scientists have warned that the earth’s climate is close to reaching a tipping point known as the point of no return. in an interconnected climate system, passing one tipping point could trigger a flood of irreversible changes. if global temperatures rise past 1.5 degrees celsius, ice sheets could collapse entirely, leading to even higher sea levels. as the sea ice melts and mixes into warming oceans, which store massive amounts of carbon dioxide, the gas from deeper waters will be released. this chain reaction will create an enduring cycle of global warming. 

not only are anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions causing us to near the climate tipping point, but the united nations has reported that climate change exacerbates inequality. this disparity is caused by the three factors of increased exposure of disadvantaged groups to the effects of climate change, increased susceptibility to damage, and decreased ability to cope and recover. advantaged groups that are the most prepared for climate disasters are often the ones who live in safer areas or have the ability to move and rebuild their lives after a disaster hits. for them, the threat may not seem real. 

even amid the massive california wildfires, residents were not affected equally. as the sky turned an apocalyptic red, celebrities were criticized for hiring private firms to supplement state and local firefighters to protect their homes. meanwhile, housekeepers and gardeners continued to go to work in these homes out of fear of losing their jobs or because no one had bothered to notify them of evacuation orders. for some, the wildfires are a looming threat of losing everything they’ve worked for. others watch the destruction from the safety of their second homes. 

while the nation is busy debating whether climate change is real, a false dichotomy exists between climate change and equality. climate change is interwoven with racial injustice, gender inequality, and poverty, among other issues. these are not separate issues for policymakers to prioritize, one over the other. by creating awareness for the interconnectivity between the united states’ most pressing problems, people might be able to understand that climate change is tangible. if the nation cannot move past the argument of what is true and what is false, we are already past the point of no return. 

to overcome this argument, we need to believe in science. this may seem simple, but how many modern scientists have household names in the united states? scientists have become faceless in our society due to a lack of adequate communication between scientists and the public. the american media has a duty to become better equipped with reporting scientific news by listening to scientists and translating their quantitative findings into a language that can be consumed and understood by the general public. the pew research center has found that public trust in the government has hit record lows. if the media practiced science reporting that did not get entangled with american politics, trust in science and trust in the government could be renewed. 

in an electoral year, people voted based on the partisan issues they stand for and against. unless we can urgently return climate change to its status as a bipartisan issue, the conversations surrounding taxes, gun laws, or abortion rights won’t matter anymore.

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.

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

however, amidst this fervor, the ongoing and destructive trade of wildlife by bushmeat hunters in rural communities across asia, africa, and south america persists. this fact has not been addressed by the international community—an oversight that could have grave consequences for preventing future pandemics.

pressuring governments to issue bans and closures of wet markets holds real value for preventing the emergence of infectious disease. however, it falls short of addressing the root issue: the pervasive circulation of bushmeat within communities. the demand for wildlife will persist even if wet markets close, as bushmeat holds immense cultural, medicinal, and spiritual value for many communities around the world. 

wildlife conservationist dr. colin a. chapman has spent 30 years studying the effects of disease, nutrition, stress, and climate change on biodiversity and primate abundance in east africa. he believes that we must shift the approach away from the narrow perspective of wet markets. instead, he suggests adopting a comprehensive understanding that considers local bushmeat hunting and the social constructs sustaining these practices.

controlling the informal trade of bushmeat will be a challenge in low-income communities. in many african countries, the communities adjacent to national parks are the most economically deprived. illegal hunting and the trade of bushmeat provides people with a quick cash income for which there are few alternatives. closing or banning markets entirely will likely make hunters and their families less-well off, and does not provide market sellers or hunters with alternative jobs and means of income.

one option to reduce reliance on bushmeat for food is the expansion and diversification of agricultural products. providing drought resistant seeds, fertilizers, and crops high in value, as well as supplemental nutrition, may help encourage more farming over hunting. the african wildlife foundation’s “congo shipping project” is an example of a successful scheme that provided transportation of additional crops to markets, encouraging the distribution of crops over bushmeat.

at the same time, scientists from the max planck institute for evolutionary anthropology have demonstrated the importance of site-specific education, particularly on the disease risk and environmental impacts of bushmeat hunting. an understanding that bushmeat leads to pandemics and the extinction of valued species will equip the next generation with knowledge that will incentivize sustainable practices throughout their lifetimes. 

educational programs are not only relevant in schools, but also in local community organizations, churches, and among decision makers. these programs must be based on careful science and mustn’t overlook the inherent cultural value that bushmeat represents for many populations.

