One of the joys of social media is that you have control of the content you see. Therefore, aside from advertising space, your feed looks how you want it to. You can choose to fill it either with just your friends and family, with celebrities you admire, cooking channels, fitness videos or wildlife photography. There are communities on all social media platforms tailored to specific interests, and so you can find yours. 

Overall, this is a great thing. It means you can remove toxic content from your feed at will and it means you are never forced into seeing something you don't want to. Equally, it means you can have direct access to what interests you most.

However, for scientists and conservationists, this can be an issue. Communication is a key aspect of research: informing relevant stakeholders and the public of your findings is a crucial aspect of the scientific process. Social media can be a great way to do this. Many scientists use social media as a tool to their advantage, myself included.

But when you look at who is following you, you often see you're in an echo chamber. The majority of your followers are fellow scientists or conservationists, or at least have a keen interest in your field. For conservation, this worries me. The people who don't care about the environment or climate change, or maybe even don't believe in it, are no where to be seen. Essentially, you're preaching to the choir.

Now this can be great. Meeting and interacting with like-minded people is incredible gratifying. I've definitely found it inspiring to know that there are lots of people out there just like me: who care deeply about these issues and wish to help. But these aren't the people who would benefit most from this content. 

I started thinking about this when a friend said she loved my feed, but found it overwhelming and hard to understand sometimes. She's not a scientist and hasn't ever studied conservation or climate change. She has attended protests about climate change and I would count her as someone who cares about the future of this planet and her impact on it. But she self-admits not to understanding these issues. I would wager I'm the only conservationist she follows, and only because I am her friend. 

As she is someone who cares about the issues, this isn't so bad. But what about all the people out there who don't? And not because they're bad or selfish people, but because they simply don't understand them? And maybe they don't understand them because they've never had access to the right information? Understanding how to fix this is one of sciences greatest challenges. 

But the thing is: everyone does have access to the information, because it's all on social media. Of course, social media isn't peer reviewed. In fact there's no review process whatsoever and anyone can post something and claim it's true. But, there is a lot of accurate, clear scientific information shared on social media everyday. A lot of well known scientists are verified and share resources to back up their statements. Unfortunately, a lot of the time they're sharing this to someone who already knows, someone already converted, and not the people who need to hear it most. 

Now, just because something is on social media does not mean everyone who could access it is choosing not to, for whatever reason. Algorithms are designed to show you what you want to see. So if you've never expressed an interest in climate change publicly online before, the algorithm is not going to point you in the direction of climate scientists of activists. The people we need to target are the people who know nothing about these issues already. But how do we reach them if they don't know who we are, and we don't know who they are? How to we break out of the echo chamber? 

I honestly have no idea. I'm very open to suggestions. I always want this blog and my instagram to be somewhere anyone can come to learn about conservation. But I have no control on who clicks on my page. I can't force someone to read this, and the only people likely to click on it are people who already care, either about the topic or me. How do I access everyone else? How do we make people care about conservation?

It should be simple. If we don't tackle climate change, millions, if not billions, will die. Our lives will never be the same and we will all suffer the consequences. The science alone should prompt people to want to do everything they can to stop this from happening. But it's not. And we can't blame ordinary people for this. The gravity of the situation is not effectively communicated and when it is, it's easily dismissed. The actions of governments do not back up the words of science, and if the government isn't taking it seriously, why should you? This is the attitude of a lot of people, about more than just climate change, and I don't blame them for it. How can we?

But if we know this problem exists, how do we solve it?

Following the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Artery and international outcry over police brutality in the US and systemic racism which plagues societies all over the world, many people have educated themselves on these issues more than ever before. Thus, for the first time, black women have topped the paperback charts for both fiction and non-fiction writing in the UK (Reni Eddo-Lodge, Why I'm No Longer Talking To White People About Race, and Bernardine Evaristo, Girl, Woman, Other), which prompted criticism of the publishing industry over why it's taken this long. Countless petitions have been circulated via https://petition.parliament.uk generating over 100,000 signatures so parliament has to debate them (links to which are at the end of this post). Protests have broken out, forcing communities to examine why we still have statues of slavers and colonisers, and anti-racism has been at the forefront of everyone's mind in the past couple of weeks.

Conservationists are no exception, and have been engaging in this global conversation. At most climate change protests, or really whenever climate change is mentioned, you often hear the phrase: there is no climate justice without social justice. Intersectional environmentalism advocates for both the protection of the planet, and of people, whereby social issues are valued as highly as environmental issues.

The human-element of conservation is as prevalent  if not more  than any other animal. While the term "wildlife conservation" emphasises the importance of wildlife, conservation as a discipline centres around people. The needs of people, the impacts of environmental issues on people, the reliance of people on the environment, and the promotion of cultural values and equality, are at the forefront of all conservation conundrums.

