Humans are paradoxical creatures, made from a complex recipe of our own individual experiences. However, we often define ourselves based on our relationships with others in the form of binary opposition. Modern politics and social media trade on labels and increasingly polarized positions that can organize people quickly and play on strong emotions, but those labels also limit our ability to understand each other.
2024 was hard, and thinking about resolutions at a time when I’m simply trying to hold myself together seems pointless. This year I intend to focus on building strategies for resilience instead of trying to make myself a “better person.” I hope I can succeed at achieving some level of self care – and that my actions can inspire others to do the same.
“I’m right; you’re wrong” is a tempting position to take, especially when emotions run high. However, many seemingly disparate issues are inextricably intertwined, particularly when it comes to energy generation, and part of a just transition toward renewable energy means addressing the concerns many have about moving away from fossil fuels. As always, I’m learning that it’s easier said than done.
It was only a matter of time before members of my Climate Lab cohort would be asked to produce something as a result of our learning, instead of just cramming information into our heads. In a time when my country feels more divided than ever, I wanted to find a way to work toward equitable, sustainable solutions that addressed concerns of conflicting parties.
Since I was 19 on an anthropology study abroad trip to Ecuador, I have searched for authentic intercultural experiences. It’s difficult, to be sure, and not everyone wants their travels to be difficult. My vacation in Fiji after the Climate Lab week came to an end raised some important questions: what is the value in striving for authenticity and is it even achievable?
I try to avoid touristy places when I travel, conveniently ignoring the fact that I am a tourist myself. In this post I wrestle with some external judgment related to how people “should” travel, including whether they should even travel in the first place. Seeking comfort (in addition to challenge) when I was in Fiji helped me realize there’s no clear black-and-white answer here.
The questions guiding our work in the Climate Lab focus on how to make climate action effective and inclusive, scalable and just – but the desire to craft the perfect approach can come at the expense of moving forward with a good approach. During our week in Fiji, we saw some inspiring examples of people making a difference by simply doing their best.
Good travel, just like good education, puts you outside your comfort zone and challenges your assumptions. To that extent, this journey to several Fijian villages with my Climate Lab cohort was very good travel. After two days, I left with more questions than I brought – largely about who “should” be making decisions related to climate change adaptation and how “should” outside organizations be helping.
Last year a friend told me he was very excited now that he knew he could take his hard-to-recycle plastic to our local recycling company. I bit my tongue, knowing that it was probably too good to be true. At best, those plastics would end up in a landfill, but I had also heard that chemical recycling might be even worse for the environment.
Misconceptions abound when it comes to recycling, and a new technology called “chemical recycling” is being positioned as a major win for recycling hard-to-recycle plastics. No matter their intentions for the future, most chemical recycling facilities are currently turning plastics into fuel to be burned, not recycled plastics to replace virgin plastics. Perception is everything in the court of public opinion, and information matters.