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.
Humans are complex creatures, whether we admit it or not, and we create very complex systems. Teasing apart that complexity is difficult, especially when we bring our own limitations and biases to the table. Successfully identifying the positive and negative impacts of our actions in the world requires a lot of humility, flexibility, and willingness to get comfortable with discomfort… plus some interactive software.
Complex problems call for complex solutions. We’ve already determined that more robust perspectives lead to success, but that can be easier said than done when it comes to managing humans. Humans have a tendency to gravitate toward feeling comfortable and right, so it’s up to leaders to challenge everyone’s assumptions – including our own – when building solutions. (It’s also important for us to model imperfection.)
I recently learned that the global transformer shortage can limit how well we maintain our existing infrastructure and how quickly we can expand our supply with new sources of electricity generation. A constrained supply will impact demand, resulting in negative impacts that range from inconvenient to deadly. Better demand management can ease capacity constraints, but how do we manage that in a fair way?