Leah Thomas wrote a beautiful article for Vogue entitled "Why Every Environmentalist Should Be Anti-Racist".  In the article she explains how social justice can often be seen as an add-on to environmental justice campaigns, instead of a core element of those campaigns. To believe we can solve environmental issues without first tackling racism is a nonsense. The two issues are so deeply embedded within one another that to separate them is to deny such links between them, and to deny that is to deny the oppression of BAME people as a result of both environmental injustices and conservation actions.

For example, climate justice involves revolutionising our economies and infrastructure. This process will undoubtably create thousands of jobs. Who gets those jobs? Who benefits from a green economy? In the past, minority communities have been left out of these answers. ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣

Furthermore, climate change impacts disadvantaged and minority communities more than it does anyone else. Black people are 3x more likely to die from asthma-related causes than white people (US data), 80% of people displaced by climate change are women, and 75,000 African Americans were displaced by hurricane Katrina. The impacts of that hurricane (2005) were disproportionately felt by the black community of New Orleans, and the population has not yet recovered. ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣

Conservation historically has not been innocent of oppression and racism. The history of white conservationists in Africa, Asia and South America is an ugly one: "white saviours" telling local people what to do and how to do it. Conservation has historically followed a fortress model: acquire some land -> put a fence around it -> proclaim it a protected area for nature conservation. This has led to thousands of indigenous communities being pushed out of their homes; people who have unrivalled knowledge of the terrain and ecology have been deliberately excluded.

A vast majority of conservation efforts are still held by foreigners or descendants of colonial settlers. White foreigners often occupy higher paying jobs or managerial positions, over local people who often have greater local knowledge and experience of the land. Black voices in conservation are often lost in a sea of white, often male, voices who can shout the loudest because they're shouting from a raised platform of privilege.  Recent years have seen a move towards more inclusive, community based management, which is essential and important and we need to see more of. I found this instagram post explained the white saviour problem in conservation well. This article is also well worth a read, detailing how young black Africans are often not offered the same opportunities as young, white foreigners. I am very aware that a lot of the experiences I have had in conservation in Africa would not have been available to me if I was African, and that's just wrong. I hope to do more to right this wrong. 

Furthermore, treating environmentalism and racism as two separate entities is a luxury for white people that black people cannot afford. In this must-read article in the Washington Post by Dr Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, "Racism derails our attempts to fight the climate crisis", she explains that not only do BAME communities experience disproportionate impacts due to climate change, but black conservationists and climate scientists cannot  simply ignore racism and focus solely on the environment. Racism makes it harder for them to do their jobs. She wrote: "Even at its most benign, racism is incredibly time consuming." Without fully understanding the toll racism has on black people and addressing it, we are doing a disservice to black people within our industry. The article is so powerful and thought-provoking: please read it.

The reason social equality cannot be treated separately from climate change & conservation is because they have 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦, and they aren’t now.⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣


A lot of us are undergoing a process of unlearning the white story we have been told and replacing it with the truth. The history of racism, colonisation, slavery, and exclusion. The on-going suffering of BAME communities and structural racism present in every facet of society. The disproportionate impacts of the climate crisis on black communities. 

Be critical of who you get your information from. I have been deeply disappointed in many white conservationists I admired in the past weeks, who have said either nothing, or very little on these issues. You cannot call yourself a conservationist if your brand of conservation only focusses on wildlife or white people. 

I appreciate anyone who takes the time to read my blog. I put a lot of thought into my posts and I hope they are informative and enjoyable to read. However, I want to use this platform to amplify black voices. As a white person, it is easier for me to be seen and heard. But I can never fully understand what BAME people go through. Nor can I speak to these issues with the same authority as I am someone who learns about racism, rather than experiences it. All the articles I have linked throughout this blog post were written by black scientists/conservationists. Please, if you're reading this, read them. I am also going to link some social media accounts to follow. 

We have a responsibility to be actively anti-racist, to continue supporting the BLM movement in its entirety and to educate ourselves. Thank you again for reading and supporting this blog. 

Black conservationists to follow:

Dr Ayana Elizabeth Johnson: if you only follow one instagram account, let it be hers. She is an incredible scientist and powerful black, female voice in this field and we should all be listening to her:  https://www.instagram.com/ayanaeliza/

Danni Washington was the first black woman science TV host and her feed is full of stunning photos and great information: https://www.instagram.com/danniwashington/

Leah Thomas, an activist who speaks so clearly on intersectional environmentalist: https://www.instagram.com/greengirlleah/

Dr Raychelle Burks. Chemistry academic with great tweets about being a scientist  and science in general: https://twitter.com/DrRubidium

I could go on for ages but THIS POST links several accounts and so does THIS POST. Check them both out.

