eco anxiety: the environmental burden of generation z

What is eco anxiety? Eco anxiety refers to a fear of environmental damage or ecological disaster. This sense of anxiety is largely based on the current and predicted future state of the environment as well as human induced climate change. 

In 2017, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) described eco-anxiety as “a chronic fear of environmental doom” (APA 2017). 

With climate change looming, statistics and numbers creeping up day by day, this sense of anxiety surrounding the environment and environmental issues is ever-present. Though it is important to note that eco-anxiety is not recognized by medical health professionals as an official diagnosis, the term eco-anxiety does exist within the field of eco psychology, a branch that deals with people’s psychological relationships with the rest of nature and how this impacts their identity, well-being and overall health. Just as people experience loss of a loved one, the same potential symptoms may be felt after losing an important place. A loss of or threat to job security or livelihood can also have significant mental health effects on any given individual. 

Media coverage of environmental destruction and degradation can also be extremely overwhelming, as we see more and more evidence of negative impacts on the environment in our daily news feed. A feeling of hopelessness, reduced feelings of autonomy and control, depression, fear, and trauma can all manifest as human beings experience a rapidly changing climate. A significant example of this is the Climate Clock in Manhattan - a massive digital clock which has been reprogrammed to tell us how much time is left before an irreversible climate crisis. While the clock serves its purpose to be a reminder that the climate crisis is in fact real, and rapidly progressing each day, it most certainly creates more anxiety over the topic as a whole. This is not to say individual action is not important, because making small changes in our daily lives is needed, but unfortunately, the climate clock is just another way of putting pressure, blame, guilt, and responsibility onto consumers to be the ones to “fix” the entire issue. As of today, there are 100 companies that are responsible for 71% of global emissions. Targeting the biggest contributors to climate change: large corporations — is what's needed. Many argue that instead of investing excessive funds for creating the clock, this money could have better aided initiatives to make climate adaptation more accessible/inclusive. 

It is important to remember that environmental damage and overall climate change does not affect all people equally. Many communities and individuals experience disproportionate effects and may feel anxiety around ecological issues more intensely. People living in low-lying areas or coastal communities, whose jobs are dependent upon the environment (fishing, agriculture, etc) are much more likely to be affected. Those living in indigenous communities often rely on natural resources, and tend to reside in more vulnerable geographic areas, meaning they face fears of losing their homes, livelihood, or cultural heritage, which in the long run may affect their overall identity and sense of belonging. Those who work in environmental jobs may also face a higher likelihood of developing eco-anxiety. 

Feeling sad, angry, frustrated, and helpless when it comes to environmental issues and climate action is normal. And after 2020, this concept needs to be normalized. 

This year, I fell off the bandwagon a bit. I bought fast fashion more than I would’ve in previous years, I was forced back into buying my coffee in a plastic cup because COVID made it impossible to use reusables for a very long time, (and I could’ve just opted out and made coffee at home, but didn’t), I paid less attention to my diet, and what I was consuming overall as an individual. I didn’t realize it at the time, but just as the pandemic caused many, including myself, a large amount of anxiety, fear, and depression, it also led me to become extremely anxious about the environment and the climate crisis. I felt all of these things and more. I felt guilty for shopping for new clothes, instead of thrifting. I felt guilty for getting coffee in a plastic cup, almost daily. I felt guilty for buying new things, and not throwing away others to balance it out. I felt guilty for wasting food, forgetting to recycle, misplacing my reusable straw, filling up my car with gas. I felt hypocritical for preaching climate action, when I felt like I was the least environmentally friendly I had ever been. So I stopped. I stopped posting on different social media platforms about what I knew I was still so passionate about. I stopped sharing articles I read regarding even political action on climate change. I felt like I had no place to be a part of climate action if I wasn’t doing my part. This is eco-anxiety. 

It is so easy to feel discouraged by bad news regarding the environment. It was especially easy to feel discouraged, or even infuriated during our previous Presidential administration. Bad news for the environment seemed to appear daily, and it felt never ending. Performative gestures like the climate clock make it even easier to feel guilty about using that plastic cup, forgetting your reusable bag at the grocery store, being a frequent-flyer, driving often, consuming meat, etc.

So how can I help eco-anxiety?

Talking to others about good environmental practices, volunteering with environmental groups, and making greener choices when it comes to recycling, eating less meat and dairy, and consuming less, can all be positive actions for combatting eco-anxiety feelings. However, the most important thing is to get educated. Gathering accurate, reliable information about the environment and the climate crisis can empower individuals and entire communities to feel prepared and resilient if a crisis occurs. Having a lack of information about the crisis as a whole can make it difficult to understand and process issues such as climate change. For a good starting point in learning more about systemic and individual behavior change, visit @earthbyhelena on Instagram.

Solving environmental issues and the climate crisis is heavily dependent upon societal change and corporate responsibility. In order for anything to change drastically, large businesses must take responsibility for their major contributions to climate change and change their actions moving forward. At the same time, “the system can't be transformed unless there are individuals willing to disrupt the norm, and that in itself is a behaviour change” (@earthbyhelena on Instagram). 

All in all, we need to stop feeling so anxious about being “bad environmentalists,” because the systems currently in place - all of which are upheld by fossil fuels - should be shouldering the blame. Here is your reminder that not being the most sustainable version of yourself is okay. But, being neutral is oppressive. Now is the time to use our information, motivation, and power to dismantle these systems of oppression, and move forward with cleaner and greener steps to taking care of and protecting the natural world at large.

References:

Fawbert, Dave. “Climate Change: Are You Suffering from 'Eco-Anxiety'?” BBC Three, BBC, 27 Mar. 2019, www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/b2e7ee32-ad28-4ec4-89aa-a8b8c98f95a5. 

@earthbyhelena. “A Healthy Reminder.” Instagram, 23 Nov. 2020, www.instagram.com/p/CH76MHiHSbI/. 

“MENTAL HEALTH AND OUR CHANGING CLIMATE: IMPACTS, IMPLICATIONS, AND GUIDANCE.” American Psychological Association, Mar. 2017, www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2017/03/mental-health-climate.pdf. 

Ecopsychology and Social Justice: Intrinsically Connected

When we begin to think about the marginalization, exploitation, and oppression of women, people of color, and land, it is very clear that all are intrinsically connected. Social justice in the field of environmentalism and ecology is ever-present. We see communities that contribute the least being the most heavily affected by the impacts of climate change, and we see other groups of minority peoples, including people of color, with little access to green spaces and a place within the movement as a whole. Why is this? Firstly, we must recognize we cannot tackle climate justice without simultaneously tackling social justice. When it comes to the field of ecopsychology, it is essential that we work to correct these “distortions of racism,” and move forward with a better approach to creating an inclusive ecopsychology (Anthony, 1995). The standing question is, how do we dismantle the control mechanisms that have led to this alienation and injustice in the first place? What can we do to reverse the domination of people and places that has occurred?

In South Africa, “interconnectedness is described by the concept ‘ubuntu’” (Paloma, Anthony, 2015, p.251). Ubuntu, boiled down, is the philosophy and overall belief that “our humanity is inextricably bound up in one another, and any tear in the fabric of connection must be repaired for us all to be made whole” (2015, p.251). If this is the case, why are so many groups of people, places, and whole cities essentially viewed as disposable? If the concept of ubuntu is true, we need each other more than ever if we hope to repair the massive tear in the fabric of connection to the natural world at large. The movement that was built upon a response to Ferguson forced us to recognize and reclaim a history that until today, had been ignored. We must begin to recognize that communities of color are suffering—and at what cost? People of color have been “pushed into ghettoes over decades of redlining, discriminatory housing and development practices, dis- investment, and white flight” (Paloma, Anthony, 2015, p.253). These communities are severely under-resourced in education and jobs, which only funnels more youth of color into the prison system, thus beginning a vicious cycle of social and racial injustice. Ecopsychology can help us to understand where we went wrong, when we became such a “disposable” society, and how we can take steps forward to becoming a better representation of ubuntu; recognizing and taking responsibility for how long we have turned our backs on lost and buried histories. 

