Giving Compass
  • Sign In
  • About Us
    About Giving Compass How We Choose Content and Organizations Annual Reflections Our Newsletter
  • Getting Started
  • Learn About Issues
    Topic Guides
    Animal Welfare COVID-19 Criminal Justice Democracy Disaster Relief Education Environment Health Homelessness Immigrants and Refugees Racial Equity Women and Girls
    Curated Articles
    Partner Collections Giving Compass Selections See All Articles
  • Give to Causes
    Issue Funds & Intermediaries Projects Nonprofits
  • Get Involved
    Philanthropy Resource Directory Events Volunteer Opportunities
  • Partner With Us
    Nonprofits Authors Use Our Content Services Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
Sign Up
  • Get the Newsletter
  • Sign In

Forget the Polar Bears?

Giving Compass Aug 3, 2017
This article is deemed a must-read by one or more of our expert collaborators.
Click here for more.
Forget the Polar Bears
  •  Share
  •  Save
  • 91 shares
Share

When the Clean Air Act was originally passed in 1970 only one member of Congress voted against it. Today, the very idea of a bi-partisan environmental regulation legislation effort is laughable, though some still hold out hope for collaborative efforts. In the intervening years, the narrative changed. The shift in the conversation is clear — no longer is environmental regulation considered the unequivocal protection of all Americans, now there is debate over the consequences.

Opponents of environmental regulation argue that such restrictions limit businesses and therefore their ability to hire or retain workers who depend on the income the businesses provide. This is a convincing argument for those who regularly worry about job security, unemployment, feeding themselves and their families, and generally making ends meet. Having or keeping a job is absolutely vital for survival in a capitalist society. It is easy to convince people in these situations that the short-term concerns about getting or keeping gainful employment are more important than the long-term, uncertain consequences of issues like climate change. Unemployment is an immediate, tangible threat. Climate change is a vague, distant risk. This narrative alone has not been responsible for the shifting public perspective on environmental regulation.

Supporters of government action on issues like climate change have largely done a poor job of conveying the importance of mitigating the consequences. Climate concerns are often presented in terms of arctic ice and starving polar bears. While the people who promote these campaigns probably believe that they are convincing, heart-wrenching arguments, there is no denying that this approach solidifies the argument of regulation opponents: climate change has nothing to do with working-class families.

Do we agree on something? Paul Shoemakers suggests so in his most recent post.

With both sides playing into this narrative it is a small wonder that it has become a significant part of the climate conversation in the United States. This is problematic for many reasons, the most concerning is that poor and working-class individuals will be the first to suffer from climate change.

Poor communities face the brunt of environmental degradation. Middle- and upper-class families have the resources to distance themselves from hazardous environments like landfills and power plants. It is poor communities that are left to deal with the consequence of the consumption habits of the country. There is little motivation for middle- and upper-class individuals to support regulations for facilities that they will never need to live near. Middle and upper-class people are similarly able to insulate themselves from the impacts of climate change.

Various models indicate the poorer counties’ economies will suffer the most because of climate change.

Richer areas with the ability to adapt the expensive infrastructure that will be required to mitigate the impacts will suffer far less.

For too long the face of climate change has been a stranded polar bear. It is time for poor and working-class Americans to take their place where they belong: at the center of the climate debate. Tackling climate change is about ensuring that all citizens get their chance to achieve the American dream; saving the polar bears is just a bonus.

_______

Original contribution by Clarissa Coburn.

  •  Share
  •  Save
Share

Since you are interested in Climate, have you read these selections from Giving Compass related to impact giving and Climate?