Petitions to sign:

Here are some petitions for UK citizens/residents to sign. They need over 100,000 for parliament to debate that but the more they have the better! So do sign even when they're over 100,000 already. 

1. Teach Britain's Colonial Past as part of the UK's Compulsory Curriculum: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/324092
2. Improve Maternal Mortality Rates and Health Care for Black Women in the UK: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/301079
3. Add education on diversity and racism to all school curriculums: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/323808
4. Introduce Mandatory Ethnicity Pay Gap Reporting: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/300105
5. Condemn the US government for the use of force against its citizens: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/323863
6. Create an independent investigatory commission to help protect ethnic minorities: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/323867
7. Making the UK education curriculum more inclusive of BAME history: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/323961
8. Make is compulsory for Black and POC UK histories to be taught in the Welsh education curriculum: https://petitions.senedd.wales/petitions/200034
9. Suspend future sales of tear gas and other crowd control equipment to the USA: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/324208

My last post gave three examples of positive environmental outcomes of the COVID-19 global pandemic (available here). Social media has been crawling with shares over declining emissions and seeing lockdown as a rest bite for the planet. But is it all good news? Is a lockdown good for the planet?
I'm trying to balance my stance from the previous post. Yes, there are environmental wins due to Lockdown. But there are also losses, and potential for even greater losses in the future. I'm going to focus on three.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

I think it is fair to say that the data will reflect that yes, lockdown is good for the planet regarding greenhouse gas emissions. However, this is potentially only going to be true in the short term. Following the end of lockdown, it is possible that things will either go back to normal, or get worse. Governments are likely to want to jump-start their economies again, and so we can expect an industrial boom. Following the 2008-9 financial crisis, emissions increased by 5% for the same reason. 
More theoretically, I worry about what lockdown will do to people's attitudes regarding tackling climate change. The idea that this (lockdown, social distancing, isolation) is what it looks like to lower emissions does not sit well. State-mandated lockdown is not fun for anyone: it's affects people social lives, freedoms, and incomes. If this is what tackling climate change looks like, do we want it?

Of course this isn't what tackling climate change should look like or needs to look like, but I worry that the more we shout about how good this is for the planet, the greater negative association we build between our actions and benefitting the planet. Resentment thrives in such settings: why do we have to suffer for the environment to win? 

Poaching
Many countries are currently in lockdown. Poachers, are not. The number of poaching incidents is expected to spike during this time. Some reserves may have less staff, as staff may have chosen to isolate with their families. Income for reserves will be dramatically lowered. A lot of reserves rely on visitors and tourism to make money, all of which will have ceased during lockdown. Therefore, they may not be able to afford to continue the same level of anti-poaching work and protection as they would normally. In general, lockdown is a silver platter presented to poachers to take full advantage of. 
Meat poaching is bound to increase as people also have limited access to food during a lockdown. Stocks in stores globally are down, and shopping is limited. Poaching may be the only way, or the easiest way, for people to feed their families. 
Poaching of endangered species, such as rhino of elephant, is also bound to spike with less security. This could have catastrophic impacts for these species, many of which do not have the numbers to survive a sudden decrease in their numbers. 

Chinese Wet Markets
In my last post I said that China has banned wildlife trade due to the links found between Chinese wet markets and COVID-19. Many believe such markets in Wuhan are the origin of the virus. At these markets, thousands of animals are kept in cages, sold, and some are slaughtered there on site. Animals are sold for traditional medicine, for example lion bones, and for food. This is linked heavily to the poaching of endangered species discussed above. These animals are kept in close proximity to one another, and passed from human to human. Viruses thrive in such an environment, and can pass from species to species and cross the barrier to humans. It is likely this is what happened with the coronavirus, and that is why these markets were closed. 
Just a month after closing these markets China has begun to re-open these markets, ignoring international pressure and pleas not to. Medical and conservation professionals worldwide are urging them not to stay closed. Reopening these markets is incredibly dangerous, and reflects a apathetic attitude by the Chinese government for the countries currently fighting with everything they have to beat this virus. 
Conservation wise, closing these markets was a big win. This win lasted a month. If these markers cannot stay closed when human lives are in danger, how can we ever expect to keep them closed to protect wildlife?


My blog tends to look at things through an environmental lens because that's how I look at things. But it is impossible to look at anything these days purely from the perspective of the environment, because everything is intertwined to an irreversible extent. The impact, positive and negative, this virus is having on the environment shows us that: lions and rhinos in the most remote regions of Africa are being heavily impacted. Our shrinking and connected world means that everything we do trickles down to every corner of the earth and every creature in it. We need to stop thinking of ourselves as separated from nature. 
Continuing the winners/losers metaphor, we shouldn't have to lose for the environment to win. In fact, I think effective policy and change to beat global warming and protect endangered species, is a win for us both. A lot of major changes necessary (e.g. switching to renewable energy, minimising global waste) will be positive steps for people too. Cleaner air, job creation, financial incentives: all these things help keep the environment thriving and keep us thriving too. 
Coronavirus has demonstrated to the world a harsh reality: business as usual was not okay. The disregard we have for wildlife and the environment has come back to bite us on the arse. But we only care to do anything about this when we are in the firing line. 
This cannot go on. 
We cannot win while the environment continues to lose.