Much of the environmental justice movement is rooted in reintegration using a justice-focused approach, where individual and collective reflection and action are at the forefront. Nina Simons touches on the subject of reintegration in a less-direct way, in her piece “Piercing the Shell of Privilege.” Simons talks of her privilege in a way that helps us understand how we can begin to crack that shell that surrounds us. She reflects, “I had known about the most toxic industries being sited in poor, inner-city neighborhoods … I had known about the horrific rates of rape and sexual abuse of women in Indian Country, but I had known them from afar” (Simons, 2017, pp.188-189). This concept of experiencing injustice from afar is one so many privileged, white Americans have become accustomed to. We’re aware of it, so that’s enough, right? Simons challenges readers to ask themselves: how can I become a part of dismantling the control mechanisms that have led to the injustices in the first place? How can I use my privilege to be a part of a much larger fight? Recognizing the deep ties between environmental and social justice is the first step to fighting the destruction of our natural world. Dismantling systems that oppress minorities needs to happen in conjunction with connecting once again with our environmental roots.

Kimmerer’s writings can help us circle back to one original thought: “knowing that you love the Earth changes you—activates you to defend and protect and celebrate. But when you feel that the earth loves you in return, that feeling transforms the relationship from a one-way street into a sacred bond” (Kimmerer, 2013). Kimmerer writes of the injustices Indigenous peoples face, painting a grim reality for many who confront land rights issues, lack of water protection, and the continuation of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Kimmerer’s ideas are interconnected with those of Anthony, when he writes, “an ecopsychology that has no place for people of color, that doesn’t deliberately set out to correct these distortions of racism, is an oxymoron” (Anthony, 1995, p.277). Kimmerer suggests that what people long for is a true connection to nature, referencing the concepts of biophilia in her writings. This longing is one of the most important roots of ecopsychology,  and can help us to understand our world and its people on a much deeper level. Kimmerer writes of how the Indigenous teachings make it extremely clear: we cannot keep taking. Instead, we must approach each day with the question of what we can give. Utilizing social justice is of the utmost significance when it comes to restoring these relationships, as its roots tie deeply to the goals of ecopsychology as a whole.

When really diving into the themes of ecopsychology, it is clear that social justice stands as the most significant issue the field faces. Using our past, and learning from events like Ferguson, we can equip ourselves to better understand and reflect upon our own privilege. The roots of ecopsychology ask us to reconnect with the natural world; but we cannot move forward in this way without simultaneously realizing and recognizing the injustices women, people of color, and other minorities face. Education and awareness are the first steps in dismantling the control mechanisms that have led to these injustices in the first place. Reversing the domination of people and places that have occurred is more timely, and will take years of rebuilding and re-understanding where it all went wrong. However, both are possible, and essential in the bigger picture. An ecopsychology that does not have a place for women, people of color, or other minorities, is not an ecopsychology representative or inclusive of a global community—therefore lacking the means in which to benefit anyone on a larger scale.

References:

Canty, J. M., & Simons, N. (2017). Piercing the Shell of Privilege: How my commitments to environmental and gender justice moved from my head to my heart. In Ecological and social healing: Multicultural women's voices (pp. 179–193). essay, Routledge. 

Kimmerer, Robin Wall. (2014) Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teaching of plants. Milkweed Editions.

Paloma, M., & Anthony, C. (2015). Building Just and Resilient Communities: New foundations for Ecopsychology. Retrieved October 6, 2021, from https://breakthroughcommunities.info/pdf/Building_Just_and_Resilient_Communities.pdf. 

strengthening our roots in a detached society

A focus on reintegration: socially, culturally, and ecologically

When it comes to understanding the world around us, a multilayered approach is required to connect the dots between our relationships with each other and with the natural world. As Kidner so prominently protrudes in his writing, “lack of cultural structure” in all realms, “represses aspects of self that potentially relate us to what is outside of self” (Kidner, 2000, p.102). Adapting our world to be simultaneously social, cultural, and natural in order to reintegrate is both possible and absolutely necessary in creating lasting change when it comes to our connections with the natural world at large. Kidner, Darlaston-Jones, Sanchez, and Kimmerer call for a “reintegration” of the world, prompting us as readers to really ask ourselves, “is how we function today helping or hurting our relationships with both ourselves and the natural world?” Is our society working simultaneously in all aspects—socially, culturally, and ecologically? Is the fear factor working, or would “appeals to love, devotion, and a ‘psycho-emotional bond’ with nature be a better remedy for a solely-detached society? All four authors dive deep into what exactly their call for “reintegration” means, and why it is vital in creating lasting change.

            In Kimmerer’s Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teaching of plants, she explores the alternative forms of Indigenous knowledge outside of traditional scientific methodologies, in-depth. In a chapter titled “Asters and Goldenrod,” the author writes about the strictness of traditional science by using her story of being enrolled in a plant science course at University. Seeking out the relationships between plants and humans, Kimmerer writes of how she struggled to understand the primacy of scientific thought and reasoning, reflecting, “My natural inclination was to see relationships, to seek the threads that connect the world, to join instead of divide. But science is rigorous in separating the observer from the observed, and the observed from the observer” (Kimmerer, 2014, p.57). Throughout her time in University, followed by a Ph.D. and a faculty position, she taught the mechanics of plants, just like she had been taught. After years of teaching the tools she was provided with, she ultimately recognized she’d really spent those years “teaching the names and ignoring the songs” (p.58). In other words, the relationship between humans and plants she once was fascinated by had disappeared - pushed out of her mind by the ideologies of strict science and mechanics. Ignoring the connections and bonds between nature and human beings is ignorance—and Kimmerer reflects this thought throughout the entirety of Braiding Sweetgrass, and specifically within this chapter. Can Western knowledge and Indigenous perspectives be learned simultaneously to understand the world around us? “I wanted to know why we love the world, why the most ordinary scrap of meadow can rock us back on our heels in awe,” Kimmerer reflects (p.63). Though a deep understanding of scientific mechanics is necessary, a foundational understanding of our relationships to the ecological world is indispensable if we wish to reintegrate a society that is socially, culturally, and ecologically equal.

            In both similar and different ways, Darlaston-Jones’ chapter titled “Challenging Psychology: reflecting on Riley’s ‘Manifesto for Change,’” in The Journal of Critical Psychology, Counselling and Psychotherapy also provided context reinforcing the need to strike a balance between both Western ideologies and Indigenous knowledge. Questioning the nature of her traditional psychology education and the normative assumptions she was taught that reinforced these ideologies, Darlaston-Jones longed to explore another perspective—one that “spoke of liberation and social justice and that was concerned with wellbeing beyond the individual” (Daralston-Jones, 2016, p.184). The author describes the need for individuals to explore their own personal, professional, and national identities in order to be able to deconstruct certain biases and move forward with an open-minded approach to viewing the world. Accomplishing this requires critical consciousness but must be done to avoid making assumptions that “may contribute to oppression, marginalization and voicelessness” (p.185). The author’s reading is in some ways connected to the words of Kimmerer, in reflecting upon the need to widen world views and incorporate Indigenous knowledge alongside western paradigms. Both of these articles promote the need for this incorporation to happen in all educational settings, regardless of major or program—for Kimmerer and her experience studying plant science, and for Jones; when it comes to the complex field of psychology.

            “This intersection of an intact Indigenous worldview and the modern world generates a new understanding of what it will take to transform our society for the coming millennia—an understanding that everything we face is inextricably interconnected” (Sanchez, 2017, p. 50-51). When uncovering the root meaning of Sanchez’ writing, it is important to remember she does not dismiss science. The author makes a point of noting that “not all science has distanced itself from a holistic worldview” (Sanchez, 2017, p.49). In addition to Sanchez’s perspective on a combined worldview, her perspective on reintegration stands out for a few reasons. The author dives into the basics of applied Neurophysiology, with the goal of proving that our interconnectedness with the people and the world around us makes us more likely to feel a sense of safety and community (Sanchez, 2017). The author further explores how the connections between the lower and midbrain “allow the neocortex more opportunity to analyze and plan for positive outcomes” (p.50). Furthermore, this scientific research proves that when oxytocin, or the “happy hormone” is released, “we feel a positive, caring connection to other humans (and nature)” and “our reflection, understanding, rational abilities, and creative abilities are heightened” (p.53). In this article, Sanchez draws on both the positives and negatives of Western ideologies. On one hand, her belief of the indigenous worldview that “the spirit, the people (human beings), and the earth—all nature and the cosmos—are interconnected,” shows her perspective of how Indigenous views should be more valued. On the other hand, she speaks in-depth about the advances of Neurophysiology - showing how Western advancements in science have helped prove a great deal of significant research when it comes to human-nature relationships. Sanchez’s writing provides us with a great two-tone perspective: reintegration of these topics into society is of vital importance if we hope to progress in all areas of our lives.