a report by the convention of biological diversity (cbd) and the convention on international trade in endangered species (cites) emphasize that solutions for reducing the risks associated with the trade will require coordinated efforts. specifically, close monitoring schemes alongside legislation and enforcement were highly recommended. 

these interventions are undeniably expensive and require site-specific planning and implementation. in africa, conservation efforts are supported heavily by the tourism industry. since the pandemic, biodiversity and wildlife conservation has been left highly vulnerable to human threats—resulting in elevated poaching, habitat destruction, and loss of biodiversity.

even without the added vulnerability of the pandemic, rates of bushmeat extraction is staggering. studies in the congo basin estimate that each year approximately four million metric tons of bushmeat are extracted, the equivalent of four and a half million cows. 

even endangered chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, are being hunted. in the northeastern regions of the democratic republic of congo, it was estimated that up to 7% of the chimpanzee population is killed each year for bushmeat.

such hunting rates are unsustainable and have already resulted in the eradication of entire populations. in the last 40 years alone, 12 large vertebrate populations have been extirpated in vietnam and over longer timescales, human hunting has been responsible for the extinction of much of the unique megafauna of madagascar. 

the coronavirus has created an atmosphere of uncertainty, scarcity and mass panic. demands for banning the wildlife trade are intensifying. 

in the past, such bans were self-defeating. in china, three legislative attempts on banning bushmeat have failed , in 2004, 2016, and 2020. banning wildlife hunting or consumption entirely amidst unaddressed social norms will only heighten the unregulated trade of bushmeat, elevate organized crime, and create the impression of a shortage, likely increasing the prices and incentives to poach.

the current atmosphere of uncertainty created by the coronavirus presents an opportunity for targeted, site-specific solutions, says dr. colin a. chapman. 

leveraging the current crisis to implement tailored solutions—alternative livelihoods, diversified crops, educational programs, and heightened regulations—will more effectively curb the bushmeat trade and mitigate the risk of future pandemics. in doing so, conservationists hope we can create a win-win scenario whereby both wildlife hunting decreases and hunters have viable alternatives, reducing the threat of another global pandemic.

—

about the author:

cate twining-ward is a correspondent alumnus of planet forward, grand-prize winner of storyfest 2020, and graduate of the george washington university.

—

citations:

bennett, e. l. 2002. is there a link between wild meat and food security? conservation biology 16:590-592.

bennett, e. l., and m. rao. 2002. wild meat consumption in asian tropical forest countries: is this a glimpse of the future for africa. pages 39-44 in s. mainka and m. trivedi, editors. links between biodiversity, conservation, livelihoods and food security: the sustainable use of wild species for meat. iucn, cambridge.

challender et al, april 8, 2020. coronavirus: why a blanket ban on wildlife trade would not be the right response, the conversation us.

crowley, b. e. 2010. a refined chronology of prehistoric madagascar and the demise of the megafauna. quaternary science reviews 29:2591-2603.

fa, j. e., and d. brown. 2009. impacts of hunting on mammals in african tropical moist forests: a review and synthesis. mammal review 39:231-264.

fa, j. e., c. a. peres, and j. meeuwig. 2002. bushmeat exploitation in tropical forests: an intercontinental comparison. conservation biology 16:232-237.

kano, t., and r. asato. 1994. “hunting pressure on chimpanzees and gorillas in the mataba river area of northeastern congo.” african study monographs 15.

milner-gullard, e. j., e. l. bennett, and sccb. 2003. wild meat: the bigger picture. trends in ecology & evolution 18:351-357.

roth, annie, april 8, 2020. poachers kill more rhinos as coronavirus halts tourism to africa. the new york times

walsh, p. d., et al, 2003. catastrophic ape decline in western equatorial africa. nature 422:611-614.

wilkie ds. 2000. roads, development, and conservation in the congo basin. conservation biology 14:1614-1622.

