the production and trade of palm oil have significant environmental and social implications. unsustainable palm oil production exacerbates global climate change. developing countries, which often lack resources to address climate change issues adequately, bear the brunt of its impacts.

by advocating for sustainability certification programs, we uphold the ethical imperative to minimize harm, promote justice, and act as responsible global citizens.

unsustainable palm oil production poses significant ethical challenges and has far-reaching consequences that affect the environment, society, and global responsibility. palm oil, widely used in food, cosmetics, and biofuels industries, has become a highly profitable commodity, driving extensive expansion of plantations. this trend is corroborated by sources such as “oil palm in indonesia” authored by john d. watts and silvia irawan in 2018. however, the rapid growth of the palm oil industry has come at a grave cost.

one of the primary ethical concerns of unsustainable palm oil production lies in its severe environmental impact. palm oil is not only bad for the climate — as their forest habitat is cleared, endangered species such as the orangutan, borneo elephant and sumatran tiger are being pushed closer to extinction. this loss of biodiversity raises moral questions about our responsibility to protect and preserve other living beings on earth.

according to efeca briefing note, deforestation for palm oil also contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, exacerbating climate change and its associated moral risks. the degradation of peatlands, often cleared for palm oil cultivation, releases large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, accelerating global warming. the adverse effects of climate change disproportionately affect vulnerable communities in developing countries, which often lack the resources and adaptive capacity to cope with the consequences. 

the palm oil industry’s expansion creates economic disparities, particularly when small-scale farmers are pushed out by large plantation companies, leading to monopolization. small farmers may be forced to adopt unsustainable practices to compete or find alternative livelihoods, exacerbating environmental and social issues. the unequal distribution of benefits and profits within the industry raises questions about justice and equitable development.

the lack of transparency in palm oil supply chains allows for unsustainable practices to persist without proper scrutiny. following the investigation of the rainforest action network  a big number of palm oil-producing companies source from suppliers engaged in illegal and environmentally damaging activities, such as land grabbing, deforestation, and peatland drainage, and human rights violations. this lack of accountability in supply chains hinders efforts to trace the origin of palm oil products and makes it challenging for consumers and stakeholders to make informed decisions based on ethical considerations. consumers who want to make ethical choices may find it difficult to identify products that are genuinely sustainable and produced with respect for the environment and human rights.

as rainforest rescue states, in 2021, approximately 66.7 million acres of rainforest had been cleared for palm oil production globally. according to rainforest rescue, “forests and human settlements have been destroyed and replaced by “green deserts” containing virtually no biodiversity on an area the size of new zealand.”

palm oil plantations often replace diverse and ecologically valuable forests, leading to a significant loss of biodiversity, while the use of pesticides and fertilizers in palm oil production lead to soil and water pollution. obligatory sustainable certification programs can help protect biodiversity by promoting the adoption of practices that preserve existing forests, conserve wildlife habitats, and promote reforestation efforts. 

besides, unsustainable palm oil production is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, exacerbating climate change because clearing forests releases vast amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere due to draining peatlands.

what is more, palm oil cultivation requires significant amounts of water, leading to water scarcity and contamination, and generates considerable waste.

multiple sources, for example, international labour rights forum report serious violations of workers’ rights in palm oil production, including forced labor, child labor, harassment, violence against human rights defenders, and discrimination against women. safe and fair working conditions are lacking, emphasizing the necessity of sustainable certification programs to address these issues.

many smallholders in the supply chain are subject to untransparent agreements that burden them with unexpected debts and unfair remuneration for their products. for instance, nestlé purchases palm oil from mills in sabah state, malaysia, as swiss ngo solidar suisse reported. the report highlighted ruthless exploitation and forced labor on the oil palm plantations, where a significant portion of the workforce, approximately 840,000 people, are illegal immigrants from indonesia, including up to 200,000 children, earning wages below the world bank’s extreme poverty line.

as the forest people programme funded by the uk government states, in indonesia, about half of the palm oil labor force is women. palm oil companies contribute to discrimination and violence against women by failing to prevent sexual violence by their employees. they also contribute to other rights violations that disproportionately affect women.

