Chapter 1: A Personal Reflection on Sustainability

From a young age, I was encouraged to conserve resources by taking shorter showers, switching off lights, purchasing recycled products, using reusable bottles, composting, relying on public transport, supporting local organic farmers, and minimizing waste. The mere thought of someone neglecting to recycle is, to me, utterly shocking.

For years, my self-congratulatory attitude about being eco-friendly made me feel like I was contributing to global sustainability. This perspective has been echoed since the counterculture movements of the 1970s, often linked with local farming, zero-waste lifestyles, veganism, and strict carbon regulations. However, a significant aspect often overlooked is that the ideals of sustainability frequently represent a privileged, predominantly white demographic, and are economically out of reach for many.

I was not made aware that such altruistic actions were largely accessible to those with financial means. While I have the security of government assistance and inherited land with water rights, countless individuals across the globe are living in regions that face impending uninhabitability. Those who lack the financial resources to combat the effects of extreme weather, rising sea levels, and persistent droughts are the ones most vulnerable to the consequences of climate change. So, what is the core issue?

The recent climate discussions in Poland and the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) prompt me to think about those who will be most affected by these impending shifts. The 2018 UN Climate Talks concluded with much controversy, with critics arguing that the resolutions do not adequately address the need to limit global warming to below 1.5ºC, as recommended by the IPCC. "Currently, our world is 0.8°C warmer than pre-industrial levels... Under current trajectories, we could reach a 2°C increase in just one generation" (SDSN). The prevailing view is that we must act swiftly, implementing comprehensive policy changes at the leadership level to manage what is rapidly evolving into a worldwide crisis.

The IPCC report highlights the intertwined nature of sustainability and poverty, asserting that addressing them as one is crucial for progress.

"Ethical considerations, particularly the principle of equity, are central to this report, acknowledging that the impacts of warming, particularly above 1.5°C, disproportionately burden the poor and vulnerable" — IPCC

It is hardly surprising that it will not be the wealthy who face scarcity of clean water, food insecurity, or displacement from their homes. Instead, it is those who have lived in their communities for generations, striving to adapt to what they have, who will bear the brunt of these changes.

Mercy Corps notes, "Three-quarters of individuals living in poverty depend on agriculture and natural resources for their livelihood. For them, climate change — including dwindling water supplies and food scarcity — is a matter of life or death."

In 2015, Per Liljas from Time Magazine reported that residents of the Pacific island nation Kiribati were facing seawater inundation every two to three months. During these floods, access to clean drinking water vanishes, livestock are stranded, and sewage systems overflow into homes. Projections indicate that this entire island ecosystem could be submerged within fifty years, potentially displacing over 100,000 individuals due to climate change in our lifetime.

The United Nations Environment Programme forecasts that the entire African continent will face heightened vulnerability due to its geographic conditions and prevalent poverty. "By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people on the continent are expected to experience increased water stress due to climate change… Furthermore, a 2˚C rise in global temperatures could put over half of the continent's population at risk of undernourishment" (UNEP).

At present, there is no framework for asylum for climate change refugees.

Emerging green technologies and their associated policies have historically favored the wealthy while marginalizing the impoverished. If proposed solutions do not address the needs of those most affected, we risk failing to create a sustainable environment for future generations. A genuine commitment to equity is now essential.

Three critical areas where climate change significantly impacts vulnerable populations include:

1. Agriculture — food systems, farming, and resource distribution.
2. Technology — solar, wind, water, biofuels, and sustainable living initiatives.
3. Policy — subsidies for green technology, partnerships with at-risk nations, emissions caps, land redesignation, and the need to separate interests between lawmakers and industry leaders.

Section 1.1: The Agricultural Challenge

The IPCC report estimates that 10 million square kilometers (2.5 billion acres) must be reforested or converted to food crops to meet the 1.5ºC target. This is particularly vital for nations reliant on agricultural exports for economic stability.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), "Approximately 18 million acres of forest, roughly the size of Panama, are lost annually." Deforestation to accommodate livestock grazing or energy crops like palm oil not only damages the environment but also harms local communities. Clear-cutting raises flooding risks, degrades soil quality, displaces indigenous populations, releases stored carbon, diminishes biodiversity, and threatens local water supplies.

We are effectively jeopardizing lives, placing those reliant on a stable food system at risk for the benefit of a select few.