—

this story also is published on mongabay.

the western world in this context refers to the portion of the world usurped by colonizers, like much of europe and north america, which has generally placed economic vitality above all. it’s astounding that it took until 1970, only 50 years ago, for many people in the americas to start acknowledging the importance of the environment. what was happening before then? those not in the western world, and those whose cultures persisted prior to the time when colonization and globalization usurped their lands (often people of color), generally acted as though every day was “earth day.”

these cultures understand the concept of only taking what is needed from the earth and playing an active role in contributing to their ecosystem’s health. these cultures see the world as common personhood inseparable from the individual, rather than a distinct entity from which resources are to be extracted.

for example, in their daily routine the kashia band of pomo indians, a native american group of california, have traditionally used native species for foods, sustainably use their local natural resources to create tools like baskets, manage the land through controlled fires, and “only take what is needed.”

another ancient culture that still exists today, which also emphasizes living in-sync with the environment, is that of many hindu people. hinduism has at least 90 holidays each year celebrating various aspects of life and nature including changing seasons, certain animal deities, and harvest times demonstrating that some cultures have literally performed a celebration of the earth at least two days a week on average. many hindus today have very modern lifestyles, heavily influenced by the western world, yet still maintain environmentally friendly aspects of their culture like practicing vegetarianism, using herbal remedies, and using zero-waste clay and leaf containers.

in the amazon, studies have shown that 11.8% of amazonian terra firme forests are sustainably-managed anthropogenic forests resulting from the in-tune management practices of indigenous people over more than five millennia. these people gained vast knowledge over time on how to cultivate and sustainably manage forests to suit their needs while maintaining essential biodiversity. within the first century of european colonization, the amerindian population was slashed by 90% and over time the forests and wilderness felt the effects of their new “caretakers” who promoted unsustainable economic development. as such, between 1970 and 2014, we saw a 60% decline in the size of vertebrate populations worldwide, despite the establishment of earth day.

while earth day was certainly not intended to be a green-washing campaign, it has unsurprisingly turned into one. one day a year, the western world gives tribute to the earth but people fail to take enduring action for the earth’s benefit. the result: false hope that sufficient change is occurring, which leads to continued environmental degradation and catastrophes that affects all of us as people.

we now see the detrimental effects of colonization as the starting point for its even more problematic grandchild: unsustainable economic development. one may argue, “the western world isn’t the one cutting down trees in the amazon and mining in africa,” or “look at how polluted india is.” however, in return we must ask, “what caused this destruction or pollution?” the actual root cause of the destruction and pollution is unsustainable economic development caused by consumer demand in the western world, and with our exponentially increasing appetite for disposable goods that are produced in or use raw materials from those countries.

while the effects of unsustainable economic growth are environmentally detrimental, can we learn lessons through our globalized world from native cultures who are more knowledgeable given their millennia of experience in thriving in-sync with the environment? wouldn’t it make most sense to follow their way of life and their relationships with the earth? while the outlook for environmentalism seems dreary, following the teachings of these other cultures is the solution. these are the people who should be consulted in the conservation movement given their millennia of environmental leadership.

take a moment to think about the top three environmentalists in the media. perhaps people like jane goodall, al gore, rachel carson, david attenborough, or greta thunberg come to mind.

notice, likely none of the people you thought of are non-western or even people of color. upon pondering the idea further, it may even be difficult to come up with the name of a single famous environmental activist who is not from the western world, despite the amount of land historically conserved by non-western people internationally. while these individuals may not be as well-known as jane goodall, they should be.

the western world must put an enduring spotlight on the people of cultures who have had resounding success in environmental conservation since the birth of humanity, often people of color, and learn from them. otherwise, we risk earth day and environmentalism fizzling out as a green-washing fad, without any concrete action taken and — even worse — the destruction of our home planet.

none of this is normal. and yet, none of it is entirely too surprising. scientists have long been warning of the potential for a pandemic. the time and disease was never known, but the possibility was always there.

while much about the future remains uncertain, there is one thing we can predict: this is not the last pandemic humanity will face. and if we want to prevent future pandemics, we need to seriously consider how we interact with the environment, and how seriously we combat climate change.

covid-19 and the human-environment interaction are intertwined

the new coronavirus, covid-19, is a zoonotic disease. zoonotic diseases are diseases that come from pathogens that spill from wildlife (including animals, insects, and ticks) into humans, causing everything from mild to deadly illnesses including global pandemics. 

zoonotic diseases make up about 60% of all total diseases, and represent about 75% of emerging infectious diseases, and you’ve probably heard of more than a few of them. sars, mers, rabies, lyme disease, salmonella, zika, avian “bird” flu, and west nile are all zoonotic diseases. 

zoonotic diseases are nothing new. but they are increasing, and many of the drivers are a direct result of human interaction with the environment. 

for example, ecosystem destruction is a primary driver of zoonotic disease reproduction and transmission. natural ecosystems act as a buffer zone that prevents spillover of certain pathogens from animals to people. 