            Kidner’s perspective on reintegration encompasses many of the other author’s main points as well. When it comes to our relationship to the natural world—whether that be individually or societally— “if we lack such cultural means of expressing these feelings and intuitions, they necessarily remain part of that innermost, private, personal realm…” (Kidner, 2000, p.102). In addition to the writings of Kidner - Kimmerer, Darlaston-Jones, and Sanchez do a remarkable job of explaining the concept of reintegration. Uncovering where we went wrong in the modern-day world, and what we need to learn from Indigenous knowledge - these authors explore similar topics, expressed in different formats; telling different stories. If we really hope to “reintegrate,” we must recognize our past mistakes, learn from prior wisdom and knowledge at our fingertips, and utilize new advancements. A balance between Western ideologies and Indigenous knowledge is more than possible. Therefore, reintegration socially, culturally, and naturally is vitally important if we hope to escape this “reality” of industrialism and redefine our roots to the natural world.

References

Darlaston- Jones, Dawn (2016). Challenging Psychology: Reflecting on Riley’s ‘Manifesto for Change’. Journal of Critical Psychology, Counseling and Psychotherapy, 16(3), 182-185.

Kidner, David. (2000). Nature and Psyche: Radical Environmentalism and the Politics of Subjectivity. (p. 67-105).

Kimmerer, Robin Wall. (2014). Asters and Goldenrod. In Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teaching of plants. Milkweed Editions

Sanchez, Anita. (2017). Intersection of an Indigenous Worldview and Applied Neurophysiology.  In Canty, J. (Ed). Ecological and Social Healing: Multicultural Women’s Voices. NY, NY: Routledge.

what's to come: 2021

I started writing this in hopes of finding some way to reconnect with the original reason I chose environmental studies as my major. After committing to college in Maine as a dual major in ASL Interpreting and Theatre Arts, I made a pretty big decision to take a semester off and travel the world. While abroad for those six months, I committed to another 6. During those final six, I withdrew my commitment to U of Southern Maine, and applied to numerous other schools for Environmental Studies. Having discovered this passion, and real connection to the natural world while away from home, I made a commitment to myself that I would do anything I could to protect what we were all slowly losing — our relationship to the natural world, and the natural world itself. When I finally committed to Lesley (a school right near home, much to my family’s surprise), I had no idea what 2020 was about to throw at me — and I have to say, this sort of living — having no idea what the next day would hold, had become extremely common in my life, so I was not unfamiliar with unfamiliarity. I had no idea how 2020 could top my 2019, and although it was very different, somewhat depressing, and extremely difficult — here we are. 2021.

All of this is to say, I have been studying the environment for over a year now. My first year of “real college” was fully remote. My environmental science lab was spent Zooming to do labs, digging in little boxes of dirt my Professor sent us, examining the outdoors and creatures in my backyard — by myself. I lost a lot of my fire during COVID. Though the world slowed down, and gave the natural world (and humans) time to heal, with daily global emissions of CO2 falling by 17% at the peak of the shutdown — in a few short months, industries and companies with the power and a real chance to switch to clean energy during this period of transition, did not, and our world had now entered a period of mass production, in order to “catch up.”

My first year in school, studying the environment, was an interesting one to say the least. We were experiencing an unprecedented time in history. A global pandemic had completely shut down our country — our world. Unfortunately, COVID only paused climate emissions; it did not stop them. And now, they’re rising again. It was essential that strong climate action was integrated into future investments for large and small businesses and corporations alike, but unfortunately — many returned to their dirty “normal.”

Each week, my classes in Environmental Policy, Science, Human Effects on the Natural world, and more — involved heavy conversation around COVID and the world we were living in. Studying the climate during a time like this was pivotal. At times it felt empowering. Other times it felt dismal and extremely depressing. Not being able to meet in person was disheartening. We were always told climate change and “saving the environment” was a group effort — and this felt nearly impossible during a worldwide pandemic — one that pushed us further away from human connection than ever before.

I wrote a few months back about eco-anxiety, and today I’m hoping to put that into perspective. So many people tell me my major is so important today and “it shouldn’t be hard to find a job in that!” and I couldn’t agree more. I know it’s needed, and I regret nothing by choosing this path for myself. However, I do think that in today’s world, given the state of our climate, COVID, and a million other factors, it’s become one of the most disheartening things to study. I watch a lot of documentaries — some for school and a lot just out of interest — and I find myself feeling extremely empowered. Other times, I read articles and research certain topics for school (and out of interest) and I find myself horribly overwhelmed.

I went through phases of extreme guilt this year. For not doing my part, educating myself as much as I could’ve, or participating in small daily routines that would reduce my personal footprint. I had a hard time feeling hopeful in my courses that beforehand, I would’ve been overjoyed to be in. I try my best to balance what I read. Kellert’s “Birthright,” gives a positive outlook on the natural world and our connection to it as human beings. Reading things like this give me hope. Other days I find myself scrolling Instagram and reading blog posts from some of my favorite activists and environmentalists, and I can’t help but feel extremely discouraged. Headlines that pop up on my News app each day cause me stress, overwhelm me, and discourage me. Climate change feels never ending. It feels relentlessly, objectively grim, and as one person, it feels like anything I do myself, won’t do much.

The goal of this is not to say there isn’t still hope. I wouldn’t still be studying what I am if I didn’t think there is still endless possibility for change — we just have to get there. Every day and each news headline feels like a massive step in the wrong direction, but others feel like a hopeful leap forward.

Here we are. 2021. In November of this year, world leaders will be gathering in Glasgow for the successor to the landmark Paris meeting of 2015. Though we are way off track to meet its goals, Glasgow 2021 gives us a chance to get back on track — and really ratchet up those carbon cuts. Last year at the UN General Assembly, the Chinese President, Xi Jinping, announced that China aimed to go carbon neutral by 2060. A country responsible for over 28% of the world’s global emissions made a commitment to do just that, regardless of if other nations followed suit. Covid has also changed everything. It hit the world with the most intense economic shock since the Great Depression, and governments are stepping forward with stimulus packages designed to reboot their economies. Still today, countries have an unprecedented opportunity to “build back better,” and make cleaner and greener investments. It’s not too late.

Fortunately, there is still a lot to be hopeful about. Though my news feed overwhelms me on the daily, negative climate headlines feel never-ending, and each day feels like a step in the wrong direction for our natural world — we must keep moving forward & continue our efforts to really “build back better.”

At this time next year, I’ll have graduated and (fingers crossed) found a job in this field. Yes, it’s a solid field to go into given the state of our climate — and I feel extremely lucky to study what I do -— but it’s also a lot to think about sometimes, and that’s okay too.

One day at a time.

Sources:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-55498657

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210312-covid-19-paused-climate-emissions-but-theyre-rising-again

---

---

Air Pollution & Environmental Racism: Focus on Cancer Alley

note: prepared for CHUMS3201, “Why Nature” at Lesley University

When we think about the environmental movement, we rarely think about environmental justice. Environmentalism and sustainability have become predominantly white movements, often ignoring the struggles and issues of minority communities with a lower-economic background, and the majority of black and brown communities. To get a better grasp on the term “environmental justice,” it goes something like this: “No community should be saddled with more environmental burdens and less environmental benefits than any other” (Carter, 2:42). Recognizing that today, environmental racism haunts our country more than ever before, we must take a step back, look at places where we see examples of environmental racism, pinpoint why these areas are affected the most, and take action to alter the narrative. 

Cancer Alley in Louisiana is just one of millions of examples of environmental racism within our country and around the world. An 85-mile stretch of land along the Mississippi River between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, Cancer Alley is lined with oil refineries and petrochemical plants. The location adopted its ominous name "Cancer Alley" because residents of the area are 50 times more likely to develop cancer than the average American—and those who live there are predominantly black and brown. “An African American child is three times more likely to go into the emergency room for an asthma attack than a white child, and twice as likely to die from asthma attacks as a white child. African Americans are more likely to die from lung disease, but less likely to smoke,” says Jacqueline Patterson, Environmental and Climate Justice Director for the NAACP (Goldman Environmental Foundation, 2019). These statistics are shocking—but unfortunately a crude reality for individuals living in and around Cancer Alley. Because of where they live, they feel the harshest effects of anthropogenic climate change and heavy industry, even though studies show these communities contribute the least to the crisis at hand. A frontline of environmental racism, Cancer Alley depicts that shrewd reality we live in: minority communities are dying—what for?