smallholders and indigenous populations who have inhabited and protected the forest for generations are often brutally driven from their land. human rights violations are everyday occurrences, even on supposedly “sustainable” and “organic” plantations. for example, forest people programme funded by the uk government concluded that in 2010, the indonesian government’s national land bureau reported that it had recorded 4,000 land conflicts across the archipelago in the palm oil sector. according to forest people program, “in liberia, it is estimated that 40% of the population reside inside concessions for rubber, oil palm, forestry, and the extractive sector.” nestlé buys palm oil from exportadora del atlantico in honduras. the palm oil mill in the aguan valley has been implicated in a violent land conflict, with accusations of involvement in the killings of at least 140 people. 

companies frequently violate the cultural rights of indigenous peoples by destroying sacred sites, cultural artifacts, or monuments, causing the loss of intangible cultural heritage, and preventing communities from practicing traditional livelihoods.

in conclusion, implementing and enforcing obligatory sustainable certification programs for palm oil production is crucial to mitigate the moral risks associated with climate change, addressing environmental protection, workers’ rights, and social responsibility, and promoting a more sustainable and equitable global trade market.

certification programs will promote responsible business practices that benefit communities, promote social well-being, and contribute to inclusive development. furthermore, certification programs should encourage transparency and accountability in corporate practices. companies are required to disclose their social and environmental performance, fostering trust and enabling consumers to make informed choices.

as we head towards a future of climate catastrophe, collaborative establishments that share cultural values applicable to every human being, such as the skä•noñh center, can help people recognize that we need to start taking care of the land that we live on.

if you would like to learn more about the skä•noñh center visit: https://www.skanonhcenter.org/academic-collaborative 

let’s talk about climate. it’s no surprise to anyone that we are going through a climate crisis. the earth is warming, forests are burning, hurricanes are increasing in intensity, and the sea is rising largely due to human activities causing an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. the effects of this human-caused global warming are going to last throughout our lives and can worsen in the upcoming decades. humans have caused this dramatic change and it is even making them sick. infectious disease rates will increase with the extreme weather and high temperatures. this issue is leading to more than just physical sickness, the current climate crisis has led to a decline in many individuals mental health. 

humanity as a collective may be past the “point of no return” in attempts to reprimand their impact on the planet. this is because humans excel at creating waste and consuming resources. our biodiversity around the globe has been devastated by human settlements and expansion. so then the idea is what do we do now? we can explore renewable resources and adopt more sustainable business models to help remediate the damage that has been caused but the world will not be able to reach the state that it was in before industrialization. the world’s distress is overwhelming. people all around the world are overwhelmed by the climate crisis and it is especially creating a pressure on the young individuals.

since the late 19th century, humans have been impacting the climate and over the past decade the conditions have only worsened. individuals born in the past few decades have increased anxiety about this. let’s be honest, how can someone be ok with the fact that they were born in a world that is in an apparently irreversible climate crisis? people have adopted depressive emotions such as despair and guilt. the crisis has caused what is now called eco-anxiety. eco-anxiety is the severe worry about climate and environmental distress. 

universities around the world are trying to educate students on the current climate crisis. education helps to  spread awareness and provide the students with the knowledge to change our efforts, making the world more sustainable for the future. this creates a lot of pressure on the growing society as a whole and the students who are in school now for science, preservation, and conservation. individuals studying the environment are definitely impacted but they are not the only ones. young individuals in general, feel as though they are the last hope for the redirection of our current climate state. this added pressure gives young individuals a feeling of hopelessness. it is hard to be a young individual and have your voice heard in today’s society. as much as the young increase their education and fight for the justice of the matter, at the end of the day it is the people who are already established with money that call the shots. as a young individual myself it is hard in today’s society to have my voice heard and especially have my voice lead to impactful change. 

so how do we address eco-anxiety? we can start by creating small projects and expand those projects with time. there are measures we can take as individuals that help to conserve the diversity around us. sure small projects are not going to change the climate crisis as a whole but they are not miniscule. creating a project that helps to change one’s environment around them can help to reduce one’s eco-anxiety. the more small projects that are created the greater the movement will build. hopefully, young individuals today can begin to leave behind their eco-anxiety and start to pour their energy and focus on the environment around them. 

i sat down with gowans, who specializes in cetacean (or marine mammal) research at eckerd. gowans leads the school’s dolphin project and collaborates with amy siuda, an eckerd associate professor of marine science, on a microplastics monitoring project. 

when i sat down with gowans, she told me that the red tide this past summer “was one of the most severe ones i’ve ever seen. i’ve been here now 18 years and i’ve never seen the level of fish kills that we saw in tampa bay.” 

in the following conversation, we discuss how the dolphin and microplastics research projects have been impacted by the piney point spill and the past summer’s red tide event. we also discuss the value of long term studies and the insight they provide when dealing with ecological disasters such as piney point.