unfortunately, human activities including deforestation, agriculture, mining, and urbanization have caused large scale ecosystem fragmentation, impinging upon this essential buffer zone. this elicits more densely populated flocks of animals with more opportunities to congregate diseases, and with less of a barrier to prevent spillover into humans. 

increased and intensified animal agriculture further feeds the problem. the demand for meat and dairy products encourages intense animal agricultural practices that serve as incubation grounds for zoonotic diseases. 

in many factory farms, large amounts of genetically similar animals are clustered together. because they lack large genetic diversity, they become a group less resistant to infection, and thus more likely to fall ill and spread disease. indeed, livestock often serve as the disease bridge between wildlife and human life. 

furthermore, intensification of livestock not only contributes to ecosystem destruction, but also increases the amounts of animal waste contained in small spaces, and the amounts of fertilizer used, both of which can further foster environmental conditions that allow some pathogens to thrive. it also encourages antibiotic overuse, which itself is a risk factor for zoonotic disease emergence. 

and of course, animal agriculture contributes to climate change, which is another major driving factor for zoonotic disease emergence.

because climate change influences conditions that impact pathogen reproduction and transmission rates of pathogens, vectors, hosts, it can play a major role in infectious disease reproduction and transmission. 

for example, climate change shifts changes in things like temperature, humidity, precipitation patterns, and seasonality. extreme weather events related to climate change, like flooding, droughts, and wildfires, may exacerbate ecosystem fragmentation, or make environmental conditions even more amenable to disease outbreak.

all of these conditions impact how certain pathogens reproduce and spread, and certain changes driven by climate change may cultivate optimal conditions or extend seasons for select pathogens to thrive. 

there is substantial evidence to suggest that the risks associated with frequency and intensity of zoonotic diseases may increase with climate change.

but the environmental risks don’t stop there. air pollution, which kills an estimated 7-8 million people each year in non-pandemic conditions, threatens human health by increasing risks of chronic diseases like asthma and copd, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and neurological distress. many of these conditions are conditions considered ‘high risk’ for developing complications with covid-19.

thus, areas that have high levels of air pollution may have more people who are vulnerable to becoming seriously ill if they contract covid-19. sadly, high levels or air pollution are often found in lower income areas. compounded with poverty, which is itself a risk factor for poor health, it is feasible that mixing air pollution with coronavirus could increase vulnerability of already vulnerable populations.

it seems as if there is a positive feedback loop at play — several activities which contribute to climate change, including human activities that augment air pollution, and modern animal agriculture, are both independent risk factors for zoonotic disease, and both also contribute to climate change. 

climate change, in turn, increases ecosystem destruction which increases risks further, while independently acting as a risk factor for increased reproduction and transmission of zoonotic diseases. 

thus, it seems we cannot decrease the risks of future pandemics if we do not simultaneously assess how we interact with our environment. the problems are deeply intertwined.

and although this is a dual burden, it also presents a unique dual opportunity to blunt two major global threats simultaneously. 

so what can we learn, and how can we move forward?

there are many similarities between the covid-19 crisis and the climate change crisis: both are global threats to human health, the economy, and have the potential to disrupt life as we know it. 

the major difference between the two is the time scale at which they are unfolding.

with coronavirus, the threat is palpable; we see it unfolding daily as cases and fatalities continue to climb, and the world scrambles to find treatments, vaccines, and strategies to adapt to a new reality in the face of a major threat.

climate change, on the other hand, is unfolding a bit more slowly. while some directly see and feel its effects, for many, it seems like a distant and personally irrelevant threat.

yet, these two crises both require a global cooperative effort to mitigate their magnitude of their destructive potential, and rely heavily on work done by the scientific community to project their paths and to create and implement solutions.

and importantly, both require not only the cooperation of governments around the globe, but also action of everyday citizens. 

when it comes to climate change, that means individual action to reduce personal carbon footprint while supporting policies for sweeping change, and when it comes to coronavirus, that means adhering to public health recommendations by sheltering in place, wearing a mask, and social distancing. 

both instances require personal sacrifices, a trust in science, and a respect for greater good. and unfortunately, both coronavirus and climate change have been politicized, with certain individuals casting shadows of doubt on science and experts to fuel political narratives, creating an illusion of personal safety and remission of personal responsibility. 