Located along the lower Mississippi River, Cancer Alley was originally named “Plantation Country.” A place where enslaved Africans were forced to labor, the area now serves as an industrial hub: home to nearly 150 oil refineries, plastics plants and chemical facilities (States News Service, 2021). Many argue that the living conditions in Cancer Alley present “slavery of a different kind” (SNS, 2021). Michael Jerrett, a professor at UCLA’s Fielding School of Public Health and an expert in the health effects of air pollution, talks of studies that have shown that “chronic exposure to air pollution—particularly microscopic airborne particles called PM2.5—can lead to a number of serious health issues including heart disease, respiratory illnesses and diabetes” (Denne & Jerrett, 2020). PM2.5 are emitted from vehicles, power plants, and other heavy industries, and are composed of hundreds of different chemicals. Once they’ve entered the bloodstream, these chemicals make their way through the lungs, leading to intense inflammation. If exposure to this type of pollution is prolonged in any sense, the inflammation can unfurl and proliferate to other parts of the body: the cardiovascular system. The strength of the cardiovascular system and the lungs are "key determinants of whether you go into very serious states of COVID-19” (Denne & Jerret, 2020). PM2.5 exposure is likely to cause conditions “that dramatically increase the risk of death in COVID-19 patients.” This means that we can strongly correlate geographical location, economic status, and race to death caused by COVID-19. Exacerbating longstanding issues and inequities in our country today, the pandemic has shed light on how much work there is to be done. Until we recognize that environmental, racial and social justice must be tackled simultaneously, we cannot save or even aid these communities. 

So, where do we begin? Cancer Alley exists as a strong example of how we can begin to understand how inequitably environmental risk is distributed in the United States. In today’s world, but also in the past, “it seems that almost anywhere researchers look, there is more evidence of deep racial disparities in exposure to environmental hazards” (Newkirk, 2018).  The environmental justice movement works to raise awareness of the plights of vulnerable populations through academic studies, media campaigns and public activism. Using social media as a place to garner mass attention, grassroots organizations fight to make their views heard (Beech, 2020). Environmental laws have been and will continue to be tightened in developed nations - but this leaves many underdeveloped nations in the global south as “dumping grounds” for heavy pollutants, leading to numerous environmental risk hazards. Thankfully, a new presidential administration could mean drastic change for communities bearing disproportionate pollution. The Biden administration recently pledged an “aggressive, broad-based approach to achieve environmental justice” including a “White House council on environmental justice and a pledge that 40% of the benefits from federal investments in clean energy and clean water would go to communities that bear disproportionate pollution” (Hersher, 2021). However, these communities are getting far too accustomed to broken promises from the government and presidential administrations. Addressing that these communities are disproportionately affected, and creating laws and legislation to protect them — like the Biden administration suggests — lies at the forefront of creating societal change and breaking down barriers to deeply-rooted systemic injustices in our country. 

In order to address environmental racism as a whole, our country needs to take a long hard look at places where we see examples of environmental injustice, pinpoint why black and brown communities are affected the most, and take actual, active action to alter the narrative. What we need to be asking ourselves is, “how do you give a voice to the voiceless? Who are you going to listen to, and for how long?” (Hersher & Hall, 2021). Cancer Alley is just one of endless examples of environmental racism in America. In order to actually find solutions to these problems, racism and social inequity need to be tackled simultaneously. We are running out of time. 

---

References:

Beech, Peter. “What Is Environmental Racism and How Can We Fight It?” World Economic Forum, 2020, www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/07/what-is-environmental-racism-pollution-covid-systemic/. 

Carter, Majora. “Greening the Ghetto.” TED, 2007, www.ted.com/talks/majora_carter_greening_the_ghetto. 

Hersher, Rebecca. “Hope And Skepticism As Biden Promises To Address Environmental Racism” NPR, 2021, https://www.npr.org/2021/01/29/956012329/hope-and-skepticism-as-biden-promises-to-address-environmental-racism. 

Newkirk, Vann R. Environmental Racism Is Real, According to Trump's EPA. 28 Feb. 2018.

“Environmental Racism in America: An Overview of the Environmental Justice Movement and the Role of Race in Environmental Policies.” Goldman Environmental Foundation, 27 June 2019, www.goldmanprize.org/blog/environmental-racism-in-america-an-overview-of-the-environmental-justice-movement-and-the-role-of-race-in-environmental-policies/.

“Environmental Racism in Lousiana’s ‘Cancer Alley’ Must End,” Say UN Human Rights Experts.” States News Service, 2 Mar. 2021, p. NA. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A653576850/AONE? u=les_main&sid=AONE&xid=89de0edf. Accessed 14 Apr. 2021.

The Natural World in Childhood Education: A focus on nature-based homeschooling

note: prepared for CHUMS3201, “Why Nature” at Lesley University

How do we appreciate nature, how do we exploit nature, but most importantly how do we protect it at all costs? Through an analysis of works by Stephen Kellert, Celia Deane-Drummond, Sarah MacQuarrie and Luther Standing-Bear, tying together the idea of how we can use childhood education and precisely-picked curriculums to teach concepts of nature from a young age is explored. Given the many ways human beings have been, and will continue to alter the world around us, what can we do to be better advocates for preserving the natural world? I believe it starts with us. How we choose to educate our children will have a massive impact on not only the world as we know it today, but how our grandkids and great-grandkids will experience an ever-changing climate in the near future. So how does homeschooling fit into all of this? Offering nature-based curriculums and placing an emphasis on outside and experience-based learning, the role of nature plays a vital role in how children grow and gain knowledge of the world around them. Nature-based education through homeschooling offers an impetus to revolutionize schooling as we know it — is it really possible that “school” and “education” are not synonymous? Through a thoughtful analysis, I will uncover the answers to these questions, showcasing the importance of nature in early childhood education — proving with evidence, why this type of learning and influence from a young age is essential to development. 

By understanding the works of Stephen Kellert, Celia Deane-Drummond and Luther Standing Bear, we are able to touch upon different perspectives of the natural world through the eyes of a diverse set of individuals. Leaning into the views of a contemporary environmental writer, multiple religious advocates for nature, and an indigenous group, we are able to better answer the following questions: why does nature matter today and how can we become tireless proponents for the future of the world as we know it? How can we incorporate different methods of schooling into our current concept of education, to better equip our young generations with the tools needed to take on the world as we will leave it? 

Religious entities are one way in which we can understand this. As Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Grim have stated, “religious traditions may indeed be critical in helping to reimagine the viable conditions and long-range strategies for fostering mutually enhancing human-earth relations” (Drummond 4). Understanding the role of religion in the fight to become one with nature again is of tremendous importance. For many, a higher power or a God influences their decisions in daily life. How can religion play a role in how we appreciate and instill natural values into younger generations? We can see the role of nature very clearly within the Bible, where the Earth is treated as beauty that must be protected. Signifying appreciation for what the natural world can offer us, we note in Psalms: “He causes the grass to grow for cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth” (Psalm 104:14). Utilizing their relationship with this higher power to live at harmony with the natural world around them, religious individuals and groups have the ability to harness this connection with nature. Understanding this is imperative for fostering future generations with natural world values, essential to preserving the natural world. 

The necessity of experiencing nature throughout childhood is not to be overlooked, as it offers children a space to grow, problem-solve and strategize — lessons that can be learned early on by being outdoors in nature. Both theory and evidence suggest that a child’s relationship with the natural world has an irreplaceable influence on the way they learn and develop throughout their younger years. Unfortunately, “children’s experience of the outdoors, especially in a free-play context, has precipitously declined in modern times, and the result as been a growing threat to their physical and mental health development” (Kellert 129). The versatility of being in nature provides an endless source of sensory stimulation for young children, offering a richness that no book, website or Zoom call can ever match. Because nature is constantly in flux, the instability and unpredictability of what we experience outdoors presents strategies in which to cope and problem-solve, as children will eventually learn to do in human interactions and real life settings throughout the course of their adulthood. 

How does nature-based homeschooling play a role in how children develop and begin to  appreciate the natural world? When parents actively encourage these encounters, outdoor experiences can exert a powerful effect on development in children. Through use of nature-based  homeschooling curriculums such as Oak Meadow, students learn from works that  “cultivate wonder and appreciation of the natural world,” further “inspiring and supporting an understanding of how all life is interconnected and interdependent — creating purposeful, innovative, just, and wise action” in the process (Oak Meadow 2020). Utilizing these curriculums and teaching these lessons at a young age permits a new appreciation of nature, allowing children to subconsciously ground themselves in what we so often take for granted. 

