minimum wage and frontline workers have been losing their jobs and continue to live paycheck to paycheck during this pandemic. since march, over 30 million americans — or 18.6% of the workforce — have filed for unemployment. the highest it has been since 2009. 

the rich have been the only ones to escape the economic unpredictability of the outbreak — and have actually capitalized on the socioeconomically disadvantaged. 

according to an article published by business insider, between the mid-march and mid-april, billionaire wealth in the u.s. increased $282 billion, or 9.5%. in the same period, over 22 million americans filed for unemployment. this further exposes the wealth gap and wealth discrepancies within our nation. 

“no one has benefited as much as jeff bezos, whose wealth surge is unprecedented in the history of modern markets,” the business insider article states. “bezos’ wealth has increased over $25 billion since january 1, 2020 and 12 billion since february 21, 2020, the beginning of the covid-19 pandemic” (in the united states). 

it is not new information that impoverished, marginalized groups are being affected by this pandemic at significantly higher rates compared to those who have a good economic standing. we may be asking ourselves why this happens, but the truth is that many workers on the frontlines of the coronavirus outbreak are people from a lower socioeconomic status. 

according to an american community survey by the census bureau, essential workers make up nearly 70% of the labor force. of those, 25 million nonelderly adults were working minimum wage paying jobs, making them part of the bottom 20% of earners, as reported by the kaiser family foundation.

unfortunately, people who lose their jobs, often lose their health insurance as well. those lucky enough to have employer-supplied insurance, and are an “essential worker,” must keep working in hazardous conditions to keep their insurance.

these workers risk their lives daily in order to afford their basic expenses. taking time off is not a luxury they have because many of them live paycheck to paycheck, and most low-wage jobs must be done in person. 

in addition to this we not only see the impact of coronavirus alone, but we also see the impacts of environmental racism in marginalized communities. environmental racism is defined as the disproportionate impact of environmental hazards on people of color. environmental justice is the movement’s response to environmental racism. this results in communities being disproportionately exposed to toxic and hazardous waste based upon race.

environmental racism is caused by several factors, including intentional neglect, the alleged need for a receptacle for pollutants in urban areas, and a lack of institutional power and low land values of people of color.

in new york city we see the impacts of environmental racism clearly. according to a study by harvard chan school of public health, there is a positive correlation between air pollution and covid-19 deaths. additionally, this study also discusses the poor ventilation in lower income housing which contributes to bad indoor air quality. communities of color are disproportionately faced with lack of access to safer environments. this includes transportation, healthy food, and even exposure to pollution in the air and water. because of this, communities of color are at a higher risk to be exposed to covid-19. 

according to a time article about how covid-19 is affecting new york city’s low-income neighborhoods, “the zip codes in the bottom 25% of average incomes represent 36% of all cases of the disease, while the wealthiest 25% account for under 10%.” this further shows how marginalized groups are being attacked by this virus.

however, we don’t only see higher incidence rates within impoverished communities alone, but in minority populated areas as well. african-americans, latinos, and native americans are being affected by covid-19 at significantly higher rates compared to non-hispanic white persons.

according to the centers for disease control and prevention, compared to a non-hispanic white person, non-hispanic american indian or alaska native persons and non-hispanic blacks are approximately 5 times as likely to contract covid-19, while hispanic or latino persons are approximately 4 times as likely. this shows the significantly disproportionate rate at which minorities are being affected by this virus.

in michigan, where 14% of the state is identified as black, the coronavirus is killing black individuals at significantly higher rates — around 40% of the state’s 1,076 coronavirus deaths as of april 9 — compared to the average death toll of coronavirus, a vox report said. 

this type of statistic, however, is not specific to michigan. we are seeing these repeated patterns nationally. in chicago, according to cbs news, 70% of covid deaths have been black people. and dr. joia crear-perry, founder and president of the national birth equity collaborative, also discussed how the 70% of the covid deaths in louisiana were black people — even though they make up just a third of the population. 

the u.s. department of health and human services’ office of minority health reports the death rate for black people is higher compared to whites for “heart disease, stroke, cancer, asthma, influenza and pneumonia, diabetes, hiv/aids, and homicide.” additionally, underlying medical conditions — which include asthma, heart disease, and other chronic lung disorders — have higher incidence rates among black people.

vox reporter fabiola cineas explains higher death and incidence rates as “hundreds of years of slavery, racism, and discrimination.” redlining, policing, and restricting access to public health resources “have compounded to deliver poor health and economic outcomes for black people.” 

in addition to people continuing to work in unsafe conditions, many have to risk their lives prematurely for the sake of the economy and welfare of other people. our government has made it very clear that the economy is the no. 1 priority during these trying times. 

florida is the epitome of this phenomenon. as it has continued to a full reopening, cases are now spiking and yet the governor is refusing to recall any sort of freedoms they have enacted — to the detriment of everyone’s health. the state’s health department has confirmed a total of 497,330 cases and 4,402 resident deaths as of aug. 4. while individuals have to work tirelessly, and simultaneously try to maintain safe conditions, ultimately the government has brushed off efforts of safety in order to redeem the economy. by prematurely opening america, it puts people at significant risk and workers may not have the choice of stay at home. 

as the coronavirus pandemic continues to unravel, it will continue to expose discrepancies that do exist within our nation. for now the best thing we can do is acknowledge the issues that do exist and keep ourselves and others informed of what is really happening. 

we must support the environmental justice movement and continue the support for black and brown lives to create justice for marginalized communities. additionally we should continue to do our best to keep workers and civilians safe. this could look like moving to restrict the full opening of america, and continuing stimulus checks for marginalized individuals. we also must continue to take heavier safety precautions and make masks a requirement for everyone to keep ourselves safe. by doing these things, we can promote long-term sustainability in regards to both the coronavirus and the general welfare of our people.  