which is perhaps why, most importantly, both of these crises run the risk of giving in to the temptation to delay taking action until it’s too late. we’ve seen the impact of complacency in parts of the world that believed itself immune to the dangers of covid-19, until the virus proved its potential to wreak havoc on communities. 

there is the potential that the crises created by climate change will have similar implications for disrupting humanity, riddled with the devastation, death, and economic fallout happening across the globe. some places will be hit harder than others, and some people and places are already feeling these effects. 

much like with the current pandemic, we must act swiftly and with global cooperation to implement solutions to mitigate the impacts of climate change, and, to make a parallel to covid-19, to flatten the curve of its destructive potential.

we have seen that on some scale, this is possible. with covid-19, the world has pulled together to fight a common enemy. people are staying home, helping their neighbors, and rising at opportunities to contribute to a greater good.

we have also learned with greater clarity what is really essential in terms of polluting activities we engage in in our daily lives. perhaps more of us can truly work from home from time to time, avoiding long daily commutes, and perhaps we can continue to eat food we have in our homes rather than seek out other foods to suit our moods and let leftovers go to waste.

the pandemic has also exposed the gravity of modern health and economic disparities in our societies, and perhaps we can move forward with plans that better serve those in need. 

and with coronavirus, as many around the world turn to medical and public health experts for guidance, eagerly waiting for scientists to create a treatment or vaccine, there’s a chance that this experience will perhaps bring about a returned trust in science and experts to guide relevant decisions. 

as humans, we have grown, and can continue to learn from these experiences to create a brighter future. 

all of these learned experiences will be helpful for working to better protect our environment, fight climate change, and prevent future pandemics. 

there is no way to disentangle future pandemics and how we treat the environment. luckily, this presents a dual opportunity: we can take better care of our planet, and by doing so, take better care of our health.

staring into the abyss of the covid chasm gives you a sinking feeling. not only for our health now and in the future, not only for the people who’ve lost jobs, and marginalized communities that are so incredibly vulnerable – but also for the really big health crisis ahead, the one affecting the planet: climate change.

this is a weird moment when we talk about all the warnings we had, about the science we ignored or shrugged off, about the ticking time bomb we didn’t get to fast enough. the coronavirus sickens people. climate change afflicts the planet.

so what are we to make of this? how can we learn from our current experience and apply these lessons to the next looming threat, recognizing that it will, by necessity, take a back seat until the current health emergency and economic crisis subside.

for decades, our world’s leaders have struggled to adequately respond to climate change. despite advice from scientists, policymakers have been largely unable to balance the long-term wellbeing of the planet with immediate economic concerns.

the effects of covid-19 have been devastating. the numbers are staggering. globally, there have been more than 2 million cases and more than 152,000 deaths as of mid-april. i hate to pile on here, but climate change can be a mass killer as well. the world health organization (who) has come in for some searing criticism, but despite its bureaucratic and diplomatic shortcomings, there are well-trained, highly respected scientists and docs who work there. in 2018, the who released a report estimating that between 2030 and 2050, climate change could result in 250,000 additional deaths per year.

like the doctors who studied and warned of pandemics, scientists have been issuing increasingly urgent warnings about the effects of climate change. in the united nation’s sizzle video the report provocatively asks, “how much time is left?” but some influential world leaders, from brazil’s jair bolsanaro to america’s president trump, have questioned the legitimacy of climate science and tried to turn back the clock on climate action.

maybe experience with the pandemic will change some influential minds. british prime minister boris johnson, whom covid-19 sent to intensive care, was criticized for a slow response when the pandemic first surfaced. johnson is considered by many a bit of a science skeptic. on climate change, the prime minister’s stance has wavered. his absence at a climate debate last year didn’t inspire confidence that he took the issue seriously. well, now that he’s out of intensive care, maybe the world – and science – looks different. staring into that abyss scares the hell out of you.

the mirroring responses to covid-19 and climate change extend beyond government. public opinion also has been partisan for each. public opinion polling of covid-19 in mid-march revealed that 68% of democrats, but only 40% of republicans, felt concerned that an immediate family member could contract the virus. similar, though even deeper divisions, define the public’s attitudes toward the climate crisis. a february 2020 pew research center poll found 78% of democrats believe that climate change should be a top priority for the president but only 21% of republicans are so inclined.

covid-19 and climate change are two really big, really daunting challenges. they test humanity’s ability to think long term, assess risk, put our common future first, and make hard choices. addressing them requires us to accept science, acknowledge facts, and resist manufactured debate and clickbait conspiracy theories.

researchers are scrambling to produce tests that will quickly tell people whether they’ve got the virus. scientists are racing to develop a vaccine. countries are spending trillions of dollars to stabilize endangered economies. similarly, climate change has inspired amazing new technologies, created a culture of sustainability, given rise to a powerful new generation of voices demanding action. we learn. we invent. we race the clock.

there is hope.

