a long standing presence of the us military on the island of vieques, puerto rico has left its warm, turquoise waters and sandy, beach getaways tainted by ammunition waste and chemical contamination leaving spirited residents and restoration task forces to pick up the shrapnel.

in 1941, the u.s. navy purchased 27,000 of the 33,000 acres that comprise the island of vieques. for nearly 60 years, the viequenses people “coexisted” in the crossfire between the divided training areas on the 50.8 sq mile island, roughly the same area as the city of las vegas.

following the death of a civilian navy employee, david sanes in 1999, civil unrest ensued, eventually leading to the departure of the us navy presence in 2003. however, the navy left the island peppered with remnants of undetonated bombs, pfas chemicals, uranium, mercury, napalm and more. all of which are toxic materials known to have serious effects on human health along with generational impacts on the health of island youth.

caught in a crossfire: life on the island

the navy’s departure followed years of persistent displays of civil disobedience by viequenses. before that, residents on the island lived an alarmingly close 8.7 miles from the “live impact area” where military jets, traveling between 500 and 1,300 miles per hour, trained for high altitude bombing on the easternmost part of the island. according to author katherine t. mccaffrey, an error in four seconds of fire from a ship could land up to 14 or 20 miles from the target, while a four second error from an aircraft pilot could drop a bomb up to 50 miles from a target. 

local vieques resident, elda guadalupe carrasquillo, grew up during the navy’s occupation and recalls the windows of her grade school classroom shaking during active munitions trainings. carraqquillo was raised on various army bases before settling in vieques with her family around age 10. “when i was in a real military base, even though i saw a lot of military things, there were no actual live practices like here in vieques,” she said.

despite carrasquillo’s familiarity with the events that occur on a military base, she affirms these training sessions were “too close” for the safety and comfort of residents. today, carrasquillo works with an agro-ecological farm on the island, la colmena cimarrona, and is a middle school teacher. in addition to the violent nature of living so close to these “live impact areas”, residents also suffered from legacy pollution due to the chemical and material shrapnel. 

rates of cancer amongst viequenses are 31% above that of the rates of cancer on the main island along with 4 times the rate of hypertension amongst residents. coupled with this, pollutants like agent orange, depleted uranium, and pfas have leached into the island’s soil, groundwater, and air leaving residents vulnerable to exposure through a variety of mediums.

“we don’t know how contaminated our underground water sources are,” carrasquillo said. she also noted that a large majority of students on the island require individualized educational plans due to learning disabilities which recent studies have found links between cognitive development and pfas exposure.

uxos and remediated sites: successful strides in clean-up efforts

in 2005, the island was placed on the national priorities list, as a “superfund” site — one that requires investigation and clean-up by the u.s. government. today, several locations around the island have been successfully remediated to become recreational spaces for islanders and tourists.

a notable site from the eastern sect of the superfund sites, the puerto ferro lighthouse was constructed in 1896 by spanish colonizers. the lighthouse lies within the 535 acres that comprise uxo area 15, an unfortunate title that refers to the presence of unexploded ordnance like bombs and bullets on the land. despite the contamination, the scenic area on the southern coast of vieques overlooks a bright blue coastline and slopes upward as you move inland.

the area around the abandoned structure is home to a thin forest of mangrove trees, lagoons, and salt and sand flats. but in just one year, over 23,000 explosive bombs were dropped on these coastal hills. in 2013, the us navy initiated priority action to facilitate public access and to encourage recreational and commercial activities at puerto ferro and the surrounding beach areas.

the area was investigated for munitions and explosives of concern anywhere from 1 to 4 ft below ground surface level. the area was ultimately remediated seven years ahead of schedule, and upon completion provided public access to formerly restricted areas as well as educational kiosks and monuments for visitors to interact with.

moving to the western sect of the superfund sites, former open burn/open detonation sites (swmu 4 and uxo 16) were also successfully remediated ahead of schedule to provide further public access to recreational spaces like the beaches around the island. several pieces of munitions were removed from the site, however, not all were recollected. despite this, a 2018 remedial investigation report found the likelihood that these munitions were still physically present in the area was improbable.

balancing the health of the land and the people

a large part of the uxo sites on the island have been remediated, and are in the concluding or monitoring stages of the clean-up process. while numerous sites still remain around the island, within the next decade, most of the entire island is expected to be remediated.