—

this interview has been edited for clarity and length. 

kaitlyn copland: what research have you conducted that is related to the piney point spill? 

shannon gowans: amy siuda and i have had a long term monitoring project looking at microplastics in tampa bay. one of our monitoring sites that we’ve been monitoring for quite some time is close to the sunshine skyway, a bridge not that far from where the outflow was.

our initial concern was: how did this plastic barrier break down? and is it shedding microplastics into tampa bay? we found that the values that we got while the piney point outflow was going on were much, much higher than we’d ever seen before in our years of monitoring. 

we then set out to try to collect some more samples and try to see what was going on––and also to see if we could get some samples much closer to the outflow. we’re again seeing some elevated levels, but not as high as they had been.

the question is: were we getting elevated out-flow levels from piney point? there were so many boats in the area that it might have been stirring up sediments that may have had microplastics in them. or, was it after they started pumping the water that caused all this turbulence and registered things?

overall, we are not sure if these statements hold true. we’re continuing on with our long term monitoring to see what happens. microplastics were not the first level of concern with something like piney point, but because we had this long term monitoring program it was worthwhile to investigate.

kc: can you share how the dolphin project has been impacted? 

sg: currently, nutrient pollution is unlikely to harm marine mammals because the pollutants are not problematic for mammal’s health. we’re much more concerned about how the nutrient input that is having a long term impact on the ecology of tampa bay, and how that relates to these top predators.

we know that when we have harmful algal blooms that lead to large fish kills, we end up with issues with our dolphins because their food source has been largely removed. 

kc: how has the past summer’s red tide event affected the current dolphin population? 

sg: we didn’t see an uptick in mortality directly due to piney point, but we are concerned about what’s going to happen given the prey base that got lost with that red tide. it’s difficult to tie those two events completely together, but it is likely that these events may be related; the red tide was already present before piney point came in, but the nutrients that were released would fuel an algal bloom––which is exactly what we saw.

kc: was this past summer’s red tide more severe than in recent years?

sg: one thing is that it was within tampa bay itself and happened over a relatively short time period. that may mean that it didn’t impact all of tampa bay, which may mean fish and animals that are feeding on fish may be able to just move somewhere slightly different and find better conditions. 

so, we may not see that large an impact because it was a very intense event but over a short time period. in 2005, we had an exceptionally long red tide event that actually persisted over several years––there were high levels of red tide over several years. they weren’t as high as we saw last summer, but that’s what had a really profound impact on the dolphin population because they went through a long spell where their food––their prey––was produced. so, both can be problematic and it’s just going to be waiting and seeing what we end up with.

kc: do you have any thoughts on how this spill might play out over the coming months, and maybe even into the next year?

sg: so much depends on what happens with the interaction with the currents and the tides. at the initial input of nutrients, they were dispersing through skyway bridge and moving outwards into the gulf. piney point was initially very, very strong in tampa bay, but that has dissipated into the gulf of mexico. 

that’s also going to be something to watch because to remove (a lot of these nutrients) from the system they either have to be diluted in a larger quantity of water, or they end up in the sediments. if they get out to the deeper water into the sediments, then it’s harder to have storms that stir them up. in the shallow waters like tampa bay, those sediments can be easily disturbed by storms. so, again, it’s going to be seeing what happens to that nutrient influx. 

we don’t have the high algal counts right now that we were seeing earlier in the summer, but the nutrients haven’t completely disappeared from the system. we’re actually just starting to head into the time when we typically see larger red tide events, because red tide is typically a fall-winter event. seeing what happens to those is going to be something that we want to watch long term––and really looking at what kinds of larger-scale, ecological changes may be happening.

kc: if an event similar to piney point was to occur again, what do you think needs to happen? 

sg: what needs to happen is to have regulations to ensure that, if we have these phosphate reservoirs, (they) need to be well maintained, and, ideally, (regulations) working on removing them so that they’re no longer at this bar. that’s the work of land use policies and a lot of other people. 

we need to change legislation to hold the companies that are producing these pollutants responsible. even if the companies sold or closed down, they’re still the ones who created those pollutants.

kc: do you have any final thoughts, or something important to share about like the piney point spill regarding your research?