———

about the authors: frank sesno founded planet forward in 2009 and is the director of the george washington university school of media & public affairs. sarah dicioccio is a second-year graduate student at the school of media and public affairs, where she focuses on digital advocacy and works as a graduate assistant.

hanging like “shimmering dark clouds on the horizon,” these catastrophic swarms can reach the size of moscow, eating and destroying everything in sight. the locusts are a product of extreme weather swings, and pose deadly consequences for the people who rely on the crops they feed on. their rapidly increasing numbers are likely to present “an unprecedented threat to food security and livelihoods in the horn of africa,” as illustrated by the u.n. food and agriculture organization on jan. 29. 

kenya hasn’t had a locust outbreak to this magnitude in 70 years, and it is the worst that somalia and ethiopia have seen in 25 years. a typical desert locust swarm contains 150 million locusts per square kilometer, which is hard to imagine, but on average can destroy enough crops in one day that would have fed 2,500 people. 

what are the regional implications? 

the impacts of these swarms are immense, but also vary greatly depending on the region. the regions currently affected by the outbreak stretch across the horn of africa, so far reaching ethiopia, somalia, and northeast kenya. some say that the locusts have traveled from as far as yemen. however, if favorable breeding conditions persist, the u.n. fears these swarms could reach over 30 additional countries in africa and asia. south sudan and uganda are already bracing for their arrival, as predictions show that “current numbers could grow 500 times by june.”

unsurprisingly, scientists have declared a clear culprit: climate change. nairobi-based climate scientist abubakr salih babiker stated that 2019 was one of the wettest years on record due to rapidly increasing water temperatures in the indian ocean. warmer ocean temperatures furthermore caused an unusually high number of tropical cyclones off of africa, providing the perfect conditions for locust breeding. 

tom twining-ward, a senior technical advisor for the united nations development program with expertise in climate change adaptation (and, full disclosure, the author’s father), said “historically, the most important natural factor controlling populations of locusts is the weather,” and that “the current invasion in east africa is no doubt intensified by climatic changes that are neither caused nor fully understood by the local farmers.”

another challenge is that the only effective method to battle the insects is by the aerial spraying of pesticides, which is not only very expensive, but difficult to implement in many regions due to military presence. it’s also dangerous: for livestock, farmers, and the environment alike. 

so what should be done? a previous outbreak from 2003 to 2005 in northern africa cost more than $500 million to control and more than $2.5 billion in harvest losses. are big organizations and donors willing to step up and fund these efforts? 

twining-ward also highlighted that “while the focus in the medium- to long-term should be on coping measures and adaptation to climate change, there is an urgent need for donors to address the significant drop in agricultural output in the region, and provide the necessary resources to address food shortages and hunger in the affected countries.”

unfortunately most media coverage of the swarms are focusing predominantly on the disastrous effects and implications of the swarms, rather than proposing realistic solutions for controlling them.

a call for action, not a plea for help

the urgency of the situation has not been talked about nearly enough. now that the u.n. has shared its serious concerns, and somalia has declared a national emergency, news media is beginning to give the story a bit more attention, but not enough to reflect that this may very well affect millions of people. photographs have been an effective way to give people abroad some perspective. pictures and videos show hundreds of millions of locusts’ darkening horizons for miles, forming dense, ravenous, clouds. 

but, as with what has been written in the articles themselves, the pictures in the media portray reoccurring themes of devastation and helplessness: crops wilted, farmers in distress banging on metal pots and pans while whistling, using whatever means they have to scare away the locusts. 

as a concerned environmentalist and humanist, the lack of action and attention to combat this crisis is even more disappointing, especially when recalling the media attention and public outcry in response to the shocking australian wildfires. the comparison between coverage, and lack thereof, between the two emergencies is tragic, especially considering the impactful role that the media has in helping create action and awareness —  information that could benefit the countries in need.

i can’t help blaming the tendencies of certain media to make untrue generalizations and to portray africans as helpless or as careless perpetrators of an environmental crisis, while negating the relevant historical factors that have contributed to the environmental vulnerability of many africans. 