nonetheless, carrasquillo expects challenges and uncertainty ahead. “we know it’s never going to be completely clean and maybe it’s not going to be usable for what the viequenses need,” she said.

still, carrasquillo characterizes viequenses as “resistant,” embodied in the peoples’ continued advocacy for their own health and the island’s environment. following the clean up of munitions around the island, she hopes to see the island begin to restore its emotional and mental wellness through strengthening their relationship with the land stating, “if we can heal our land little piece by little piece so we can also be healthy, maybe we can help vieques recover.”

republican nominee and former president donald trump and democratic nominee and current vice president kamala harris will face off on nov. 5 for the presidency and have stated differing opinions on climate change.

the harris’ campaign

harris, with current president joe biden, has worked to address climate change through legislation such as the bipartisan infrastructure act and the inflation reduction act. 

both the bipartisan infrastructure act and the ira gave funding for local projects which will alleviate the effects of climate change and benefit other areas of the economy. the ira was signed on aug. 16, 2022, and a year after it was signed the biden administration stated it has made changes. 

within the first year the ira was signed into law, there was $110 billion in new clean energy manufacturing including $10 billion in solar manufacturing. the administration also awarded over a billion dollars to protect communities from the impacts of climate change when struck by hurricanes or droughts. the white house stated within the first year of the ira’s implementation american families were projected to save between $27-38 billion on electricity bills between 2022 and 2030.

in a speech regarding its second year anniversary, harris spoke positively about the ira while running for president, saying the legislation is also improving manufacturing and innovation. 

“while taking on the climate crisis and lowering utility bills for families, it is helping us to rebuild american manufacturing and drive american innovation,” harris said.

but there is a question of whether harris will continue to address climate change in her agenda called new way forward if she wins the presidency. seth schuster, a spokesperson for the harris campaign, said there is not another candidate who will “fight harder” to combat climate change. 

“she’s proud to have delivered the most significant climate legislation in american history with president biden,” schuster said. 

according to her presidential campaign website, as president she will “unite” citizens to tackle climate change and build on president biden’s “historic work,” including environmental justice, increasing resilience to climate disasters, and lowering household energy costs.  

“she and governor walz will always fight for the freedom to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis,” her website states. 

harris picked minnesota gov. tim walz as her running mate and democratic vice presidential nominee in early august. 

as governor, walz has championed many initiatives on climate change, including 40 during the 2023 legislative session in minnesota. one legislation included a law requiring all minnesotans to get all their electricity from carbon-free sources by 2040 to stop climate change caused by coal and gas pollution.   

a report from npr stated climate change activists have given “praise” to harris for picking walz as his running mate, including from jamie henn of fossil free media.
“tim walz had the best climate record of any of the vp contenders and has been unafraid to take on big oil,” henn wrote on x.

trump’s outlook

before trump ran for president in 2016, he was known for calling climate change, or global warming, a “hoax,” which he attributed to china in 2012. 

“the concept of global warming was created by and for the chinese in order to make u.s. manufacturing non-competitive,” trump wrote on x. 

during his first administration, the brookings institution said trump was more interested in stopping climate policy than addressing climate change, highlighting his 2017 executive order stating for every new regulation, two regulations have to be eliminated. 

the new york times reported that by the end of his presidency, trump had completed “roll backs” on 98 environmental policies and was in progress on an additional 14. 

trump’s agenda47, a plan detailing what policies he would enact during his possible second administration, does not state climate change as an issue which should be addressed. he instead focuses on making america produce more oil.

trump stated, “america must have the number one lowest cost energy and electricity on earth” through producing more oil. his website also stated this will lower inflation and allow america to become the manufacturing “superpower” of the world. 

“to keep pace with the world economy that depends on fossil fuels for more than 80% of its energy, president trump will drill, baby, drill,” his website states. 

during his 2020 presidential campaign, trump also spread misinformation on climate change, saying wind turbines cause cancer and sink property values by 75%. 

during a recent rally in pennsylvania on sept. 29 for his 2024 presidential bid, three days after the impact of  hurricane helene, trump denied the existence of climate change. 
jd vance, trump’s running mate and the vice presidential republican nominee, responded to hurricane helene in relation to climate change during the vice presidential debate between him and walz, hosted by cbs on oct. 1.

vance took a bipartisan approach to hurricane helene by saying he and walz’s “hearts” and “prayers” go out to those affected, calling it an “unbelievable, unspeakable human tragedy.” he said they both want the federal government to help people affected by natural disasters.

but vance said he and trump want to make the environment cleaner and safer since americans worry about these “crazy weather patterns.” 