sg: i think one of the things that piney point shows is the value of having long term monitoring plans where we know what happened, what the conditions were like before something happens so that we can see what happened during the event, and then afterwards. 

if you go in at the crisis point, you don’t know what the conditions were like beforehand. yes, you can see what they’re like during the crisis point and what happened moving forward, but you don’t have that comparison. if we really want to understand what’s going on with our ecosystems and, if there is a catastrophic event, be able to then try to turn them back to those pre-existing conditions, we have to know what those conditions were. we don’t know if all we ever do is respond to catastrophe. we have to be monitoring (conditions) in the long term to see what’s going on and not waiting until it’s a crisis point.

—

the value of research

ultimately, long term monitoring research projects provide great value when mitigating ecological disasters similar to piney point. gowans’ research has discovered that plastic levels have increased significantly and the dolphin’s prey population––fish––have decreased. 

it is currently undetermined if the spill is the source of the elevated microplastic levels and increased severity of the red tide that killed the fish. this is an event that will play out over the coming months, and its effects will be determined by currents and tides.

for more information and updates on the piney point spill, visit protecting florida together.

• cop26 goals, straight from the event’s website: what do we need to achieve at cop26?

• 10 charts explaining the economic benefits of climate change mitigation in the u.s. as leaders discuss environmental policy, learn more about how advancing climate policy will help our country economically. file some facts away to teach others who are more economically motivated during conversations about sustainability!

• what is ‘net zero’ and why does it matter? find out what net zero means and the current scientific conversations surrounding it.

• feminism and environmentalism go hand in hand. look back at this commentary from gender day at the global climate talks in 2018 to learn more about how feminism and environmentalism intertwine.

check back tomorrow for more info on what is being explored at cop26 — and good reads to keep you informed!

music courtesy of epidemic sound.
first track: paradigm shift by gavin luke
second track: azoic by max anson

“i was young,” perise remembered. “the noises, the movements, the fastness of the waves — all scared me.”

at the time, perise never would have imagined that he’d dedicate his life to protecting the ocean. a decade later, perise is now inspiring a movement in his hometown of buea, cameroon, to combat plastic pollution and protect the ocean.

growing up, perise noticed that his hometown had a lot of problems with plastic waste.

“i saw plastic pollution everywhere,” perise said.

plastic pollution is an issue prevalent all throughout cameroon, since cameroon as a whole has a poor waste management system, perise says. because his area lacks strong waste management, perise observes massive piles of plastic in his neighbors’ yards, on the side of the road, and even clogging waterways. 

wanting to make a change, perise’s first move was one that seemed daunting for a single person, but perhaps also the most practical: picking up the plastic waste in his community. perise hopped door to door in his community, collecting thousands of plastic bottles from the streets.

perise sends most of this plastic to his local plastic collection agency. in more recent years, though, he’s found more creative ways to repurpose the thousands of bottles he collects. through the parallel projects, last year perise brought 3,000 plastic bottles to douala, cameroon, to help construct an ecoboat with the nonprofit madiba and nature. mabida specializes in repurposing plastic bottles to create usable boats, donating them to local fishermen.

perise’s plastic collection efforts have not gone unnoticed in his community, and locals even call him the “plastic man.” perise’s goal is not just to collect plastic in his community, but also to educate his community on plastic pollution and build a mass movement to improve cameroon’s waste practices. for the past few years, perise has visited local schools to deliver presentations on plastic pollution and ocean conservation.

perise finds that education is a key link to making change in his community. 

“raise awareness in the communities, then they will want to put pressure on the governments,” perise said.

through education, perise has developed a mass movement of locals who want to see better waste management practices in their community. they understand that recycling and consuming less plastic are only small portions of the solution, as there needs to be structural changes made by governments as well.