one aspect of the stories told about african countries — particularly the environmental ones — that i think often goes undiscussed, is that much of this vulnerability is in fact due to legacies left behind by colonial development policies. let us remember that all countries south of the sahara, excluding liberia, have at some point been under european colonial rule, and these structures significantly contributed to the uneven development felt in regions today. african countries dominated by colonial rule were impacted by policies that often promoted unsuitable and environmentally damaging agricultural systems, polluted industrial sectors, furthered inadequate workers rights, disrupted ecosystems and communities with big infrastructure projects, created violent arguments over land dispossession, and so on. 

exasperation steadily accumulated the more that i investigated this story, reading articles scattered with fragments of outdated stereotypes and tropes, but lacking in relevant historical factors that inevitably impact the severity of the locust outbreak. it is unfair not to consider the geographical, geopolitical, and historical ramifications that have shaped, and that will continue to shape, the way these events unfold. 

i sincerely hope that somehow perceptions sculpted by the mainstream media will begin to fade, as people rely more heavily on local and regional news sources. it is our own duty as consumers of media to expect stories that tell the whole story, and to call out discrepancies when we see them. we should expect equal coverage of stories that tell both the triumphs and tragedies. i hope that the tendencies to depict environmental disasters in vulnerable regions will shift from focusing solely on the crisis and its negative consequences, to more on the solutions that can be implemented to mitigate them.

conservation and environmental protection always felt blindly obvious to me. my love for nature led me to quickly internalizing information about how the world and its animals were at risk. i then developed an even stronger concern for the fate of our planet and our species. rather than this world being solely ours to wander, i always felt as if we were lucky just to share it with the other creatures who have long inhabited it. 

but recently, my affirmed beliefs have been questioned. after spending six weeks as a wildlife and conservation intern at tacugama chimpanzee sanctuary in sierra leone, my clarity on the ethics of conservation work are as blurred as ever. the future seems dangerously uncertain. looming within the persistent dark clouds of the rainy season, every day at the sanctuary i felt more strongly the imminent reality of climate change, population growth, and species extinction. i felt the hopelessness of long-term, momentarily intangible projects, of underfunded programs, unfairly slow productivity levels, and infuriating legislation that allows a chimpanzee poacher to get away with less than a $1 fine.

what i had thought would be a reflective, meditative, and illuminating six weeks instead became the complete opposite. i envisioned spending my mornings practicing yoga and meditation with the backdrop of rainforest sounds, and my evenings reading my 1,000-page novel, “infinite jest,” and then journaling, pinpointing exactly what i wanted to pursue in this field of work in the future. 

instead, i spent many of my mornings patrolling the electric fences in the unrelenting rain, scrubbing chimpanzee poop off my pants, and making sure the millipedes hadn’t crawled back into my suitcase overnight. my evenings were spent most often in the candlelight, without power, struggling to write down my disorderly thoughts beneath the glow of my headlamp. i was totally exhausted. was all this even worth it? 

i would often find myself trapped in this pit in my mind: 

the problems are so overwhelmingly huge, i can’t possibly make a difference. how naive was i to think that i could come here for six weeks and change a situation that is so deeply corroded?

what good am i doing, killing myself over the small problems provoked by climate change, when there are just 100 companies who create 71% of all carbon emissions?! even if i dedicated my entire life to this particular cause, devoting every ounce of energy i have into bettering the lives of those living closest to the chimpanzee habitat in sierra leone, my impact would clearly be negligible to the irreversible environmental catastrophe that is looming. 

and if i did, i wouldn’t be happy — i can’t do this for more than a few months at a time. living in the middle of the rainforest is really, really hard. am i a phony conservationist and environmentalist? if someone who is as passionate as i am is unwilling to devote their life entirely to this issue, then who on earth is? 

should i just quit school then, and enjoy my life while i can? hey, maybe i could move to hawaii and become an artist, eating fresh papaya, and surviving off the grid with a self-sustaining garden. 

i thought about all these things, and more. i let my mind wander down the endless paths of what-ifs and worst-case scenarios. what i’ve realized is that all this worrying is doing far more harm than what i could be doing if i was doing anything but worrying.

the problem these days with conservation action, with considering climate change, is that we spend way more time deliberating and arguing about whether or not it is happening than actually implementing solutions. people are willing to put as much energy into arguing about how to save the planet as they are into actually getting about doing it.

