in developed nations, fossil fuels are on the way out—all due the fact that rational economic behaviors would move us away from fossil fuels at this moment, more so than as a result of the compassion of the powerful and the passion of the powerless. In fact, much has been accomplished despite what Seager calls “a stubborn attachment that defies sensibility of economics” in the United States and Australia, where governments have ratcheted up commitment to fossil fuels through identity politics. From the top to bottom predominately male work force, to the fact that capital benefits accrue most to men, to the very language we use of “drill baby drill and “dominating the Permian Basin,” the fossil fuels industry is a remarkably masculinized one. Outdated for more than one reason, a society reliant on fossil fuels is also one that propagates a limiting, gendered worldview—and even those who challenge the science and economics of fossil fuels don’t always do so with equality in mind.

There’s a particular, 21st century brand of masculinity that drives environmental policy with methods that only enforce outdated social norms. The economic effects of the pandemic make the Green New Deal more urgent and relevant than ever, yet a feminist analysis of its proposed policies reveals numerous shortcomings, due in large part to the male elite perspective it relies on. A paper commissioned by two UK feminist organizations, Wen and the Women’s Budget Group, found that the Green New Deal creates tech jobs for “men in hard hats lifting solar panels,” a masculinist assumption of what the economy is for. With little acknowledgement of social difference, they emphasize that true progress lies in investing in women and POC-dominated care work, which pollutes less than construction. Care work can be paid or unpaid, and it mainly takes place in the home in the service of others, including children, aging parents, and spouses. The interconnections between the exploitation of women’s care work and the Earth need to be addressed simultaneously because all those doing the care work make survival, learning, and change possible in the face of existential threats—despite the free subsidy that care work represents to people in power. The study found that each pound invested in care produces three times as many jobs as one invested in construction, and this fact, coupled with that the vast majority of people of all genders want care work to be paid, points toward an economic solution that would also have a positive social impact. Supporters of a care-centered green movement consciously distance themselves from some of the ideas of the climate feminists of my last article. Branding themselves “eco-feminists,” supporters of a Feminist Green New Deal emphasize that their ideas are not about women being close to nature or other such caricatures, but about rational arguments for the democratization of care work.

Within the Femtech sector, which is “an all-encompassing name that defines innovations designed to support, improve and promote women’s health,” many products designed and sold for and by women are also eco-friendly. Replacing wasteful, disposable menstrual products with reusable cups, for example, is one of many ways that women are dominating the movement toward sustainable innovation and consumerism. Of course, this is problematic in another way—most available environmentally conscious products on the market, including reusable shopping bags, household cleaning products, and cosmetics, are marketed toward women, with some saying that green is the new pink in women’s marketing. While showcasing the ingenuity and motivation of the women behind some of these campaigns, such an approach alienates men, actually fueling the belief that saving the planet is women’s work, rather than something that can only be achieved through intersectional, inclusive action. But even these notions are dwindling among younger generations, which is a definite cause for hope.

There’s much to be done in the climate movement by both men and women—and deconstructing needlessly gendered economic and business policies seems like a good start. In reforming our global order to address the climate crisis, the pandemic, social injustice, and the economic crisis, solutions need not throw out the system in order to improve it. Policies that are feminist, sustainable, and economically sound would move society forward in a way that’s equal parts revolutionary and truly feasible.

Featured Image from Tee Public

Climate Migration: A Cause and Effect

Francesca Von Krauland COVID-19, Global Future November 15, 2020November 15, 2020climate change, COVID-19, human rights, migration, natural disasters, pandemic, refugees

We watched the events of this year unfold from our couches. News of the pandemic’s spread had most of the population home and baking, breaking out board games and books to alleviate boredom. When election week got too stressful, or we read about yet another jihadist attack, or another Black American’s arrest gone disturbingly wrong, or the latest statistics on worsening climate change, we fought back with activism, yes, but also with self care. We watch the news on our couches, with our loved ones, light scented candles and buy another fluffy blanket as the cold weather sets in, as we contemplate the world’s most deeply rooted inequities. It is our right—self care is crucial to sustaining mental health so that we have the energy to keep fighting for change. But it’s also a luxury denied to the very people we fight for. As we munch on our homemade sourdough starters and shake our heads at the latest “presidential” tweet, there are people around the world who are so affected by global events that they lose, rather than retreat to, the homes they want to feel just as safe in as we do ours. Migrants and refugees have been a historical reality as long as the concept of borders has existed, but the causes of flight, the perils of that process, and its longterm ramifications are now more interconnected and alarming than ever.