“the plastic pollution crisis in cameroon is far from just a lot of people consuming plastic,” perise emphasized.

unexpectedly, perise’s audience has reached far beyond his local town of buea. several of perise’s photos of plastic pollution in cameroon have blown up on social media. perise believes that only minimal attention has been given to cameroon’s plastic pollution because photos of the crisis have not reached the internet. perise is vocal on social media about the environmental issues that his country faces, in hopes to draw more attention to cameroon and to inspire other young people to start similar movements in their communities.

perise is an active member of the environmental nonprofits greening forward and thinkocean, two organizations that seek to foster a movement of youth from around the world who are passionate about the environment. (in full disclosure, perise is also a friend and colleague of the author in the organization thinkocean.) perise’s story has become so inspiring that for the un world oceans day event this year, perise presented as a keynote speaker alongside some of the world’s most famous environmentalists like bill mckibben and jean-michel cousteau.

despite the global recognition and opportunities he recently has received, perise knows he wants to stick to environmental advocacy in cameroon in the long run. his goal in the future is to work more directly with the cameroonian government to ensure the structural changes in environmental and waste management that his country needs, such as creating more plastic recycling facilities and banning plastic packaging.

until then, perise plans to further expand his local grassroots movement against plastic pollution, in addition to inspiring young leaders around the world to the same.

perise’s rule-of-thumb is this: “if you’re passionate about something, connect with like-minded people around you.”

there’s a new flashpoint to drive profits in the political war on climate.

michael shellenberger’s controversial new book, “apocalypse never: why environmental alarmism hurts us all,” describes how “climate change has been polarized between those who deny it and those who exaggerate it.”

there’s no denying that climate is a polarizing political issue. like abortion, guns, and immigration, climate is one of four wedge issues many partisan power-brokers never want to resolve. by amplifying every extreme assertion by either side, professional manipulators can keep republican and democratic voters far apart, in opposing media silos, where they can hate on each other. shellenberger’s new book not only documents the divide, but intensifies it.

that’s not all his fault. let’s face it: politics and media demand that climate change be cast as either a full-on catastrophe or a cynical hoax. to generate attention, print and online publishers tell environmental writers to hover close to one of these two hotspots. if we want to sell books or generate headlines, we need to stay as close to the heat as we can — even if that means falling into the sun and being devoured.

it seems odd to have to say this, but climate change is a looming catastrophe, scientists overwhelmingly agree. that other ecological problems may be even worse is no cause for comfort. we have an abundance of riches — if our objective is to sell the prospect of catastrophe. 

but solving environmental problems requires rational action, not panic or denial. shellenberger is right in one respect: crisis or not, our movement’s overwhelming focus on imminent disaster is not helpful if we want to actually avert disaster. constant gloom-and-doom exhausts our supporters, funds our opponents, and makes the war on climate change so profitable to cynical political and media manipulators that they’d prefer to risk the end of the world, rather than sacrifice a crisis they can exploit for years.

the result is a big setback for effective action before catastrophe is upon us.

we contemplated a similar strategy when we began writing our new book. to sell our case for bipartisan climate solutions, we could either pander to the right with an attack on fear-mongering, or pander to the left by attacking skepticism and denial. instead, we took the riskier approach: tell a more complicated truth that doesn’t fit either narrative or congratulate either side. 

our book, “in this together,” is not another shocking expose of the conniving left-wing statists or evil right-wing corporatists that must be stopped. it is an honest look at how to end the politically co-opted, media-friendly “war for the planet,” and save the environment instead.

such earnest objectives grate on the nerves of most sophisticated political observers. like the boy scouts and league of women voters, bipartisan efforts like ours seem quaint, quixotic, and hopelessly naive. as veteran climate journalist david roberts wrote of one of our favorite initiatives, the bipartisan climate leadership council, “this is the way of the very sensible centrist, an american political creature that rarely produces tangible results, but always garners heaps of praise. many center-left dems view it as the sine qua non of politics. but it’s utterly disconnected from anything going on in u.s. politics right now. it’s a fantasy, a trip to la-la land. it amounts to a kind of enforced naivety that centrists too often mistake for virtue.”

roberts is a fine journalist, but his political analysis is self-defeating. true, centrist solutions are dead-on-arrival in today’s political industry. they are a threat to the gridlock that maximizes revenue for lobbyists, pollsters, communicators, media, and the elite strategists who keep voters divided so they keep their policy-making power. so long as climate protection is owned by one party, it will forever be held hostage for political gain. rational policy will never be rational politics. only competition between the parties — a battle for how and not whether to solve the problem — makes saving the world a sensible political strategy.

the political war on climate change — pitting progressives against conservatives — pays off quite nicely for the entrenched partisan power-brokers who keep us fighting. they make money by selling protection to vested interests. the best way to drive demand for protection is to create danger. by keeping the left and right in battle, each side intensifying the hatred and extremism of the other, they not only dominate the policymaking process — they also harvest an abundance of risk that they can deliver to their clients, and squeeze vested interests for maximum profits.