i almost fell down this hole, too. but doing something, anything, is far more moral than doing nothing at all — and that in the end, it does add up. international development work is certainly not perfect; it is riddled with ethical conflicts and it’s important that we continue to examine these closely. but it also has dramatically improved and saved millions of lives, provided critical health care, education, jobs, infrastructure, and political stability. maybe these improvements aren’t seen right away, but over time they add up. slight positive developments do make a difference, especially when you’re dealing with small local communities and individual animals. 

there are institutional barriers that make improvements and solutions to entrenched problems nearly impossible. it’s important to recognize that volunteering or interning for a brief period of time does not provide a systematic solution to these problems. that’s not to say it has no value, just that we need to accept our contributions for what they are.

the truth is we need both: we desperately need large institutional changes, but we also need individuals who care about specific issues, who are willing to make day-to-day changes and have conversations that shift consumer habits. 

maybe i didn’t come away knowing what conservation-related career path i was going to pursue. my biggest takeaway was a perspective, an insight as to how complicated, sensitive, yet important conservation work can be, about privilege, about the power of storytelling. 

it was an insight into how it feels to face situations that seem doomed, but choosing to not let that shut you down. and lastly, it was an insight into how optimism and a positive outlook can change your perspective and can help you change the world.

while her words were flattering, i can’t help but wonder how critical i am to young lyvi’s life. as the executive director of the jackson hole kayak club, a small non-profit dedicated to the growth of whitewater kayaking, my primary job is to ensure her wellbeing and safety on the water. in a safe environment, i can coach and teach lyvi about the movements of the river, the varying features and hazards, and how much fun spending time outside on rivers can be. but, at the end of the day, i am a young man who shares little in common with a 12-year-old girl. i can’t help but wonder how a female coach could have provided a more rich experience for lyvi that day on the water.

the disconnect between lyvi and myself reflects a larger issue in outdoor recreation. across kayaking, skiing, climbing, mountain biking and other outdoor adventure sports, the majority of coaches, athletes and participants are white men. deeply embedded social structures and gender politics cause the gender gap in outdoor recreation, resulting in an outdoor culture where everyone looks, acts and thinks similarly. this “boys club” attitude of the outdoors can create invisible yet impassable boundaries that alienate women and people of color from interacting with the outdoors and participating in the activities that i enjoy the most. but, this is old news.

outdoor recreation has been immersed in white american culture since the 1800s. colonial influences shaped our perception of the outdoors and how we interact with nature, including driving through national parks and participating in extreme outdoor activities. these influences, paired with the traditional masculine influences of domination and conquest, frame the outdoors as a space for macho white males. though the recreation industry has a flawed history, playing outside is a critical step for young people to care about their environment.

according to the u.s. forest service, outdoor recreation introduces people to the outdoors and stimulates public interest in varying environmental issues, generating support for the preservation of air, water and wildlife. as climate change becomes an increasingly important issue, the importance of outdoor recreation thus also grows. and, while we seek various solutions to the complex problem of climate change, we must rely on fresh and different perspectives from various people to tackle such a problem. outdoor recreation opportunities must be open to everyone.

at a young age, outdoor recreation (kayaking and skiing specifically) inspired me to protect the spaces i love to play in, and find thoughtful solutions to various environmental issues. but, my passion for the environment did not drive my return to skiing and kayaking; my coaches did.

i fell in love with my ski and kayak coaches over the years. i looked up to their demeanor, their high level of skill in the sports i was beginning to enjoy, and at their own passion for the outdoors. i wanted to be like my coaches, and felt i strongly that i could grow up to be just like them. every single one of them was white and male. i only ever had one female ski coach, and she was a substitute.

in order to expand the range of people participating in outdoor recreation, we must create the space for a wider range of coaches and role models for the young people wanting to play outside.  a female coach for lyvi has the power to transform a scary situation into a light hearted one. her leadership and demeanor are both traits for lyvi to follow. and, finally, a female coach’s interaction with nature and the outdoors can pave the way for lyvi to develop her own passion and care for the environment, cultivating new ideas and passion necessary to combat global climate change.

in my role at the kayak club, i find myself in a unique situation where i can fix this systemic issue of exclusivity in outdoor recreation. i want to be more thoughtful in who i hire as coaches, who participates in our programs, and making my favorite sport accessible to anyone interested. these sports, along with the coaches and role models in my life, were critical in helping me find my voice and passions, and i hope to create the same opportunities for everyone and anyone interested in playing outside.

while i might have saved lyvi’s life that day on the water, with the right role models in her life she might be able to save our world.