  • This article is deemed a must-read by one or more of our expert collaborators.
    Click here for more.
    How One Philanthropist is Strategically Joining the Climate Fight

    For Kathy Washienko, a philanthropist at Seattle Foundation and a board member of Climate Solutions, climate change is an issue with two lenses. One is a bird's-eye lens -- the reality that climate change threatens and can impact all of us -- and the other lens focuses a bit closer to home -- the importance of confronting climate change on behalf of children growing up today and the generations to come. "To me, it's just a profound problem facing society that has the potential and the likelihood of impacting so many facets of our lives. It just has to rise to the top," Washienko says. "We need to get more people to understand the intense urgency of the climate problem and that there really is hope. There's a lot we can do that can have a big impact on how climate change plays out." Motivated by her ethic of service and professional training in public health, Washienko doesn't shy away form big problems. Her optimism cuts across complexity and as a philanthropist, she value the multiple and reinforcing strategies in the environmental movement. "It's really important that we broaden the tent and help more people see their role in the climate fight, find their voice in the climate fight," says Washienko. "Ultimately, we win by a whole bunch of progress in a lot of different areas. Every solar panel that goes up on someone's roof, every mass transit line we build so people are in their cars less, or [ever person who] chooses to buy an electric vehicle instead of a gas-powered car -- all of those are steps in the fight. We all need to live on a planet that is stable." Washienko's approach demonstrates that in the face of complex problems like climate change, philanthropists can benefit from investing in multiple strategies. Knowing the scale and systemic nature of the problem, Washienko significantly invests in ambitious, multi-year policy and systems change efforts led by local organizations like Climate Solutions. She also focuses some of her resources on immediate carbon reduction strategies, like Northwest SEED's solar panel program. Closer to home, Washienko's sense of urgency can be seen through her ties with family and community. Family is a tether that unites people across geographic and economic borders, and for Washienko, one that made an already personal issue that much more urgent. "I would be concerned and active whether or not I'd ever had children. But, to have kids, have them be aware of what's happening and look to their parents for some sort of reassurance and be like, 'okay, this is looking bad!' -- I feel a strong moral obligation to say, 'I've done everything I can'." These beliefs, coupled with a thorough knowledge of the issue's time sensitivity, led Washienko to rethink her philanthropic strategy. Working with her advisers at Seattle Foundation and the Northwest Conservation Fellowship at Seattle Venture Partners, she decided to "frontload" her giving in the climate space and give significantly over a five-year period rather than parse it out evenly over a longer term. By nature, partnering with a community foundation complements Washienko's approach to advocacy, which comes from a desire to affect change that strengthens people's sense of connectedness. "Climate change can feel like a somewhat overwhelming problem to try to address. But when there are ways that a group of people each doing something relatively small can add up to something much bigger, we demonstrate and give people hope that we can tackle things more at the scale of the problem. I'm happy to see that Seattle Foundation is talking about climate change more directly and having it as a focus of some of their grantmaking efforts." Learn more about environmental philanthropy at the Seattle Foundation.


Looking for a way to get involved?

If you are interested in Climate, please see these relevant events, training, conferences or volunteering opportunities the Giving Compass team recommends.

Loading...
Learn More

Are you ready to give?

In addition to learning and connecting with others, taking action is a key step towards becoming an impact giver. If you are interested in giving with impact for Climate take a look at these Giving Funds, Charitable Organizations or Projects.

Loading...
Learn More
Connect

Loading...

Loading...

Learn More
Take Action

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Learn More
More from
Giving Compass
  • This article is deemed a must-read by one or more of our expert collaborators.
    Click here for more.
    More People Were Afraid of Climate Change than Catching COVID-19 in 2020
  • This article is deemed a must-read by one or more of our expert collaborators.
    Click here for more.
    Reasons for Hope on Climate Change in 2021
  • This article is deemed a must-read by one or more of our expert collaborators.
    Click here for more.
    Extreme Droughts May Hit Twice as Many People By the End of the Century
Follow Us
Newsletter

Become a newsletter subscriber to stay up-to-date on the latest Giving Compass news.

About Us
  • About Giving Compass
  • In The News
  • Contact Us
  • Content at Giving Compass
  • Partner With Us
Trending Issues
  • Environment
  • Homelessness
  • STEM Education
  • Equal Pay Act
  • Gender Equality

Copyright © 2021, Giving Compass, LLC

•
  • Privacy Policy
  • User Agreement

Sign in

Your personal information is confidential at Giving Compass. For more information, please visit our privacy policy. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use.