Luther Standing Bear writes in depth about how we are influenced by these wonders at a young age. He ponders:

“Reflections upon life and its meaning, consideration of its wonders, and observation of the world of creatures, began with childhood … In talking to children, the old Lakota would place a hand on the ground and explain: ‘We sit in the lap of our Mother. From her we, and all other living things, come. We shall soon pass, but the place where we now rest will last forever” (Standing Bear 328). 

This concept of being one with the world we are a part of is practiced in many native tribes, and Standing Bear writes of how the connectedness with nature that existed within the Sioux tribe immensely influenced his life and overall appreciation for the natural world. This reflection takes us back to the concept of school and education not being synonymous. After all, for the Sioux, “Knowledge was inherent in all things. The world was a library and its books were the stones, leaves, grass, brooks, and the birds and the animals that shared, alike with us, the storms and blessings of earth” (Standing Bear 329). Ingraining in our youth the idea of the world as a classroom, can be vital to helping children today recognize, from a young age, what seems so commonplace for people like the Sioux. Placing importance on these lessons will equip younger children with the tools they need to further understand and adore the natural world at large. 

Creating a meaningful connection with nature from a young age, children exposed and encouraged to spend time in the outdoors develop a bond with the natural world. Kellert writes of this bond in his narrative, “Birthright.” The ninth biophilic category, Childhood, is vital in understanding the roots of biophilia and its effects on how we live and thrive in the modern world. Biophilia, defined as “the inherent inclination to affiliate with the natural world, instrumental to people’s physical and mental health, productivity and well-being,” literally translates to “love of life” (Kellert xii). In his chapter on childhood, Kellert emphasizes the need to remember one’s roots, shedding light on statistics: the dramatic decrease in children’s contact with nature is striking. “The typical child today spends less than forty minutes of an average week outdoors, compared with more than four hours twenty years ago. Ninety-six percent of adults report the outdoors was their most important environment during childhood, while forty-six percent of children today acknowledge this importance,” and most upsettingly, “the average child today spends ninety percent of his or her time indoors” (Kellert 139). Relationships with nature need to be nurtured starting at a young age — if they are not, numbers like this will continue to rise as we become more disconnected from our roots. The influence of the natural world on children is vital in the progression of how we will preserve and protect it throughout the years. 

Holistic learning offers this opportunity to children, through a nature-based approach in homeschooling. As Standing Bear writes in his narrative, Nature, we can see how significant this connection is. The Sioux people build this lasting bond from a very young age — one that needs to be replicated in our communities today, in order to preserve the natural world. He writes, “I have come to know that the white mind does not feel toward nature as the Indian mind, and it is because, I believe, of the difference in childhood instruction” (329). Kellert touches on this in his writing as well, when he displays the statistics of children’s relationship with the outdoors today. Nature matters because of what it offers to children — sensory stimulation, free-play and independent exploration, but most importantly a connection and a bond like no other — one that will influence the rest of their lives. Though it may seem few and far between today, this bond does and can still exist. We can see this within nature-based homeschooling curriculums, such as Oak Meadow. The company’s curriculum strives to “give children opportunities to engage not only their heads, but their hands and hearts as well.” By participating in experiential explorations that combine core knowledge, creative problem solving and artistic skills, Oak Meadow  “encourages students to reflect on their learning, build strong communication skills, and develop a sense of empathy, social responsibility and Earth stewardship in their daily learning” (Oak Meadow). Why is this route of learning not more normalized? Though important to note this way of schooling isn’t possible for everyone, its benefits for those who do have the means to participate offers a unique way of treating this Earth as the sanctuary that it is. 

Why does nature matter today? The benefits nature offers our children when it comes to development, sensory stimulation, growth and appreciation of the natural world — are crucial to how our climate will either blossom or wither for them in the future. Educating our children of the benefits of the natural world is an incredible way to secure its future. Sarah MacQuarrie, Clare Nugent, and Claire Warden explore nature-based learning and its growing popularity within children’s education today. “The consideration that nature offers qualities that feed human development is not new,” (Cobb, 1977) and the structure itself has been implemented in many Nordic nations and European countries in recent years. The growing recognition of “natures inherent value” and the special contribution it has to childhood is creating and nurturing an idealistic environment for childhood education. As discussed by MacQuarrie, “nature kindergartens are an established form of early childhood provision” (1). She goes on to discuss the experiments and explorations of children in European schools, writing:

“Children in the Scottish nature kindergarten harvested vegetables for soup and in the Finnish setting wild summer berries frozen as cordial were later reheated on the fire in the autumn.  In the Finnish winter, the duration of a session was reduced by extreme weather conditions.  Whilst limiting in this respect, participants did not generally view weather as a barrier to their use of the natural environment, but rather the weather extended the range of possible opportunities if participants were adequately prepared” (MacQuarrie 15-16). 

Building a relationship with the natural world beginning in kindergarten, these children develop an appreciation for what nature can offer them — learning to care for, respect, and give back to the Earth. This way of learning presents a world of endless opportunity, planting the seed that will encourage this child to further nurture this relationship with the natural world, into adulthood. 

How can we create a world where people cherish the natural world, reap its benefits, and appreciate its beauties — but do not over-exploit, take more than they give, and destroy natural wonders? This may seem like a daunting task, and one many people are not up for — however I truly believe small actions begin with us. By educating younger generations through use of nature-based schooling, homeschooling, or simply nurturing and encouraging a relationship with the outdoors, children will inherit these values starting at a young age — thus learning what it means to live in harmony with the world around them.  After all, “when we debase or remain indifferent to nature’s beauty, our senses become dull, our emotions flatten, our intellect withers, and our capacity to find meaning in our lives is replaced by cynicism and pessimism” (Kellert 17). How do we want our children to grow up? Indifferent to the natural world, exploiting it and treading too heavily to preserve its beauty? Or paying attention, caring for, and giving back? What children pick up when they are young, stays with them forever. Just as hate is taught — love, appreciation and respect are as well. Choosing nature, choosing the outdoors, and choosing a positive relationship with the Earth will reap benefits like no other — and providing this to younger generations will make for a complex and fruitful future for all. 

Prioritizing a nature based education in early childhood and placing an emphasis on outside and experience-based learning could revolutionize the way future generations foster relationships with the natural world. Nature’s role in children’s growth and development is vital, and holds serious significance in how they gather knowledge of the world around them. Nature-based education specifically through homeschooling is only one of many options out there today — but it lets us reflect on this question: is it possible that “school” and “education” are not synonymous? Can we educate and teach important lessons to children through a different method of learning? If we can trust in dissimilar mediums of educating children today, we can help young minds “ignite a sense of relationship to a world beyond them, that seems meaningful, valuable, and purposeful to them” (Kellert 138). With this, and with them, the world truly has the capacity to become a better place. Do we have the ability to recreate our relationship with the natural world? I believe that potential rests in our younger generations — children who will begin a wave of fostering a positive connection with the world around us, one lesson at a time.

---

References:

Deane-Drummond, Celia, and Heinrich Bedford-Strohm. Religion and Ecology in the Public Sphere. T & T Clark, 2011.

Kellert, Stephen R. Birthright People and Nature in the Modern World. Yale University Press, 2014.

MacQuarrie, Sarah & Nugent, Clare & Warden, Claire. (2015). Learning with nature and learning from others: nature as setting and resource for early childhood education. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning. 15. 1-23. 10.1080/14729679.2013.841095.

“Mission & History - About Us: Oak Meadow.” Oak Meadow | Providers of Exceptional Homeschool Curriculum, 6 Nov. 2020, www.oakmeadow.com/about-us/mission-history/. 

Standing Bear, Luther. “Luther Standing-Bear 1868-1939.” The Norton Book of Nature Writing, by John Elder and Robert Finch, Norton, 2007, pp. 326–331. 

The Aesthetic Brain & the Natural World: An Exploration of Human Attraction to Nature

(This essay was designed and written through an analysis of Kellert’s, “Birthright”)

What is an aesthetic? According to Merriam Webster, an aesthetic is “a particular theory or conception of beauty or art: a particular taste for or approach to what is pleasing to the senses and especially sight” (Webster). So, how do aesthetics fit into human attraction towards nature? The concept of aesthetic attraction to nature is discussed by Kellert, but was originally advanced by two eminent biologists, E.O. Wilson and Aldo Leopold. Both Wilson and Leopold stood firmly behind the belief that “our aesthetic affinity for nature, particularly a sense of beauty, is central to human and ecological fitness, and just perhaps a consequence of their interrelationship” (Kellert 4). Thought at first glance, the individual’s aesthetic attraction to nature may been seen as naive or in-genuine, if cultivated, “an aesthetic attraction can inspire deeper understanding and involvement” of the natural world (4). Our admiration of and overall draw to nature is a confirmation that we do, in fact, need it so as to nurture a genuine, positive relationship with the world around us. 