"Globally, there exists enough agricultural land to feed 9 billion people by 2050 if the 40 percent of crops currently grown for animal feed were redirected for human consumption" (FAO). The current food system favors industrial agriculture, prioritizing feed crops over food crops. It's no wonder the meat and dairy sectors in the U.S. are immensely profitable, with meat sales alone reaching $186 billion in 2011, along with another $38 billion in government subsidies. Imagine the transformation in agriculture if these funds were allocated to support small-scale organic farms.

In the U.S., "Around 39 percent of the nation's 2.1 million farms receive subsidies, primarily benefiting large producers of corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice" (EWG). These subsidies are intended to maintain low-cost feed and fuel sources but threaten the overall food system by fostering monopolization. The more we centralize and streamline our agricultural practices, the more susceptible they become to global climate change's effects. New pests and diseases, soil erosion, excessive pesticide use, water stress, and reduced nutritional value are all consequences of this consolidation.

Factory farms often operate in rural, economically disadvantaged areas that lack the resources to combat corporate giants. The waste generated by thousands of disease-ridden animals treated with antibiotics poses severe health risks to surrounding communities. Runoff from these farms leads to toxic environments for local wildlife, creating massive algae blooms in waterways and depleting oxygen levels in ecosystems. This waste accumulation can also have dire consequences for human health, contaminating air and local drinking water supplies.

"In 1996, the CDC found a link between high nitrate levels in drinking water near Indiana's agricultural feedlots and spontaneous abortions" (Yurcaba).

Moreover, these operations often monopolize local job opportunities despite their questionable reputations. Workers and nearby residents face exposure to high levels of "hydrogen sulfide, methane, ammonia, and carbon dioxide," resulting in flu-like symptoms, brain damage, vision issues, respiratory diseases, antibiotic-resistant infections, gastrointestinal parasites, and premature death (Yurcaba).

In this context, we are literally gambling with lives, endangering those who rely on a stable food system for the benefit of a privileged few.

Section 1.2: The Interplay of Technology and Policy

"Poverty-environment initiatives often result in numerous isolated micro-projects rather than systematic changes to existing government policies." — UNDP

The relationship between green technology and policy is complex, especially regarding government subsidies, proposed carbon emission limits, and funding for new technologies. California serves as an illustrative case study, recognized for its policy efforts to reduce carbon emissions and invest in sustainable technology. The state's cap-and-trade program, electric vehicle (EV) tax credits, and recent initiatives for emerging energy solutions exemplify current approaches (Lipton).

In 2012, California initiated a cap-and-trade program designed to reduce fossil fuel use by encouraging corporations to adopt cleaner energy sources. Companies must acquire permits—referred to as "carbon allowances"—to legally emit carbon, with the total number of permits decreasing each year. The expectation was that most revenue from permit sales would be reinvested into climate initiatives statewide. Ideally, permit costs would escalate to a point where companies had no choice but to change. However, the results have been mixed (Kasler).

The California Air Resources Board reported a 2.7% decline in statewide greenhouse gas emissions in 2016, bringing levels below those of 1990 (Baker). Yet, the facilities facing the strictest regulations are often located in areas with higher populations of people of color and economically disadvantaged residents (PLOS Medicine). Additionally, this legislation places a tax burden on California residents, driving up gas prices. Companies with the means continue to purchase permits without reducing their emissions. The incentives for many have not yet reached sufficient levels. Some firms are even permitted to offset their output by funding environmental projects like forestry management (Kasler).

Consider the market for electric vehicles: over 99% of subsidies currently benefit households with incomes exceeding $50,000, and nearly 75% go to those earning over $100,000 (Loris). The "EV Tax Credit," introduced in 2009 during the Obama administration, aimed to promote greener automobile purchases and incentivize manufacturers to enhance electric vehicle production. However, the cap on subsidies for companies kicks in after the sale of the 200,000th vehicle, a threshold recently surpassed by Tesla, a brand synonymous with luxury and sustainability.

Despite this, electric cars remain prohibitively expensive for most Americans. Even with a $7,500 government subsidy, the total cost of ownership for an electric vehicle can exceed $20,000 to $32,000 more than a gas-powered vehicle over 20 years (Sigaud). In 2017, fewer than 200,000 electric vehicles were sold out of 17 million total car sales. To exacerbate the situation, some states have enacted "zero-emission vehicle" mandates requiring that a certain percentage of sales consist of electric or low-emission vehicles. Companies unable to meet these quotas face penalties or are forced to sell additional vehicles at a loss, while companies like Tesla reap enormous profits by exceeding these quotas, primarily serving an affluent market (Loris).