—

for more information

• covid resource kit (google doc) 
• the african american policy reform full resource list

unless the bank makes an unprecedented shift toward renewable energy, 2.4 billion people will face climate catastrophe. bank officials acknowledged this reality but refuse to act.

most of generation z lives in countries particularly vulnerable to future droughts, floods and extreme climate events in a world 2° c warmer. a world that the bank is almost ensuring through its continued finance of oil and gas projects in these countries through intermediaries and infrastructure that directly enables extraction. 

while most of my peers come from client countries of the bank, i do not. rather my country, the u.s., is the largest bank shareholder and thus has the most influence on the global development agenda. i feel compelled to speak up as a member of sustainus, u.s. youth advancing justice and sustainability. the u.s. has a big stake in whether the bank locks in runaway climate change or limits warming to 1.5° c. with annual investments totaling $60 billion, a staff of 10,000 spread across the world, and the explicit mission to end poverty, the bank has the resources, influence, and mandate to lead the way on climate change. yet, failed to fully divest from fossil fuels or set a portfolio emissions target that aligns with the 1.5° c goal.

i thought this would change when the ipcc report came out last month. i attended the annual meetings last month in indonesia to find out.

the report warns we must cut global carbon emissions 45% by 2030 and arrive at net zero emissions by 2050. this big shift is fully achievable but requires an unprecedented level of action. two days after the report came out, i stood in front of the board of executive directors and asked if they would heed these warnings. their responses confirmed my worst fear: the world bank will ignore the needs of my generation.

time and time again the bank confirmed their apathy. at the civil society roundtable executive directors pointed to their recent commitment to end finance for upstream oil and gas as sufficient. i followed up by asking “will the bank’s recent commitment to end financing for upstream oil and gas include financial intermediaries?” the most direct response i received was from germany’s executive director, dr. jürgen karl zattler, who stated that there was “not a clear objective” for the bank to monitor whether its financial intermediaries have links to oil and gas. in replying to another question on the ipcc report, executive director otaviano canuto from brazil shared, “what we can do is to raise our voice, not much else.”

the next day when asked the same question about divesting from fossil fuels, philippe le houérou, ceo of the world bank’s international finance corporation (ifc) — the bank’s private sector investment arm — responded, “let’s see if this works with coal first” and urged us to be “pragmatic.” i followed up: “as a young person, climate change is personal to me and my generation. i am really disappointed that you are not considering ending equity in financial intermediaries linked with oil and gas. i urge you to reconsider.” without ifc divestment, there will likely be less stringent exclusions on investing in financial intermediaries that are involved in ‘upstream’ oil & gas investments when the bank phases out project lending after 2019. in response to my statement, le houérou bowed his head and said, “i urge myself.”  

the ipcc report makes it clear that investments in fossil fuels, which will perpetuate extreme heat, drought, floods, and climate induced poverty for hundreds of millions of people, is not “pragmatic.” we also can guarantee le houérou that requiring new financial intermediaries to divest from coal overtime will “work,” in the sense that it will drive investments toward clean, renewable energy sources and protect our collective future. it is worth noting that this new ‘green equity approach’ is not even comprehensive because it does not address what should happen with legacy coal investments that the ifc has funded over the past decade. this includes the highly contested 19 coal plants under construction in the philippines that 100 citizen groups filed a complaint against last october.

the world bank has the capacity to do much more than “raise their voice” on climate change. the bank can and should completely divest its portfolio from fossil fuels, an action perfectly in line with its mandate to end poverty. in divesting from fossil fuels, the bank will be forced to turn its attention to investing in affordable, renewable energy. a majority of the 1.1 billion people worldwide who still lack access to electricity live in rural areas, where renewable energy is actually more cost effective than extending the main grid with oil and gas. right now, only 1% of global finance for energy access is allocated to decentralized renewable energy.

in the urgency of this moment on climate change, we cannot let financial institutions like the world bank continue to fly under the radar of public accountability. thankfully, i am not alone. i am part of the big shift global, a campaign coordinated by organizations from the global north and south campaigning for a shift in all public finance out of dirty fossil fuels into renewable energy that will bring clean power to people all over the world.

as the world bank determines the future of 2.4 billion members of my generation, i am making a final push. i am joined by my friends at sunrise movement who recently pushed the u.s. federal government to take action on climate change. we are looking for climate leadership.