In order to understand this idea of aesthetic attraction a bit more, having a firm grasp on the Biophilia Hypothesis is of the utmost importance. Biologist E.O. Wilson founded this hypothesis, describing it as “the innately emotional affiliation of human beings to other living organisms.” Bio-philia actually translates directly to “love for life.” This aesthetic attraction we have towards nature is something to be treasured, as it can inspire those who appreciate only its beauty, to care a bit more deeply. When we show up for nature in all its rare forms, we become awakened by all that the natural world has to offer — and all it continues to offer us, every day we are alive. 

The psychological connection the individual has to nature in its beauty is something scientists and psychologists alike, have been studying in depth for some time now. Why is it that we are so attracted to nature in its beautiful forms, yet turned off by its rare and seemingly “not aesthetically pleasing” forms? In “Environmental Aesthetics, Ethics and Ecoaesthetics,” a publication written by Sandra Shapshay, the author delves into the views of environmental philosopher J. Baird Callicott, quoting his claim that “Natural aesthetic evaluation … has made a terrific difference to American conservation policy and management… [w]hat kind of country we consider to be exceptionally beautiful makes a huge difference when we come to decide which places to save, which to restore or enhance, and which to allocate to other uses. Therefore, a sound natural aesthetics is crucial to sound conservation policy and land management” (Shapshay 1). Environmental aesthetics in some forms, are significantly important to the way nature continues to exist in the world as we know it. 

Another key aspect of aesthetic attraction to the natural world is the elegance and grace it provides to a world that is otherwise imperfect. Kellert notes this in his writing when he discusses the routine of bringing flowers into a hospital, or paying more for a room that overlooks a body of water. We rarely even think about these acts as reflecting our inherent bond to nature — these elements naturally make us feel secure and safe. The complex ecosystem we are a part of continually allows us to escape the reality of a harsh world, in times when we need it most, and our interest or curiosity to learn more about the natural world around us could provide an impetus for the progression of caring for the environment and its elements. Where would we really be without nature’s beauty? It’s something to reflect upon: “our senses would become dull, our emotions flattened, our intellect withered, and our capacity to find meaning in our lives, replaced by cynicism and pessimism” (Kellert 17).

Interlude

An Instagram-worthy Interest 

I’ve seen human attraction to nature play out in more than a few areas of my life. Some of this attraction I’ve seen as real, genuine and beautiful. My parents often spend weekends in the summer section-hiking the Appalachian Trail. They tent camp, hike miles every day, and absolutely adore all that nature has to offer along the way. I see their relationship with the natural world as admirable — it shows me how important it is to protect and preserve our ecosystems, so that they are able to continue enjoying their hikes. As individuals, they give back to the Earth by treading lightly, and leaving nothing as they go. This authentic draw to nature is something very beautiful, and very special.

Today, we live in a world where new media has essentially taken over. The relationship my parents have with the natural world is one that many in my generation may feel further removed from. We are often glued to our phones, awaiting posts from friends and following alike. We, like all generations before us, follow trends — but today we “follow” those who influence us. We aspire to be influencers of people around us. We aspire to make things trendy. Younger generations take to social media to share photos of hikes, nature walks and photo shoots at the beach. In fact, there are over 599 million posts on Instagram in this second, posted publicly with the hashtag “nature.” Though hashtag culture is a whole separate conversation in and of itself, this statistic is striking to me. Our world is obsessed with aesthetic. Is this a bad thing? I’ve spent a lot of time reflecting on my genuine answer to this question, and when it comes down to it, I really don’t think it is. Though older generations may argue millennials are too preoccupied with new media and trend-setting culture, I believe that if this sparks an interest in people to create or nurture a new relationship with nature — however that may come about — then it is a positive. If we can expose more individuals to the natural world and all its beauty, by using environmental aesthetics as a tool to do so, then I hope these influencers continue to use social media to do just that. Maybe this is done to be “trendy,” maybe it is done to gain more likes or more followers. For whatever reason, people of all ages, genders, sexualities, races and ethnicities are drawn to the aesthetic of the natural world — and social media is providing a space for this aesthetic enjoyment to be further explored. Maybe the natural world has become an “Instagram-worthy interest,” but I believe the positives the online world has provided us with in further exploring nature, heavily outweigh the negatives. We must remember that “we cannot flourish as individuals or as a species absent a benign and benevolent relationship to the world beyond ourselves of which we are a part” (Kellert xiv).

References:

Kellert, Stephen R. Birthright: People and Nature in the Modern World. Yale University Press, 2014. 

Sandra Shapshay, Levi Tenen, ALLEN CARLSON, Environmental Aesthetics, Ethics, and Ecoaesthetics, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Volume 76, Issue 4, October 2018, Pages 399–410, https://doi.org/10.1111/jaac.12586

Fast Fashion and the Environment: The Crucial Role of the Consumer

The fast fashion industry and the environmental issue of fast fashion have a tremendous impact on the environment and pose hazards to innocent people, but our actions as consumers can have a tremendous impact on the way these systems change and alter their means of production.

“How much does your wardrobe actually cost?”

I challenge you to ask yourself this question. In reflecting on your answer, you may think of the amount of money you spent on ten sweaters, eight pairs of jeans, twenty-four pairs of socks, twenty t-shirts, etc. Have you ever actually sat down and thought of the true cost of your clothing? Besides just the money you spent, there’s a hidden cost behind each item of clothing that goes unnoticed by the consumer: the cost to the environment. 

The fast fashion industry currently emits 10% of all humanity’s carbon emissions, is the second-largest consumer of the world’s water supply, and pollutes oceans with endless micro plastics. The hazards that come along with production and manufacturing of garments can adversely impact the health of nearby residents (Bick, 2018). With this, consumerism has reached an all time high in the United States, and the need for newer and better has been driven upwards — negatively impacting the dire fashion emergency at hand. Though this is a multi-faceted issue, and one that requires systemic change as well, changes within the fashion industry can begin with the consumer. How do we, as consumers, make changes in our purchasing habits to slow fast fashion industry production? While chatting with environmental justice activists who advocate for slow fashion and in turn, boycott fast fashion, I was able to gather a great deal of data — data that reflects the dire need to stop human desire for newer and better, and instead — advocate for repurposing, rewearing, and reusing of old clothing.

How did we get here? It really was the time and place for a strong garment industry during the period of United States post-industrialization throughout the end of the twentieth century. This industry played a key role in furthering economic growth and development in many countries, giving them enough momentum to go through rapid industrialization (Linden, 2016). Before this time, fashion was only for the wealthy elite, and excluded those who fell anywhere under upper-class money. The history of this industry in the United States however, is linked closely with Britains Industrial Revolution. Commonly called “Slop shops,” second-hand clothing stores began popping up all over Britain, in urban areas full of middle-class citizens (Linden, 2016). The idea of “ready-made” clothing became somewhat normalized, and these shops took off.  Another key element of this time was the invention of the sewing machine, which provided the means to mass-produce garments by the late 1800s (Linden, 2016).  According to Linden (2016), “Raw cotton’s ability to be quickly and efficiently manufactured led to low prices never seen before, which allowed a consumer class to emerge and working class people access to better quality clothing” (p. 7). 

Fast forward a couple hundred years, and “Climatically, it should not [have] come as such a surprise that apparel companies [have] shifted more and more production to developing countries, where there are ample amounts of low-skilled, lowcost laborers” (Linden 2016, Klein 1999). The fast fashion industry is one of the largest chains of production and consumption. Today, it is estimated that roughly one in six people work within the global fashion industry — making it the most labor dependent industry on Earth (Ross & Morgan 2015). 

I urge you to ask yourself, ‘why?’ Why are we exploiting these laborers — enabling unsafe work environments and an industry that is ruining our planet? The simple answer to this is convenience.  As the industrialization period boomed — convenience became trendy. Everything was about how fast you could do something, or how convenient a product was to the busy American lifestyle. Fast fashion was a way of convenience, globally. It emerged during a time where the concept of “sustainability” hadn’t even been thought of. How do we change the rhetoric today? The unsustainable emergence of fast fashion happened quickly and skillfully. Is there any way to strip it all away and start over?