In my most recent articles, I examined the links between climate change and natural disasters like droughts, hurricanes, and wildfires. Events like these, but also places with conditions of less immediacy, which nonetheless experience the effects of a changing climate, make many of the world’s most vulnerable places unlivable, resulting in migration. Such migration can occur within a country but also across national borders and even across continents. These movements and influxes of large, heterogeneous groups of migrants and refugees are both caused by environmental degradation and often unwitting contributors to that very same process. Yet despite, and perhaps because of this vicious cycle, humanitarian efforts to support these groups, especially during a global pandemic, are more crucial both to the wellbeing of migrants and to the environment than perhaps ever before.

While migration can be spurred by a variety of push and pull factors, when one examines the climate/environment as a catalyst for movement, there are several main causes, as outlined in this study. Migration induced by environmental disasters, like those mentioned above, is one. Migration caused by longterm environmental degradation, like resource strain due to overpopulation, is another main cause. Finally, long term effects of climate change like rising sea levels and shifts in disease patterns due to changes in weather regimes and temperature change also drives migration.

While the idea of migration might most readily bring to mind the entrance and assimilation of large groups from political conflict areas into the West, the reality of migration is nuanced, occurring over vastly different timelines and over varying geographic scales. Whether the movement is international or simply regional, the amount of people migrating, the reason for their migration, and the resources available for their support upon arrival all have ramifications both for the environment in the receiving territory and for the migrants themselves. Studies of internal migration show that “settlement into marginal and fragile ecosystems in [Least Developed countries] have led to desertification, deforestation and other environmental degradation.” Another study finds that migration from developing to developed countries causes an absolute increase in global emissions not just from the process of movement but also from environmental damage in the areas in which they settle. In developed countries, this means increased total emissions as migrant populations settle into the energy consumption patterns associated with higher income level urban areas, as well as loss of biodiversity, soil quality, deforestation, water pollution, and deterioration of natural areas responsible for carbon sequestration for migrants who settle in and develop more rural areas. These problems make living in migrant settled areas difficult not just for existing local populations but also for the migrants themselves.

The environmental problems in connection with the multiple stages of migration result from a lack of efficient management and planning. Understandably, the immediate wellbeing of refugee populations is the priority, but approaching the task of planning a refugee settlement cannot be dictated by short-term goals when such settlements are often longterm establishments, existing on average for 17 years. This is long enough to irreversibly damage the local environment of the settlement. Camp overcrowding, while a humanitarian issue, is also an environmental one, as local water and tree supplies diminish dangerously. The UNHCR created a tool to assess environmental impact in 2005, yet the focus remains on a “curative” rather than prevention-oriented approach. In some places, if the potential financial and social burden of supporting refugees does not dissuade a host country from accepting refugees, the damage to the environment that persists long after might act as a disincentive for aid. This article points out that after examining case studies in rural camps like that of 80,000 Nigerian refugees in Northern Cameroon and Syrian refugee camps in urban Lebanon, it is clear that “despite the gradual introduction of the term “environment” as a cross-cutting issue in policies and strategies, environmental issues are generally perceived as being separate from the humanitarian sector…humanitarian crises can have a significant impact on the natural environment, particularly when these are prolonged crises.”

Migration, whether for political, environmental, or other reasons, is predicted to increase in the coming decades, but it must do so in a way that protects both the displaced groups and their destinations. Establishing new urban centers in migratory destinations is one proposed sustainable solution. As a whole, planning and facilitating migration as a lifesaving option for vulnerable groups that does not jeopardize future environmental health must be prioritized in the conversation on migration, not just in addition to humanitarian aims but as a humanitarian aim in itself.

This year, the pandemic raised many questions about borders, international rights, and the priorities of governments. Within weeks of COVID-19’s spread across the globe, travel between the Unites States and Europe, and indeed between European countries, halted—and still has not been completely restored. In difficult times, the instinct of many is to protect those closest to them: family, neighbors, those with the same nationality. Asylum procedures were similarly disrupted. Displaced people became some of the most vulnerable to exposure to the virus due to cramped living conditions and shared resources, and their need was more urgent than ever. The pandemic serves as a powerful reminder of the world’s connectedness, but also of how differently people experience the same problems. Climate change causes migration, which causes environmental degradation and furthers the spread of the virus, which might lead to more inaction on climate change as leaders struggle to deal with the most immediate global issues at the direct expense of ongoing ones; it’s a brutal cycle that can only be broken with empathy, knowledge, and planning.