“we want as robust and aggressive a federal response as we can get to save as many lives as possible,” vance said. 

the last day for u.s. citizens to cast their ballot is election day on nov. 5.

one of the cbs news debate moderators norah o’donnell asked about climate change in relation to hurricane helene, which hit the southeastern united states over the weekend, and has killed more than 160 people with hundreds of more missing. o’donnell said scientists say climate change makes these hurricanes “larger, stronger and more deadly” because of the historic rainfall.

according to a cbs news poll from april, 70% of americans overall and more than 60% of republicans under the age of 45 favor the u.s. to take steps and try to reduce climate change. o’donnell first addressed vance on climate change.

“what responsibility would the trump administration have to try and reduce the impact of climate change?” o’donnell asked.

vance began his response by calling hurricane helene an “unbelievable, unspeakable human tragedy.” he said before the debate he saw a picture of two grandparents and their grandchild on a roof before it collapsed and swept them away to their deaths. 

vance took a bipartisan approach while answering the question as he said he and gov. walz’ “hearts” and “prayers” go out to those affected by hurricane helene. he said they both want the federal government to help people affected by natural disasters.

“we want as robust and aggressive as a federal response as we can get to save as many lives as possible,” vance said. 

vance said he and republican presidential nominee donald trump want to make the environment cleaner and safer since americans worry about these “crazy weather patterns.” 

even though vance began on a bipartisan approach, he then criticized the biden administration on their approach to climate change. he said his “democratic friends” are concerned about carbon emissions from manufacturing affecting the environment. vance said if the democratic party was worried about carbon emissions, they would want to consolidate manufacturing in the u.s. 

“what have kamala harris’s policies actually led to? more energy production in china, more manufacturing overseas, more doing business in some of the dirtiest parts of the entire world.” vance said. 

the biden administration in 2022 spent $583 billion on imports from china but that number then dropped to $501 billion in 2023. during the last two years of the trump administration, $479 billion was spent in 2018 and $419 billion was spent in 2019 on imports from china.  

vance also called the u.s. the “cleanest economy in the entire world.” but according to the 2023 hinrich-imd sustainable trade index (sti), which measures economies’ level of sustainability, new zealand is ranked first with the u.s. ranking ninth.  

walz then responded to vance by first addressing hurricane helene where he said he has been in contact with governors of the affected southeastern states since he was co-chair of the governor’s council. 

but walz quickly turned to addressing climate change where he said even though vance sees it as a “problem,” he criticized trump’s approach.

“donald trump called it a hoax and then joked that these things would make more beachfront property to be able to invest in,” walz said.

he then said the biden administration has made “massive” investments through the passage of the inflation reduction act which provides funding for clean energy and combating climate change. 

walz said the biden administration has created 200,000 jobs across the country. but a fact-check from cnn found the number walz mentioned includes both the current number of jobs created and anticipated jobs. 

walz also said the u.s. is both producing more natural gas and more oil along with more clean energy, compared to the past.

“we are seeing us becoming an energy superpower for the future, not just the current,” walz said. “and that’s exactly what makes sense.”

the u.s. energy information administration found increases in production in natural gas along with stating the u.s. is producing more oil than ever. the organization also states the u.s. is using more renewable energy too but considerably less than natural gas and oil. 

vance then responded to walz’s statements by drawing back on his points on how the biden administration is importing manufactured goods from other countries. he said if their administration followed their beliefs regarding climate change they should be doing more manufacturing and energy production in the u.s. 

“kamala harris herself doesn’t believe her own rhetoric on this,” vance said.

vance also said when the biden administration is creating clean energy, they are using taxpayers money to import solar panels into the u.s. from other countries such as china. instead he said the u.s. should be working to produce more solar panels domestically.