The Modern Age, American Consumer: Our Role

“It’s not just about clothing, it’s about a disposable society,” Michael Solomon, a consumer behavior expert, told Vox.  According to Solomon, fast fashion’s development falls in line with globalization and the logistical efficiency of the 21st century (2020). Companies weren’t able to have such a quick turnaround time, and now with artificial intelligence, they can be even more efficient” (2020).  The average modern-day fashion consumer yearns for newer and better. Piles and piles of new, cheaply-made clothing sits untouched in an overwhelming amount of American homes today. Modern day consumers are so far removed from the true cost of their clothing, meaning they will continue to overlook the tremendous amount of labor that is poured into their products. Professor Karen Miller specializes in consumer economics and marketing, and has studied the topic of consumer-behavior extensively. She finds that many fast fashion consumers seek pleasure and says that “hedonism” influences them. She defines hedonism as "the ability to experience pleasure in life and is self-oriented and associated with the acquisition of experiences or products that involve fun, fantasy, and pleasure” (Miller 2013, 161). Fast fashion brands actually strive to reach this point with their consumers. Getting people psychologically hooked on that feeling when they purchase clothing — marketers, advertisers, and workers in this industry know exactly how to get you to buy what they sell. 

A trend that has surfaced on platforms like YouTube showcases this exact consumer-mindset: shopping “hauls.” Bloggers take to social media platforms to share with their viewers the products they purchased, boasting of cheap prices and unmatched looks. With over 63- thousand subscribers on YouTube, blogger and influencer Brittney Mooney shares endless videos with titles like “HUGE $700 PRINCESS POLLY CLOTHING HAUL.” In this specific video she talks about the shirt she’s wearing, saying, “This is just like a piece you [like] need to [like] live a nice life… my life was [like] not that good until I got this shirt” (Mooney, 2020, 1:19-1:22). Fashion chains like Princess Polly connect with people like Mooney, knowing that if she “promotes” their clothing, they can influence other shoppers to continue purchasing their products. This consumer mindset has become normalized in a society where “newer is better” and human greed is strikingly present. How do we actually end this vicious cycle? Are there ways we can change the narrative — other options we can consider? 

Case Study: Bangladesh and the Garment Industry

While the average American plays the role of consumer, the Bangladeshi garment worker is the key piece to the fast fashion industry. However, these workers aren’t treated as such; working for an average of $3 a day in unsafe and unjust conditions — garment workers endure the hardships the industry poses, working tirelessly to supply for Western world greed (True Cost, 2016). The new Coronavirus outbreak has left the garment sector in Bangladesh reeling, and thousands of garment factory workers are bearing the brunt of it as their livelihoods have been abruptly taken from them. The textile industry is the most significant export sector in Bangladesh and plays a key role in the global textile and clothing market, “…particularly supplying brands and their retailers in Europe and UK” (Parker, 2011, p.5). The Bangladeshi garment industry has become a huge environmental and social justice topic over the last few years — with activists from outside the country claiming the work is unjust, the working conditions are worse than ever, and the pay is nowhere near the living wage. The industry is built on, and arguably thrives from the exploitation of people living under the poverty line in developing countries. It is estimated that 3.5 million Bangladeshis work in the ready-made garment (RMG) industry, the majority of whom are women (Parker, 2011, p.7). So here, we run into a problem. How do you abolish an industry with over 3.5 million jobs — jobs that are desperately needed to support the majority of Bangladeshi families — in a heroic act to save the planet and “save” its people? This is the conundrum — and it’s one so many scientists, researchers, activists and advocates fight over, day in and day out. 

In Bangladesh, the garment industry is burdened by Western corporations pushing their factories to keep products as cheap as possible. Garment factories use tons of toxic chemicals as dyes, and these harmful chemicals are released into nearby rivers, which now sit heavily polluted. Not only do these dyes pollute the waterways of Bangladesh, but studies have shown a rise of diseases in nearby communities. Teachers at nearby schools struggle to concentrate, and students don’t want to study at school because of the suffocating stench coming from the wastewater (Bramwell, 2020, p.10). “The World Bank found that the procedure of textile dyeing contributes around 20% of industrial water pollution” (p.10). The means of garment production are in no way sustainable, and continues to negatively  impact both the land and water of Bangladesh, in addition to its people, and their health and wellness. Environmental justice activists advocate for the social side of this issue as well — but pay closer attention to the catastrophic damage the garment industry has on the environment and on human health. According to the United Nations Environment Programme, human rights promises to individuals the right to freedom from pollution, environmental degradation and activities that adversely affect the environment, threaten life, health, livelihood, well-being or sustainable development (UNEP, 2019). Is this promise kept? How do we restructure an entire system like this in Bangladesh? How can we still ensure jobs for all 3.5 million who work in the RMG industry, while also ensuring environmental health, safety and protection for all workers? 

Potent Pollutant: Environmental Hazards of the Fast Fashion Industry

Digging deeper into the negative impact the garment industry has on the environment and its inhabitants — fast fashion is legitimately, in simple terms, killing our planet (Schlossberg, 2019). Think about the materials your clothing is made of.  Another negative aspect of fast fashion is its disastrous affect on the environment, polluting and hazarding human health in the process. For example, polyester, commonly found in most clothing items, sheets, towels, etc. is the most widely used manufactured fiber. Polyester is made from petroleum.  Due to consumer demand, production in the fashion industry has risen exponentially, and the demand for man-made fibers, especially polyester, has “…nearly doubled in the last 15 years, according to figures from the Technical Textile Markets” (Claudio 2007, para. 4). Processing polyester and other synthetic fabrics is extremely energy-intensive and requires a substantial amount of oil and release of emissions of certain compounds that can increase disease in any given area. Volatile monomers, solvents, and other by-products of polyester production are emitted in the wastewater from polyester manufacturing plants. "The EPA, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, considers many textile manufacturing facilities to be hazardous waste generators” (Claudio 2007). The price of the clothing we buy is so much more costly than we think. Unfortunately, it is not only man-made fabrics that have such a negative impact on environmental health and safety of people. Even cotton, a versatile and common fiber used in clothing manufacture, has its limitations. The environmental footprint of cotton is serious as well, as it accounts for a quarter of all the pesticides used in the United States, the current largest exporter of cotton in the world. Discouraging as it is, though cotton is presumably a better alternative than synthetic fibers like polyester, its high production at subsidized low prices is “…one of the first spokes in the wheel that drives the globalization of fashion” (Claudio). Both the chemicals used to manufacture these clothes, as well as the agricultural weight certain crops like cotton carry, are pressing reasons why the “need” for fast fashion has to stop. By purchasing clothing that is manufactured in this way, at cheap prices, with no real understanding of the “true cost,” we are only adding to a worsening problem. 

Plan of Action: A “Slow Fashion” Solution &  Furthering Conscious Steps in Consumer Behavior

We hear the term “fast fashion,” often — usually signifying convenient, ready-made, stylish and trendy clothing; sold at cheap, unmatchable prices. We see dresses that are look-a-likes of Kim Kardashian’s latest Instagram outfit, sold for $20 at Forever 21, and the “need” for the product skyrockets. We buy piles and piles of clothing each year. According to Livia Firth, executive producer of “The True Cost” documentary, “The average American [now] generates 82 pounds of textile waste each year. That adds up to more than 11 million tons of textile waste from the U.S. alone” (Firth, 2016). We purchase this cheap clothing, and it sits untouched. Next year, when certain looks go out of style, or are not viewed as “trendy” anymore, we toss them — at what cost? 

There are distinct, ethical ways to be a more conscious consumer when it comes to fashion. One fashion-forward approach has been taken by a distinguished company, Patagonia. “Innovative eco-fashions are being developed and becoming available to consumers at different levels of the fashion spectrum, from casual clothing to haute couture” (Claudio 2007). Patagonia, a major retailer, has been selling fleece clothing made from postconsumer plastic soda bottles since 1993. The process involves melting clear plastic bottles made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and reconfiguring them into fibers that will eventually be woven into fabrics to be used for clothing manufacture. This way of creating clothing is one way industry is taking a lead on a “slow fashion” alternative (Claudio, 2007).

By learning to adopt a more intentional mindset, we can make a conscious effort to consume less. Because the fast fashion industry operates solely on consumer demand, purchasing less means less clothing demand. Supporting brands that are transparent with where their products come from is also essential to ethical consumption. By giving our money to these brands, we are creating more space in the market for ethically-produced clothing — clothing that will hopefully be more available and accessible to all people, no matter their economic or financial background.