the only losers are, in the end, everybody.

here is the simple truth we all know. climate change is real. it is human-caused. and combined with devastating destruction of oceans, forests, and biodiversity, it is a threat to our prosperity, security, and lives — if not today, then soon, by any reasonable standard.

the political media industry has set a trap for all sides in the climate debate, and every one of us has fallen in. we’re engaged in a war that leads only to more war. the $17 billion our donor friends have allocated for climate and ocean protection won’t end the hostilities — it will drive even more dollars to our opposition, and push resolution further into the future. ultimately, our endless war will turn a potential catastrophe into a real one — no matter how long it takes.

there is one way out, but it’s so radical few will entertain it. end the war. join forces with past enemies. engage in radical collaboration.

more than 7 in 10 of us can come to agreement even on the most divisive wedge issues. the political party that appeals to that 70% first will win most every race they enter — no need to raise and spend billions with that level of support.

let’s end the war and save the planet.

here are 10 traps environmental donors and activists are lured into, and ideas on how to free ourselves to get the job done:

mistake no. 1: selling catastrophe 

it seems to work every time. catastrophes blamed on evil villains generate more money and media coverage, compared with narratives of hope and optimism. but these benefits come with hidden costs. catastrophism exhausts our support base. it numbs the public to our calls-to-arms. it alienates those concerned but not alarmed.

a better way: cultivate hope and optimism. optimism does not raise as much money or media coverage, but it rejuvenates and broadens our base. and new methods of digital outreach can multiply the power of optimistic problem-solvers. 

mistake no. 2: demonizing too many enemies 

demonization builds opposition to our proposals. every dollar devoted to demonization generates an opposition dollar. the more demons we target, the more enemies we attract. corporate leaders are trapped in the debt-and-consumption machine, just as much as you and i are. they exploit it, as do we, and they profit more than most of us. but they can’t change it alone.

a better way: the enemy isn’t corporations, capitalism, government, or consumers. the enemy is the entrenched system that drives overproduction and overconsumption. we’re all part of that system. we need to engage stakeholders across the system to understand our mutual struggles and work together for change.

mistake no. 3: speaking only to the left 

the right and left are natural partners. their differences are real, but resolvable—and often complementary.

trying to persuade conservatives to adopt progressive points of view is often futile.

a better way: speak with conservatives in their own language. understand their worldview. respect their desire to protect what we have. develop policy options that reflect their priorities. it won’t generate as much media, and the power brokers will threaten to abandon you, but that’s the cost of earning broad support.

mistake no. 4: dismissing conservation and stewardship 

the left, believing that people are selfless and nature is supportive, tends toward a preservationist agenda that treats humans as invaders of nature. hunters, fishers, farmers, and ranchers are often regarded as enemies of nature, when considered from this point of view.

the right, believing that people are selfish and nature poses risks, tends toward a conservationist agenda that treats humans as stewards of the land. hunters, fishers, farmers, and ranchers are good stewards who love the land and know it more intimately than most coastal progressives. they are the overlooked half of the environmental movement, only recently being rediscovered.

a better way: celebrate hunters and fishers. learn how many farmers and ranchers are shifting to regenerative agriculture. their forebears fed ours for millennia. invite them to be central players in reducing damage to nature.

mistake no. 5: condemning climate denial 

a wedge has been driven deep between the right and left because it’s profitable for the media and political industries. the fear and hate they are generating is extreme. we feed into it, when we focus on fear, and drive hatred of our adversaries, even those who deny climate change.

a better way: the best remedy for climate denial is respect for conservative principles and acknowledgment that overconsumption threatens both our ecological and economic foundations. denial will dissipate when our solutions are economically sustainable.

mistake no. 6: aligning tightly with democrats 

over 70% of the public is with us. aligning with either party turns our majority into a minority. it makes victory impossible. any cause or community dependent on just one party is a slave to that party. the democratic party will delay effective climate action until after the next election. there is always a next election. the only way to win is with a bipartisan coalition.

a better way: grow an authentic bipartisan coalition where conservatives are free to advance their ideas for meeting the climate crisis, without sacrificing the economy. challenge conservative donors to join the cause, and match their commitments to climate actions that respect conservative principles.

mistake no. 7: opposing corporatism with statism 

big corporations have too much-concentrated power. the federal government does too. corporations and governments grow together. conveniently, the warrior left fights corporate power by building government power, while the warrior right fights government power by expanding corporate power. power brokers on both sides just smile.