already a group of over 40 vulnerable countries have committed to reach 100% renewable energy by 2050. my question is, will the world bank support them?

if the world bank stands ready to assist counties with their low-carbon transition efforts they should consider the following recommendations for inclusion in the forthcoming post-2020 climate goals made by civil society organizations in the big shift global campaign:

• commit to developing and adopting a science-based emissions target for world bank lending and operations

• improve the quality of the bank’s climate-related investments whilst scaling up both mitigation and adaptation finance

• increased finance for clean cooking, off-grid and mini-grid renewable energy access

• develop a policy for the exclusion of coal from the ifc’s financial intermediary (fi) investments and public disclosure of the fossil fuel exposure of ifc’s fi investments

• align the world bank infrastructure lending, guarantees and assistance with low- or zero-ghg pathways, and supporting development of countries’ strategies under the paris agreement (e.g.., ndcs and 2050 pathways)

• the development of a safeguard for development policy lending that contains specific measures to prevent ‘prior actions’ (e.g., loan conditions) that directly benefit fossil fuel or extractive industries

• ensure that world bank investments do not serve as a driver of deforestation

• ensure strong implementation of the world bank group’s commitment to end upstream oil and gas finance after 2019

access the full list of recommendations here.

sound familiar? welcome to america, where the average citizen consumes a staggering 217.5 pounds of meat each year, a figure that far exceeds the global average of 41.3 pounds per capita. meat is part of our culture; many of us grew up with meat at the center of our dinner plates, under the impression that it was good for us. yet, in recent years, mounting evidence has suggested high levels of meat consumption may not be the healthiest option for our bodies and our planet. so why are we still married to meat, despite the warning signs?

nutrition scientists have been investigating meat for years. in 2015 the international agency for research on cancer (iarc) classified processed meat as a carcinogen, and red meat as a probable carcinogen. the who and american cancer society next urged the public to limit meat consumption. diets rich in animal protein are also linked to increased cardiovascular risks and all-cause mortality, while those high in plant-protein show protective effects.

from a sustainability standpoint, livestock has a higher water and carbon footprint than any other food, emitting significant amounts of methane and other greenhouse gases from their farts and burps. researchers estimate that it takes about 100 times the amount of water to produce animal protein compared to vegetable protein. this all goes without mentioning, of course, the animal welfare concerns many have surrounding commercially raised meat.

with climate change an urgent threat, and historically high rates of chronic, preventable disease, we must put down our forks and assess if we are engaging in best-practice dietary-initiatives for our bodies, the planet, and humanity at large.

seeing as the food system contributes roughly a third of the greenhouse gas emissions, and that 5 of the 10 leading causes of death in the u.s. are diet-related, there’s a real opportunity to better our health and protect the planet.

yet we often eschew this opportunity, allowing convenience and fleeting preference to trump ethical considerations surrounding the food choices we make. we blissfully fail to acknowledge the impacts of meat, drowning out uncomfortable thoughts with the sizzling sound of bacon frying on the stove. the time is now, however, to push for decreased consumption of meat.

a colossal task, meat reduction strategies historically have have been met with deep resistance. when a school in texas attempted to implement a meatless monday policy, offering just one meatless meal per week, backlash erupted, and the measure was seen as overly coercive. and when reduced meat consumption was proposed for the 2015 dietary guidelines, heavy meat-industry lobbying ensured the suggestion did not make the cut.

what opposers who denounce such initiatives as overly paternalistic fail to realize, however, is that their taste for a meat-heavy diet is a result of a preference that has been architected for them. the government uses tax dollars to feed our meaty appetites, spending billions on agricultural subsidies, a bulk of which support commercially raised meat, often incentivized by “big meat’s” hefty political contributions to persuade lawmakers.

and the meat industry’s power extends beyond its pocketbooks. marketing campaigns have established cultural norms that contribute to our meat-heavy mindset, telling us our bodies need “high quality” animal protein or we will become malnourished or anemic, and that eating only plants is unsatisfying and emasculating, all contributing to resistance to shift away from animal protein. after all, believing these notions is far easier than changing something so personal and emotionally charged as our diets.

but if we continue to consume meat at the present rate, we set ourselves on a trajectory for resource depletion, irreversible damage to the planet, and a multitude of preventable health risks. moreover, we jeopardize the right for future generations to food access and a healthful planet.

with momentum growing in the plant-based food movement, there has never been a better time to nudge for reduced meat consumption. incentivization of meatless monday practices, continued advocacy for reductionist messaging in dietary guidelines, and education about meat’s impacts, may prove monumental.

even if national policy is presently out of reach, we can begin by adjusting our own diets and work on changing the social norms around meat. and we don’t have to push the world into veganism overnight to make a difference. by eating a little less, applauding when meat-free options are offered out of the home, and celebrating plant-based meals, we can decrease meat demand and foster a cultural shift where plants become preferential. doing so can shrink our ecological footprint, improve our health, and ensure sustainable food choices for future generations. if there is a true desire to make a positive impact for health of humanity or the planet, it’s time to put the money where our mouths are, and back off the beef.