“if you really want to make the environment cleaner, you’ve got to invest in more energy production,” vance said.  

data from the international energy agency states china produces the majority of four out of five materials used to create solar panels. 

walz then responded to vance by addressing farmers in his home state of minnesota who have seen the effects of climate change by noticing a drought one year and a flood the next. he then again honed in on laws passed by the biden administration allowing the u.s. to solve the problems of climate change in the future. 

“how do we make sure that we’re protecting by burying our power lines? how do we make sure that we’re protecting lakefronts and things that we’re seeing more and more of?” walz questioned.

walz ended his response criticizing trump by saying he invited oil executives to mar-a-lago where he told them to give money to his campaign and he will do “whatever they want.”

a report from the new york times in may stated trump invited oil executives from companies such as exxonmobil and eqt corporation to mar-a-lago where he asked them to donate $1 billion to his campaign and he would “roll back” on environmental rules affecting their business. 

o’donnell concluded the climate change discussion by saying the “overwhelming consensus” among scientists is the climate is warming at an “unprecedented rate.”

moderators david muir and linsey davis asked current vice president and democratic presidential nominee kamala harris and former president and republican presidential nominee donald trump about their stances on climate change. one third of registered voters, or 62% of harris’s voters and 11% of trump’s voters, reported climate change as a “very important” issue when voting in this year’s presidential election. 

before discussing climate change, the candidates mostly used the presidential debate to discuss three hot button issues: abortion, the economy and immigration. 

trump and harris also attacked each other on other non-issues. trump called harris a “marxist,” stating her father, who is a professor in economics at stanford university, “taught her well.” harris also referred to trump as a “fella” and said viewers are going to hear a “bunch of lies.” 

the first question about climate change came more than 90 minutes into the presidential debate. davis was the one to ask the question: 

“we have another issue that we’d like to get to that’s important for a number of americans, in particular younger voters, and that’s climate change. president trump, with regard to the environment, you say that we have to have clean air and clean water. vice president harris, you call climate change an existential threat. the question to you both tonight is what would you do to fight climate change?”

the vice president, who responded first, began her statement by saying trump has previously called climate change a “hoax.” she said while working for the biden administration, they have invested heavily in clean energy.

“i’m proud that we have invested a trillion dollars in a clean energy economy as we have also increased domestic oil and gas to historic levels,” harris said. 

according to a fact-check reported by abc and what the new york times called “misleading,” the three laws passed by the biden administration addressing funding for climate change, the bipartisan infrastructure law, chips and science act of 2022 and the inflation reduction act, would not exceed $1 trillion.  

harris has cited this statistic multiple times in campaign speeches. 

beyond her work in the biden administration, she also said people who are denied or cannot afford home insurance and are “victims” of natural disasters have nowhere to go after they are displaced from their residences. 

she agreed with davis’ lead-up to the question on how young people “care deeply” about climate change. a cbs news poll from april stated 76% of americans aged 18-29 say the u.s. “needs to take steps” to slow down the effects of climate change. 

but harris then pivoted back to economic issues, discussing auto workers and how the biden administration has increased manufacturing jobs in the united states by 800,000. 

trump, in response to harris jumping back to the economy, avoided the moderator’s original question on climate change altogether.

he said in his response that the biden administration has lost 10,000 manufacturing jobs within the last month. the u.s. department of labor monthly payroll report stated manufacturing jobs declined 24,000 in august. 

due to this decrease in manufacturing jobs, trump said auto manufacturers are leaving the u.s. and building “big” auto plants in mexico with some owned by foreign countries like china. 

“what they’ve done to business and manufacturing in this country is horrible,” trump said in reference to the biden administration. 

he then moved over to talking about how current president joe biden and his son hunter biden are receiving money from foreign countries like ukraine along with $3.5 million from the mayor of moscow’s wife. 

“this is a crooked administration, and they’re selling our country down the tubes,” trump said. 

the house committee on oversight and accountability, the house committee on the judiciary, and the house committee on ways and means reported in june members of the biden family have received $35 million from countries like ukraine and russia. but they could only prove biden’s son hunter and brother james, along with their “related companies,” received money and not the current president. 

trump did not deny calling climate change a hoax. 

even though climate change is a “very important” issue among over one third of voters, both nominees pivoted away when the lone question was asked.

waves crash against the concrete sea wall hugging the shoreline along chicago’s calumet park. sections of the gray boundary between land and lake are crumbling against the constant pressure of the elements.

with over 25 miles of glistening blue water, chicago’s lakeshore, composed of lake michigan beaches, faces a significant threat. erosion is the shrinking of a shoreline that is slowly worn away by waves, wind, currents and other natural factors, and it is affecting the city’s shoreline at an exacerbated rate due to climate change. 

chicago beaches are narrowing at a rate of nearly 100 ft. per year along parts of the coastline, meaning less space for recreation and the loss of habitats for shorebirds and other beach animals.