The narrative surrounding government funding for renewable energy is similar. A genuine "gold rush" for green technologies began in 2009, accompanied by significant government subsidies for solar and wind power plants (Lipton). While solar panels are widely adopted, their advantages frequently accrue to wealthy homeowners. "New York ranks among the top dozen solar-producing states in the U.S., yet in 2014, less than 4% of solar installations benefited households earning below $40,000" (Calma). Solar panel installation costs range from $10,000 to $20,000, with renters—who account for 97% of the U.S. residential population—often excluded from these opportunities (Szekely).

With national and state solar and wind farms, government subsidies present minimal financial risk for investors, ensuring stable income for years. According to the New York Times, "Similar subsidy arrangements have been allocated to 15 other solar and wind power plants since 2009." The necessity of governmental financial support for these projects is a matter of debate. Most of these initiatives are funded predominantly by taxpayer dollars, with major investors being financial giants like Goldman Sachs, Google, and General Electric (Lipton).

So, the question remains: do the advantages of these measures justify the initial costs to taxpayers or smaller enterprises? Is this all worthwhile in the long run? The answer is complex.

Section 1.3: Promising Technological Solutions

While many current solutions fall short, some innovative ideas are indeed worthy of our attention and resources.

Community Solar Initiatives:

One notable example is OnForce Solar, a New York-based company that implements community solar projects. This system allows residents to invest in energy generated by a nearby solar farm without needing to install their own panels. Subscribers receive credits from their utility companies based on the solar farm's output. Although this model has faced challenges, such as overcharging membership fees and difficulties in attracting low-income residents, it represents a promising approach. Currently, 42 out of 50 U.S. states have at least one community solar project, with 19 promoting shared renewable energy policies (Calma).

Lab-Grown Meat Innovations:

Given that we lack sufficient land to sustainably raise livestock for the entire global population, lab-grown meat offers an exciting alternative. This meat, cultivated from the stem cells of living animals, has the potential to reduce emissions from conventional meat production by up to 96% and minimize land use by 99% (Davis). With Tyson Foods investing in U.S.-based Memphis Meats, we can expect to see lab-grown meat products in restaurants and grocery stores soon. If adequately funded, this technological breakthrough could play a crucial role in ensuring global food security amidst climate change.

Advancements in GMOs:

Instead of funneling subsidies into meat and dairy industries, why not invest in research for hardier crops like rice, soybeans, and grains? Scientists have identified a genetic mechanism known as "CAM," which allows plants to take in CO2 at night, conserving water during the day (Gabbatiss). Researchers at The Land Institute in Salina, Kansas, are developing a perennial wheat variety called "Kernza." This variety demonstrates greater drought tolerance and disease resistance compared to conventional wheat, with the potential to surpass annual varieties in yield within the next decade (DeHaan).

There are motivated individuals dedicated to creating systems that benefit all communities. We simply need to amplify their efforts and direct appropriate funding their way.

Section 1.4: Taking Action and Supporting Community Initiatives

If executed effectively, the upcoming years could present a significant opportunity for growth and progress, rather than regression and stagnation.

At its core, climate change represents an economic challenge. The costs associated with its consequences are expected to soar in the coming decade, encompassing humanitarian assistance, emergency services, infrastructure repair, and healthcare expenses, potentially reaching hundreds of billions worldwide. Local governments must prioritize investments, subsidies, tax credits, and other economic incentives toward industries that create jobs and enhance local environments.

Emerging sectors such as green building and design, engineering for water conservation, renewable energy research and implementation, and natural science and technology are all expanding, with increasing demand for skilled workers (Cook). Moving forward, initiatives must primarily concentrate on mitigating climate change effects on the most vulnerable populations. This means I, along with millions of other Americans, must acknowledge my privilege and make necessary sacrifices.

The mindset centered on individual sustainability has become more harmful than helpful. I urge you and your family and friends to engage with local housing projects, participate in marches, vote, and stand in solidarity with your neighbors. Donate your time and resources to organizations committed to global change. Invest in sustainable technologies that prioritize those in need. Inquire about the origins of your food, subscribe to local produce deliveries, support food banks, and advocate for community composting initiatives. Reach out to your local representatives with your ideas, attend town hall meetings, or join community organizations that align with your values. Educate yourself and share your knowledge with others.

Most importantly, cultivate the courage to advocate for your beliefs.

This issue transcends borders and requires a collective solution. While individual actions are essential, the situation will escalate dramatically over the next decade. We have a limited window to implement meaningful changes. We do not have to undertake this transition alone—collaboration will make this journey easier and safer for everyone.

If you have additional ideas for supporting your local communities or wish to share information about organizations you believe in, please reach out. We’d love to hear from you!