According to many modern-day environmental justice activists, “Fast fashion is not essential…I love fashion in so many ways: it can be empowering to wear a great outfit and feel good wearing it. But, after watching the film, “The True Cost” five years ago, I realized that this empowerment had only been one way: oppression of the people who made my clothes was the cost of my empowerment. That cost is way too high” (Loach, 2020). In an effort to actually recognize the negative effects of the fast fashion industry, environmental justice advocate, medical student and Edinburgh resident, Mikaela Loach — dedicated herself to a complete stop of purchasing fast fashion products. She, along with many other environmental and social justice activists advocate for something coined “slow fashion,” a just alternative to the capitalist, destructive structures that are in place today. Advocating for second-hand shopping, and use of apps like “Depop,” a second-hand clothing app, these activists are pushing for consumers to stray away from fast fashion, in order to lessen the extreme demand. Another goal for these activists, including Loach, is to force companies to be transparent with their buyers. Where did this item come from? What is the current lowest wage of anyone in their supply chain? By putting pressure on these brands to do better, they are unable to wiggle their way out of decent transparency with consumers. The #LowestWageChallenge took center stage for these activists late last year, where they worked tirelessly to put an emphasis on the fact that “Respecting workers and giving them rights shouldn’t be something we [to] celebrate: it should be normal” (Loach, 2019). The steps Loach took towards practicing slow fashion and the strong sense of advocacy she has in protecting worker rights have made her an icon in the fashion revolution. Her actions as an inclusive environmental justice activist have helped pave the way for future movements in this area. Just because fast fashion is easier or “more convenient,” does not mean it is right —  “Our desire for expression should not cause someone else’s oppression” (Loach, 2019).

Though there are many obstacles that must be attacked from a systemic level, the issue of fast fashion has and always will be up to the consumer. In this case, this element of environmental change and climate action is in your hands. Do we actually pay attention to where our clothing comes from? Not just the store we purchased the item at, but rather the many steps it took on a long journey to get to that clothing outlet, folded neatly on a shelf for our convenience. The true cost behind clothing and the matter of the fast fashion industry is a complex, deeply-rooted issue of social and Environmental Justice, posing a lack of supposedly-guaranteed health and safety for all individuals. The worst part is, the people who did the least to cause the crisis we are in will be effected most by its ramifications. Scientists have found that “…countries which tend to be poorer and have contributed less to climate change are set to disproportionately suffer from some of the more severe effects” (Mooney, C. 2018). This is why the issue of climate, and especially fast fashion, is a crisis of injustice on all fronts. It is not only an environmental injustice, posing horrific and disastrous damage to our home — but a social injustice — causing health hazards, as well as a lack of safety, and disregard for basic human rights. 

Personally, the steps I have taken in this arena took place in my year spent traveling, where I committed to a low-waste lifestyle, buying zero new clothing for the entirety of the year, from January to December (2019). I chose to purchase strictly second-hand if I absolutely “needed” something, and avoided mainstream stores like H&M, Pull and Bear, and Primark — all very popular throughout Europe, where I was traveling around. I chose to take these steps in changing my consumer behavior, because I realized that my actions could influence positive change. I inspired a few other close friends to also quit fast fashion for a few months, and we spent many of our “off” days finding vintage thrift shops, and exploring new ways to express our individuality through unique and different clothing. This step seemed small at first — I often asked myself how this year off from purchasing fast fashion would really create any change. I was one person, and these industries would keep producing clothing even if I wasn’t buying it, right? However, I began to recognize the power of supply and demand, and how its gears turn in a consumer society.  As one person, I was demanding less of something, therefore not feeding into the negative system I despised. It was a simple way of practicing what I preached, but it helped me to appreciate the clothes I did own, the fun of swapping and trading with friends I travelled with, and also unveiled a new hobby of mine — thrifting. Through these actions, I have recognized this: increasing consumer awareness about less toxic and sustainable products may provide some impetus to revolutionize the garment industry. However, the biggest impacts for increasing sustainability in the clothing industry rests with the consumer — with you and me. 

---

References (including embedded links)

Bick, R., Halsey, E., & Ekenga, C. C. (2018, December 27). The global environmental injustice of fast fashion. Environmental Health. https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-018-0433-7 

Brittney Mooney. (2020, May 16). HUGE $700 PRINCESS POLLY CLOTHING HAUL [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/oVJxIc6bZyo 

Butler, S. (2020, July 1). “Cradle of disease”: Asos warehouse staff reveal coronavirus fears. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/global/2020/mar/30/asos-workers-coronavirus-fears-online-fashion-safety-barnsley-warehouse 

Claudio, L. (2007). Waste Couture: Environmental Impact of the Clothing Industry. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(9), 449–454. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.115-a449

Environmental Impact. (2016). The True Cost. https://truecostmovie.com/learn-more/environmental-impact/#:%7E:text=The%20world%20now%20consumes%20about,of%20textile%20waste%20each%20year. 

Linden, A. R. L. (2016, December). An Analysis of the Fast Fashion Industry. Annandale-on-Hudson, New York. https://digitalcommons.bard.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1033&context=senproj_f2016

Loach, M. G. (2019, November 17). How to shop ethically (in 5 steps!). WordPress.Com. https://mikaelagraceloach.wordpress.com/2019/03/22/how-to-shop-ethically/ 

Mooney, C. (2018, May 2). The people who’ll be most hurt by climate swings did the least to cause them, study says. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/05/02/scientists-just-showed-why-climate-change-is-enormously-unfair/ 

Schlossberg, T. (2019, September 3). How Fast Fashion Is Destroying the Planet. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/03/books/review/how-fast-fashion-is-destroying-the-planet.html

University of the Arts London, & Parker, E. P. (2011). Steps Towards Sustainability in Fashion: Snapshot Bangladesh. Centre for Sustainable Fashion, 6.0, 4–21. https://ualresearchonline.arts.ac.uk/id/eprint/2754/ 

What are environmental rights? (2019, January 24). UNEP - UN Environment Programme. https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/environmental-rights-and-governance/what-we-do/advancing-environmental-rights/what 

the astronomical cost of "cheap" fast fashion: understanding the slow fashion movement

The coronavirus outbreak has left the garment sector in Bangladesh reeling, and thousands of garment factory workers bear the brunt of it as their livelihoods have been abruptly taken from them. Today’s author argues the concept of business versus survival: is this really binary? In an interview recently, Rubana Huq, president of The Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association mentioned, “For them, it’s a question of the survival of the businesses....For us, it’s the survival of our 4.1 million workers” (New York Times, March 31, 2020). Tanjeem argues that the question of business or survival isn’t necessarily interrelated, however, I disagree with the author because I believe these two must go hand in hand. In simple terms, garment workers need to work in order to survive, but the COVID-19 pandemic has brought to the surface many other questions — one of which Tanjeem sheds significant light on: “Why is the apparel industry so extraordinarily fragile that a few weeks of disruption creates devastating impacts?” (Appropriation Para 8). The broad-spectrum human rights framework we know of, that recognizes and addresses power and privilege while engaging in the practice of working with marginalized communities —  is struggling to recognize systemic oppression locally, when it comes to the garment industry in Bangladesh. The President of BGMEA wrote of the “ill-conceived” remarks made by an assistant professor in the U.S. about the neoliberalism surrounding BGMEA, when “…The very forces of neoliberalism — economic liberalisation, free-market capitalism, deregulation, structural adjustment policies, and multinational corporations’ endless global race-to-the-bottom for the cheapest labour — have kept BGMEA and the Bangladeshi garment industry alive and thriving since the 1980s” (Spotlights Para 9). Should we really be creating controversy, even in a time of desperate need for work and the survival of garment workers in Bangladesh? Though Tanjeem argues that it brings to the surface much deeper-rooted issues of injustice and systemic flaws, is now the time to restructure these systems — during a global pandemic? This question goes unanswered, and it does not seem that there is a positive-aftermath of BGMEA and the global pandemic influencing change within the structures of their government. Organizing initiates have ultimately failed “… to foresee the aftermath of reopening factories in the name of protecting jobs and workers’ livelihood” (Spotlights Para 11). As an individual, I hope that this pandemic and the catastrophic aftermath of its effects will show the BGMEA what needs to be done to organize, protect and advocate for garment laborers and their working conditions. 

References

Tanjeem, Nafisa. “Appropriation of Survival of Garment Workers.” New Age | The Most Popular Outspoken English Daily in Bangladesh, 2020, www.newagebd.net/article/104352/appropriation-of-survival-of-garment-workers. 

Tanjeem, Nafisa. “Spotlights of Transnational Labour Organising.” New Age | The Most Popular Outspoken English Daily in Bangladesh, 2020, www.newagebd.net/article/105702/spotlights-of-transnational-labour-organising.