“in a warming climate, there’s more intense precipitation events, which also tend to facilitate higher rates of erosion,” max berkelhammer, a climate and atmospheric scientist and professor at university of illinois at chicago, said. “the primary cause is coastal management. like building right along coastlines and not maintaining basically wetlands or or natural shore ecosystems that absorb the action of the lake. so i think it’s primarily a human or urban development issue.”

berkehammer said the primary action in question is the rising lake levels exposing more of the sand to water, wind and the increase in runoff — when it rains faster than the sand or soil can absorb the water and it runs off a surface, increasing the rate of erosion.

erosion causes damage to infrastructure (roads, buildings and parking lots) and natural habitats. it can also threaten public health by increasing the risk of algal blooms, quick growing areas of algae that can produce harmful toxins. 

edgewater environmental coalition (eec) — a nonprofit organization focused on action, advocacy and education for environmental stewardship — has a shoreline protection program aimed at restoring the natural ecosystems of the lakeshore using nature-based solutions. the organization has used successful strategies of green infrastructure like building dunes, planting native plants and removing invasive ones to mitigate erosion. eec, in conjunction with the loyola university student environmentalist alliance, has planted 300 native grasses and 1,500 marram grass stolons that act as anchors that strengthen dunes across the shore.

natural solutions can often be more cost effective, visually in tune with the natural landscape and equally as durable as traditional gray infrastructure like the concrete ground and walls that make up most of the chicago shoreline, according to eec advisory board member john laswick. he said the main goal of the organization is to reestablish dunes, which are nature’s original protection system.

“what we do is go out every last sunday of the month in the summertime and pull out invasive plants, pick up trash, plant new grasses to extend the dune plantings because if you don’t have the sand anchored with grasses and trees, then it’s just gonna blow away or wash away,” laswick said.

while the organization focuses on dunes and native plants, they also promote other natural resources to combat erosion.

natural solutions to erosion

1. beach nourishment and restoration: replenishing eroded beaches with sediment like sand to protect against wave energy.
2. dune restoration and protection: stabilizing dunes with plants and shrubs to help them last longer and protect the land against erosion.
3. natural shorelines: adding vegetation, oyster reefs and aquatic vegetation to trap sediment and diminish wave energy effects.
4. green infrastructure: adding green infrastructure in urban areas to manage stormwater runoff, like permeable pavement to retain and filter stormwater.
5. coastal vegetation management: adding and preserving native grasses, shrubs, and trees to anchor sediment.
6. integrated coastal zone management: using an integrated approach to coastal management by understanding the interaction of land, water and human activities. 

friends of the parks (fotp), which provided the seed grant that enables eec’s stewardship services along the shore, is a nonprofit organization focused on protecting chicago’s lakefront and ensuring an equitable, ecological park system. they have enacted policy changes — such as partnering with the state and chicago park district to implement the illinois clean harbors program — and educate local residents on park stewardship. 

gin kilgore, interim executive director of fotp, is a former resident of hyde park, a south side neighborhood a few miles from the lakeshore. she says she grew up observing the power of lake michigan to batter the shoreline during big storms, which she notes are more frequent and intense in recent years due to climate change. during long runs along the lakefront she has seen the limitations of “gray infrastructure” to protect against erosion, such as crumbling sidewalks in front of the calumet beach fieldhouse.

fotp is closely monitoring the u.s. army corps of engineers’ general reevaluation report (grr), a study that will evaluate the risk of flooding, erosion and storm damage along lake michigan’s coast in areas of chicago. the study, cost-shared with the city of chicago and the chicago park district, is set to be completed in 2025, at which time solutions will be shared to combat these issues.

according to kilgore, the corps’ mandate is to use the lowest-cost solutions, prioritizing the highest property values. 