a better way: use markets before mandates. support effective corporate campaigns. mobilize activists and consumers to avoid companies that aren’t part of the solution. when companies step up, reward them, with clear positive recognition their competitors will notice. above all, use prices to prevent pollution. support revenue-neutral carbon prices, as advocated by groups like climate leadership council and citizens climate lobby.

mistake no. 8: just buying access and influence 

it’s tempting to play the inside game, and buy access and influence so politicians will vote for clean energy. some of this will likely be necessary. but too much can backfire in two ways. first, the cost of democracy will rise. when clean energy bids up the cost of access, their competitors can match their bids. the result is a more expensive stalemate. second, the inside game is rigged in favor of the entrenched. it’s not just the fossil fuel sector that’s opposing change. it’s hundreds of powerful players and the political pros who take their money. they can overwhelm any team we field. our democracy is rigged to resist change, not encourage it. buying access can protect past gains, but it can’t win many new ones. 

a better way: end-run the power-brokers. invade from two directions at once. organize the left and right together.

mistake no. 9: suing the bastards 

fossil fuels aren’t like tobacco. they helped build the industrial economy, overcome the depression, and defeat fascism. they spawned the technologies that can gradually replace them. suing the tobacco industry didn’t destroy tobacco. it simply drove the industry into less democratic nations. it feels good to sue the bastards. but it just creates more bastards.

a better way: stop creating bastards. challenge fossil fuel companies to put real resources behind their commitments — lobbying resources that can shift the republican party’s position on climate, and compel democrats to collaborate on real solutions. champion bp for its historic shift from energy products to energy services — a business model that could change everything. support the carbon pricing proposals of exxonmobil and conocophillips — a policy coalition that could break the stalemate.

mistake no. 10: declaring war on climate change 

war is supposed to be the last resort. but we’ve made it the first. war is built into our political genes. whenever we’re serious about attacking a problem, we declare war on it. we’ve declared wars on poverty, cancer, drugs, terror, and hunger. now we’ve launched a war on climate change. wars are profitable for media and campaign strategists, but they rarely solve problems. and the war to save climate is doing just the opposite. it is exhausting our base, discouraging recruits, and increasing the size and power of opposing armies. climate change is not a challenge that can be won by war. its systemic cause is an economy and culture addicted to overconsumption. the remedy is the very opposite of war. we need to come together to create, not destroy.

a better way: stop the war. start creating. engage capitalists, activists, conservatives, progressives, and libertarians. explore solutions that apply the best ideas from all of them. end-run the debt-and-consumption machine. create evolutionary change.

what can you do to help?

you can start by signing our declaration of interdependence. then let’s compete as our founders intended, to bring the best of the right and left together, meet the climate challenge, and move america forward.

—

about the authors:

trammell s. crow is a dallas, texas-based businessman, philanthropist, entrepreneur and innovative leader in business development and operations. he is the founder of earth day texas, and is on the center for climate and energy solutions (c2es) board of directors.  

bill shireman is a social entrepreneur, environmental policy innovator, and rare san francisco republican. he brings together people from all sides of the political spectrum. he is president of the nonprofit future 500 and teaches leadership and negotiations at the uc berkeley haas business school.

like the pandemic, climate change can feel like a massive, impossible problem that we as individuals have no control over. fortunately, just like how people all over the world choose to wear a mask and socially distance from others every day, you have the ability to make an impact on the environment from the safety of your home. 

1. whip out your green thumb 

as covid-19 has held the world hostage for the past few months, not only has people’s physical health suffered but so has their mental health. according to a recent poll conducted by the kaiser family foundation, 45% of american adults say that stress associated with worrying about the virus has had a negative impact on their mental health. another survey conducted in early april by researchers at yale university and george mason university shows that about 66% of americans “feel a personal sense of responsibility to help reduce global warming” even during the pandemic.

how can people address their stress about the state of the environment, while also managing their anxiety about exposure to covid-19? gardening might help. 

an article published by the national institutes of health (nih) in 2018 explores the idea of green care, defined as therapy by exposure to plants and gardening. the article cites a japanese study that found just looking at plants reduced stress and fear. physically, patients experienced a decrease in blood pressure, pulse rate, and muscle tension. in terms of the current pandemic, gyms across america remain closed, in addition to a number of parks and beaches, depending on individual state restrictions. this has made staying active each day substantially more difficult. gardening can be a way to get out of the house, get fresh air, and make an impact on the environment. 