Featured Image from Climate and Migration Coalition

Orange Skies

Francesca Von Krauland COVID-19, Global Future November 1, 2020November 1, 2020climate change, economy, natural disasters, pandemic, sustainability, wildfires

There’s something unsettling about the virus, this seemingly inescapable, omnipresent, insidious force that keeps us locked in our homes. Some people almost wished for a tangible enemy, something obvious and terrifying but at the very least visible, so that they could justify the sacrifices and fear. The universe granted that wish in a very 2020 way—wildfires swept the west coast with the same force that the Australian wildfires did way, way back in January of this year. Suddenly, the sky was like something out of Dante’s Inferno, and you could taste the smoke particles floating in the air even through a face mask. The landscape matched the gathering feeling of apocalypse, and new numbers, like 4 million burned acres, joined the statistics we sing ourselves to sleep with: 45.1 million global COVID-19 infections, 230,000 COVID-19 deaths in the United States eight months and counting of using the phrase ‘unprecedented times.’ An article written by Stanford University student Nestor Walters on the wildfires poses the question: “How many more times do we need to hear words like trying, tumultuous or challenging as adjectives to times before we accept that these are simply the times we live in?”

No one can escape it—not the wildfires, not the pandemic, and not climate change. Rozzi, an American pop singer, released a ballad called “Orange Skies” about the wildfires in her hometown of San Francisco. She said of the song, “Despite the massiveness of the issue, I knew I wanted to make the song personal – because of course the underlying issue itself is personal. Climate change isn’t some mythical thing happening to other people, in other places – it’s happening right now, right outside our doors.”

The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk reports 7,348 wildfires, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, floods, droughts, and heatwaves over the past 20 years. These natural disasters resulted in the deaths of 1.23 million people, affecting a total of 4.2 billion people, and caused $2.97 trillion in global economic losses. Most effected are China and the United States. The report unequivocally links these events to the rising global temperature as a result of greenhouse gas emissions, and finds that any improvements to disaster response or climate adaptation will be “obsolete in many countries” if climate change, the source of the problem, is not immediately addressed.

So how does climate change cause forest fires? National Geographic explains that as temperatures rise due to climate change, the hot air “soaks up water from whatever it touches—plants (living or dead) and soil, lakes and rivers. The hotter and drier the air, the more it sucks up, and the amount of water it can hold increases exponentially as the temperature rises; small increases in the air’s heat can mean big increases in the intensity with which it pulls out water.” In California, the rise in temperature is about 3 degrees Fahrenheit, far above the global average of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. The heat combines with parched forest material, which is even dryer due to a persistent drought more intense than any for the past 1,200 years, producing the ideal conditions for a fire to consume forests, in addition to all of the settlements that have increasingly encroached among traditionally undeveloped lands.

Some preventive measures exist, though actual implementation by governments and industry varies. In Australia, nomadic aboriginal groups used to practice surface vegetation burning to prevent outbreaks of fire. Though indigenous populations can no longer engage in that tradition, the method is still emulated by local governments. Urban planning in Australia—where the 2019/2020 season was the hottest on record and driest for 120 years—must prevent expansion into flammable wildland areas, include vegetation-free zones around properties, use fireproof building materials, and plan evacuation and rescue routes in advance. In California, controlled burning of dry brush and excess debris is a common practice, though it contributes to air pollution. Currently, timber companies and biomass industries do not substantially support the state’s fire prevention strategy, so reducing costs of thinning projects would create better incentives for participation on an industry level. Additionally, as in Australia, building codes should emphasize fire-resistance and developing into high-risk areas should be banned. As a whole, these measures could reduce short term damage, but would address only the symptoms of the problem, rather than the problem itself. Unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced, and the warming of the Earth slows, these practices will not suffice.

Economically, the stakes are high for leaders to respond effectively. California Governor Gavin Newsom announced investments in the CAL FIRE air fleet, early wildfire warning technologies, fire detection cameras, and permanent firefighting positions, along with related crisis counseling, legal services, and housing and unemployment assistance for people affected by the fires. Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, on the other hand, was widely criticized for his slow response to the wildfires, though he did expressly link them to climate change—a link that the Australian Finance Minister denied. Though Australia has pledged to reduce its emissions by between 26 and 28% within the next decade, a UN report noted that few of the Conservative government’s policies are designed to reach this target. Studies on the economic impact of wildfires on affected areas show that “large wildfires lead to instability in local labor markets by amplifying seasonal variation in employment over the subsequent year” and that rural areas in particular struggle to recover. Even without the pandemic-induced recession, effects last months and even years in places like rural Oregon. Short term economic gains as local laborers rebuild are overshadowed by the slow economic growth that follows as tourism, logging, and other essential industries drop.

It’s been an overwhelming year, but the pandemic, the wildfires, and climate change are nothing new. We are experiencing the colliding effects of problems we as a global society created and then ignored, until a virus halted civilization and the skies turned orange. The problem isn’t invisible, it’s in everything: it’s the fuel that runs the world we are literally watching burn. But we still have time, just a tiny bit of time, to turn things around, and to lower our emissions by switching to renewable energy, and to rebuild a post-pandemic society sustainably. Nestor Walters puts it best: “We don’t own the past or future; all we have is now. We can’t let hope take away our now, or we’ll find ourselves looking out the window one morning, wondering if the sky used to be blue.”