“do we only measure cost in terms of how much it costs to put down the concrete? okay, maybe that’s cheap. but, what’s the cost of compromising habitats, or what’s the cost of human access to the lake?” kilgore said. 

fotp also sees the study as an opportunity to complete chicago’s lakefront parks and paths system which currently falls short two miles at both the north and south ends, due in part to private properties that hug the shoreline, kilgore said. creating a buffer between the buildings and water’s edge provides flood protection and allows for public use.

eec also wants to ensure that the report’s proposed solutions are nature-based, and are raising awareness of their work to influence the army corps’ approach.

“a huge part of what is physically chicago and culturally chicago is this lakefront and these parks and the lakeshore drive, and these decisions [about the shore] are going to have an effect for decades,” laswick said. “we got to get started on the right path.”

on aug. 25, the embassy of the united arab emirates (uae) in washington, d.c., collaborated with the mohammed bin rashid space centre (mbrsc) and the national aeronautics and space administration (nasa) to host a live video call and an audience q&a session featuring uae and u.s. astronauts currently aboard the international space station (iss).

the event, hosted in the jack morton auditorium by uae ambassador to the u.s. yousef al otaiba, and attended by senior officials from mbrsc and nasa, underscored the significance of space exploration and research in advancing climate science.

in recent years, the partnership between the uae and the united states in aeronautics research has grown stronger. uae astronauts are actively training at nasa’s johnson space center in houston, texas, and participating in iss missions.

during the event, uae astronaut sultan alneyadi and nasa astronaut warren ‘woody’ hoburg shared their reflections on their experiences aboard the iss as part of nasa’s spacex crew-6 mission, nearing the end of their sixth month in the orbital laboratory.

alneyadi’s recent accomplishments, including becoming the longest-serving arab astronaut in space and conducting the historic first arab spacewalk in april, have earned international recognition. the uae is among only nine other countries that have conducted a spacewalk from the iss.

prior to the video call, a panel discussion was moderated by american comedian and tv personality steve harvey, delving into the collaborative efforts between the uae and the u.s. in the field of space exploration. the panel featured insights from salem almarri, director general of mbrsc; karen feldstein, associate administrator for international and interagency relations at nasa; and hazzaa almansoori, the uae’s inaugural astronaut.

this event marked the conclusion of the mbrsc’s ‘a call from space’ series, which engaged diverse audiences across the uae and the united states throughout alneyadi’s mission aboard the iss.

following the event, emirati engineer and the uae’s first female astronaut, nora al matrooshi, and adnan al rais, the program manager of mars 2117 at mbrsc, discussed their thoughts on climate change and space exploration, which can be viewed below:

as developed nations continue to draw up lofty blueprints of expanded industrialization, one no longer needs to turn an eye on history to find examples of environmental injustice. how about the scheduled drilling of the pristine arctic wildlife national refuge or the destruction of the tongass national forest in alaska? maybe the recently approved kinder morgan trans-mountain pipeline system rings a bell, sending crude oil through established first nation territories in alberta? with every baseless federal proposal and every entangled tribal nation, the line is thinning between indigenous rights and climate activism.

or, at least, so says ruth miller, a recent brown graduate and dena’ina athabaskan alaska native youth leader leading the charge for indigenous representation in the ongoing global climate change debate. i had the pleasure of chatting with miller about her thoughts on the youth climate summit on sep. 21, which she attended at the u.n. headquarters. her responses elucidate the progress we’ve made as an international community and, just as saliently, how far we have yet to go.

q: the youth climate summit on the 21st made ample mention of small island developing states and the unfair climate burden they are being subjected to. but, do you think there was enough talk of indigenous communities in the u.s. and canada, and how their climate concerns are not being addressed?

a: i found that the u.n. youth summit was seriously lacking in productive action. i believe that there was a lot of lip service paid. from a youth perspective, i think that it was almost a convening to let off steam, because what are global leaders going to walk away with from this? that youth care about the environment? well, we’ve been saying that in many different ways for years. if our protests did not make that clear, if our entire movement did not make that clear, this conference did not particularly feel like it added more perspective. 