on a larger scale, gardening reduces the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and increases oxygen. according to the national wildlife federation, trees can absorb up to one ton of carbon dioxide pollution from the atmosphere. so if every american planted one tree, millions of tons of carbon dioxide could be absorbed each year. essentially, this would reduce global warming and improve air quality, which is particularly important during a pandemic that can affect the respiratory system. gardens also attract pollinators, including insects and birds, which are “vital to the production of healthy crops” and essential for maintaining ecosystems, according to the united states department of agriculture. 

if you’re someone who lives in a city or doesn’t have access to your own outdoor space, you can keep plants inside your home. the nih article mentions that indoor gardening has been used to treat mental health issues, not just for an at-home change in scenery but because plants can remove toxins and dust from the air with their leaves. if you don’t have the greenest thumb or feel stressed about keeping something alive, there are several types of low maintenance plants that thrive indoors. 

2. take something off your carbon plate

during the pandemic, going to the supermarket has become a stressful experience as shoppers do their best to socially distance while searching the aisles for what their family needs. many people have opted for delivery services such as instacart but still face the issue of an increase in food prices. according to the u.s. bureau of labor statistics, the price of meat, eggs, and poultry jumped 4.3% from march to april, the biggest monthly increase in 50 years.

is it possible to spend less time in the grocery store, save money, and eat more sustainably? the answer is yes, and it starts with purchasing less meat. 

methane is a greenhouse gas 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, which means it traps heat more efficiently in the atmosphere, according to the environmental protection agency (epa). the epa also states that livestock, especially cattle, produce methane when they digest their food, specifically by belching. the storage of livestock manure also produces methane, making agriculture the largest source of methane in the united states. 

in addition to contributing a lot of methane, beef production takes up a significant amount of natural resources. according to the world resources institute (wri), one-quarter of the planet (excluding antarctica) is used for cows to graze on. this pastureland is often the result of substantial deforestation. according to the yale school of forestry and environmental studies, cattle ranching is responsible for 80% of deforestation of the amazon. the wri also states that beef production uses between two to four times the amount of freshwater as other livestock does and 7.5 times more freshwater than plant-based food. 

if consumers were to swap beef for pork, poultry, or plant-based protein, the wri predicts global greenhouse gas emissions would drop by 15%. making that simple choice next time you’re in the supermarket allows you to make a positive impact. plus, you can save room in your freezer. 

3. do a little digging before you click ‘buy’ 

as weeks have turned into months, people have been scrambling to find ways to kill time while maintaining social distancing. besides relying on streaming services, there has been an increase in online shopping. according to the u.s. department of commerce, americans spent $146.47 billion online with u.s. retailers in the first quarter of 2020, increasing 14.5% from the same time last year. 

major retailers specifically saw a jump in numbers. target experienced a 141% increase in digital sales in the first quarter of 2020 and sales fulfilled by the delivery service, shipt, went up by 300%. amazon also had a successful first quarter, making $75.5 billion in net sales, an increase of 26% from the same time last year. 

with great power comes great responsibility — and a lot of packages. you have to wonder what the total amount of cardboard and plastic pollution will be when we look back on these few months of the pandemic. there are some numbers we do currently have. according to national geographic, 8 million tons of plastic wind up in the ocean each year. we also know that companies like amazon have struggled to make environmentally conscious choices in the past. last year, the washington post reported that amazon’s newly introduced lightweight plastic mailers created to reduce the use of cardboard boxes weren’t easily recyclable and clogged up machinery in recycling systems. 

on the other hand, amazon has launched a few initiatives to become more sustainable, including a guide on how to recycle different types of packaging. if you’re still worried about contributing to potential packaging pollution, you can buy products from companies that have consistently prioritized sustainability. 

according to the united nations economic commission for europe, the fashion industry emits about 10% of global carbon emissions and produces almost 20% of global waste water. however, companies like toms, patagonia, and thredup — the largest online thrift store — lead by example. there also are several organizations dedicated to educating people about conscious consumerism including remake and good on you. these resources provide a roadmap to sustainable online shopping so you can keep your life and closet guilt-free.

healthy you: surviving a pandemic is a co-production of the george washington university milken institute school of public health and the school of media and public affairs.