Featured Image from Bloomberg

Rebuilding Sustainably

Francesca Von Krauland COVID-19, Global Future October 13, 2020October 13, 2020business, pandemic, public policy, recovery, renewables

When the world went into lockdown earlier this year, and the streets and skies were emptied of their usual polluting noisiness, people enthusiastically counted a decrease in environmental degradation as the one positive outcome of the pandemic. For anyone still doubting it, the drop in emissions proved that humans are responsible for climate change, but also that nature is resilient and flourishes again the moment human interference is diminished. We can learn from the societal changes we saw during the pandemic in order to develop policies that will stimulate the rebuilding of the economy with sustainability in mind, so long as the temptation of short-term fixes doesn’t distract and further entrench harmful and outdated practices.

“Epidemiologists have long warned that the characteristics of today’s global society (e.g. shifts in and destruction of wild habitats, greater global interconnectedness, high-density in large urban centres) increase the risk of future pandemics, even if no one could predict when one would happen,” reports an OECD article on the coronavirus and policy responses. Clearly, the causes of the pandemic and climate change have significant overlap, but that certainly doesn’t mean that the pandemic on its own will make a huge impact in solving the environmental crisis. Early on in the pandemic, the IEA predicted that there would be a 6% drop in energy demand in 2020, “wiping off five years of demand growth.” Another source traced monthly decreases of CO2 emissions by sector, emphasizing how surface transport accounted for half of the 17% drop at the time of the study. Both sources, however, agree that temporary, lockdown-induced improvements are not enough, a mere drop in the ocean of the improvements that need to happen for the effects of climate change to be reversed. Also, this is not even the first crisis to have a temporary positive impact—the 2008 Global Financial Crisis also caused a short drop in emissions, which was then followed by an even greater growth in subsequent years. It’s not the lockdown that has the biggest effect, but the policies that we decide to implement following the lockdowns.

These policies should correspond to the changes we saw that were effective in decreasing environmental degradation during the lockdown. Before the pandemic, companies like Deloitte, which flew its consultants out to locations around the country on a weekly basis, were the top customers of airlines like Delta and United. After having switched to remote work during the pandemic, such companies have realized how much more effective and profitable decreasing business travel can be. Even now, office buildings in Manhattan stand mostly empty, meaning that the energy required to operate these buildings, to transport workers to and from their offices, and to fly for business trips are all being saved. With an increased emphasis on remote work, it’s possible that companies will lean toward shortening global supply chains and growing online, which would also decrease emissions from shipping—one of the top causes of pollution globally.

As of right now, the positive impact on the environment is incremental when compared to the massive economic problems the lockdowns have resulted in. As a result, it might be hard to see why prioritizing the environment would be important as policymakers and businesses struggle to rebuild. There are a few key actions that might be helpful to the economy in the short term that would create long term damage to the environmental progress we’ve made, like dismantling carbon markets, lowering vehicle fuel efficiency standards, or just generally weakening existing environmental policy enforcement in order to cut costs. Also, other potential issues include a drop in investment in renewable energy due to the recent drop in oil prices, and the longer period before returns characteristic of some renewables, in addition to a decrease in innovation from smaller firms that usually spearhead progress but who were harder hit during the pandemic.

The European Green Deal, first presented last December, is being incorporated into the regrowth of the European economy following the first wave of the pandemic. Countries like Sweden are committing to financially supporting “green job” creation to reduce unemployment within a green stimulus package. Europe is serving as a model for how to transition from an unsustainable, pre-pandemic economy to one that suits the modern needs of recovering from the economic blows of the pandemic while addressing the urgency of climate change. The goals of the European Green Deal include:

-No net emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050
-Economic growth is decoupled from resource use
-No person and no place is left behind

They specify that these goals will be reached by:
-Investing in environmentally-friendly technologies
-Supporting industry to innovate
-Rolling out cleaner, cheaper and healthier forms of private and public transport
-Decarbonising the energy sector
-Ensuring buildings are more energy efficient
-Working with international partners to improve global environmental standards

In the United States, meanwhile, talk of the Green New Deal largely fizzled out after it was defeated in the Senate in 2019. Progressive climate policy cannot continue to be regarded in the U.S. as idealistic, something to perhaps be pursued in some distant future when the need will be greater. The pandemic revealed the extent of our impact on the climate, and our own globalized world forced us to slow down and rapidly dismantle much of what we built, and what we had planned for. The only way forward that addresses the joint cause of the pandemic and of climate change is a focus on sustainability and climate justice as we rebuild our shared world.

Featured Image by The Economic Times

Written by Francesca von Krauland, Columbia University Masters Student in Global Thought and Climate Justice Now Intern.

← Previous