there were not many indigenous youths attending. those that i was lucky enough to meet were equally frustrated. many were not given particular access to, for instance, the global leaders summit on monday, things that might initiate serious and impactful dialogue about what can be changed. and to me, it was not only this underrepresentation of indigenous people, but the only mention of indigenous people that i saw at the un felt to check a box. if actual inclusion and acceptance was a priority for the u.n., then i would have expected to see many more youths who have been feeling the front lines of these climate change issues for years, not only the youths articulate enough to speak at a conference, but also the youth who have been chaining themselves to pipelines, who are protesting now in mauna kea. and the youth who may not be able to pay their way to a summit like this, for whom it may not be acceptable to miss school. there are so many different kinds of involvement that could have been made acceptable and weren’t. for me, the only real indigenous recognition that i witnessed was an opening prayer.

q: about this youth caucus, in what way did they not adequately address the problems that indigenous communities encounter? was it that they weren’t the true representatives or victims of climate change?

a: i would not put the blame on those individuals, on those youths who are taking the time and energy and sacrifice to occupy these spaces. for me, the blame is much more on the fact that they were not given a platform, they were not given an opportunity to integrate their wealth of knowledge and their experience into a space like a climate summit that is not decolonized and indigenized. if youths, particularly indigenous youths, had been given a workshop, a lecture, a session, anything that would have been able to communicate the importance of integrating indigenous youth voices. but i didn’t see any meaningful engagement with what it means to center indigenous voices in the climate change struggle. the only deep decolonization work that i saw in my time involved with these issues in new york was at the march for the climate on friday, sept. 20, when indigenous youth did take the stage in front of hundreds of thousands of people, to talk about their communities, their issues, what they were doing and what they recommended others to do. that was beautiful and that really set the bar that the united nations did not meet. 

q: i’m astounded that they didn’t have a indigenous communities panel, i just assumed that they would.

a: it’s almost a dangerous assumption, right? and i was almost scolding myself, like ‘ruth, you knew you would be disappointed. why are you surprised?’ you know, i’m committed to being in this space; this is my third summit that i’ve attended at the united nations in the past year. i came from alaska! i had this hope and i’m deeply frustrated that this organization with global leverage, with the resources, with the funding can’t do better, honestly. and i think it’s more important not to just complain about what patterns, what habits those in power are replicating that are maintaining this unsatisfying status quo and think about what can be changed. so, for instance, this whole youth summit was not facilitated and it did not appear to be organized by any youth. the entire program, the schedule of events, everything — i admit i do not know how those events were decided upon, but zero part of it was facilitated or led or moderated by a youth representative, so it almost felt like a playground.

these older adults setting a schedule for what we would be listening to, where we would be sitting, and i don’t even want to say what we would be talking about because we didn’t particularly have any opportunity for dialogue. the breakout sessions were focused on how to make a viral video and how to use instagram effectively, which is fine and useful. i definitely don’t know how to do that. but why in the world are we sitting down and learning how to make a viral video when we are being invited into this extremely elitist space as global leaders — we’re not being treated as such.

what could have been so much more effective would have been workshops to increase the network-building amongst these youth or breakout sessions that were regionally-specific or issue-specific, saying let’s have this room devoted to adaptation to climate change in urban centers, let’s have all the youth who work towards that, who are doing incredible, mind-blowing, innovative projects to solve these problems. that’s why they’re here. let’s have another room for those who are confronting climate change in the arctic and in each of these rooms. let’s set community norms and standards of accountability that we will take into account the fact that we are not representative of all the youth who are experiencing these issues on a day-to-day basis. we are simply those who got enough attention to be invited to a space like this. like, let’s acknowledge how we can decolonize our own institutions and organizations when we leave here. let’s talk about how we can bring other people up with us because none of this happens outside of community and none of this matters if you’re not uplifting the community that got you here. 

if i can come up with this off the top of my head in two seconds, did no one think about how to make this conference more effective and not just an entertaining playground for a day? i definitely got the impression that they expected us to be grateful and satisfied to just to go to the u.n. no! we are demanding action, we are demanding measurable, meaningful, and permanent change. and it was frustrating, it was extremely frustrating to never have an opportunity for dialogue. i am grateful that i had the opportunity to go. it’s an opportunity that most people i know have not had. but what do i bring back to my community after (the conference)? i met some amazing individuals who are doing really cool work. how do i help the people in alaska who are facing the life-changing impact of climate change today? like it’s really cool to invite students who are working on this issue, but why are we not speaking to the people who are living this issue?

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.