We either both win, or we both lose. Our choice.

The COVID-19 crisis has been plaguing the world for a few months now and the light at the end of the tunnel to most is being released from isolation and to be allowed in the same room as people not in your household. Going back to work seems like a luxury, let alone going out with your friends or hugging another human being. 

But for the planet, the light at the end of a long tunnel of exploitation, pollution, degradation and destruction, is now. Albeit this is likely a fleeting light in the history of the earth, and one that will be diminished as soon as we find a way to deal with the virus. Even if it takes a year of semi-to-full lockdown, in the history of the planet, this is a very short time period. For our lives and our economies, it seems like forever, but for the planet this is barely a weekend.

COVID-19 is not a blessing for anyone. It could end up doing more harm than good to the planet, as I will discuss in another post. However in these uncertain and distressing times, it's hard not to notice that the environment is winning where we are all losing - possibly for the first time since the industrial revolution. 

This does not mean COVID-19 is something to be celebrated. Celebrating COVID-19 is not only insensitive, but it's also illogical. However, that does not mean we cannot notice positive changes in the world as a direct or indirect result of the pandemic. And there are many. I'm going to focus on three.

1. Greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions are down.

International air travel is a majorly guilty party contributing to global GHG emissions. Any situation in which air travel is limited will result in less GHG emissions, which can only be seen as a positive step when looking at the world through a purely environmental lens. Seeing so many cancelled flights, locked down borders, and travel bans means the amount of carbon pumped into the atmosphere during this period will be significantly lower. Anthropogenic (human-induced) GHG emissions cause climate change. Slowing the rate and reducing the quantity of GHGs in the atmosphere is essential for tackling climate change. 

Reducing air travel globally will be necessary to keep global temperature from rising above 1.5°C, which has been accepted by scientists as the threshold before which we will have done irreversible damage to the planet. This pandemic has shown us we are capable of limiting our air travel, if we see how it can directly impact our lives. I hope we see how climate change will directly impact our lives before it's too late. 
Air travel is not the only way emissions are down. Due to lockdown in China, which included factories and power plants, and meant less cars on the road, nitrogen dioxide emissions were down 40% in some cities, and were significantly reduced in Italy as well. Global energy and carbon emissions were down 25% and coal consumption by power plants fell 36% (data from the Centre for Research and Clean Air). 

2. Bans on Wildlife Trade

Due to speculations over the origins of the coronavirus being from a range of wildlife meat products, China banned all wildlife trade. Whether the virus came from these products is unclear, but the trade in wildlife certainly enabled the early spread of the disease. Of course, this ban only relates to legal wildlife trade. The black markets are likely to continue. But, a ban does send a clear message. The government would not do this if they did not feel the wildlife trade posed a significant threat to human safety. Would you buy something if you thought it might give you coronavirus? 

Obviously, the answer is a simple no. But unfortunately, the question is not that simple. Trade in certain wildlife products is not just food, it's traditional medicine. While we can sit here in the west and judge traditional medicines from the comfort of our living rooms, deciding it's nonsense, doesn't work, and is far inferior to our better, newer, shinier branch of medicine, that doesn't mean that people won't buy it. If you truly believe something works, you will continue to believe that. These beliefs are old, some older than Christianity, and deeply rooted in many communities. And, the placebo effect is a thing that does happen - when a patient is cured due to their belief in the treatment, rather than the treatment itself (usually due to inactive treatment). 

So, if you have cancer and you truly believe a product will cure you, would you buy it even if it meant risking coronavirus? It's suddenly not so black and white. 

However, China's ban on wildlife trade is a huge leap in the right direction. Reducing wildlife trade helps minimise risk for endangered species. Again, we only took this necessary action when we were at risk.

3. Lethal shark nets removed in SA

This smaller, localised example is close to my heart as my masters thesis centred around the use of lethal shark nets for bather protection. In Kwa-Zulu Natal, South Africa, and many other countries including Australia, lethal shark nets are used at popular beaches under the pretence of keeping water users safe. Most people think these nets are a non-lethal barrier: they are not. They are a fishing device designed to catch and kill large sharks, but do not discriminate and such kill whales, turtles, dolphins, and a plethora of other marine wildlife.

South Africa announced a 21-day lockdown of the country this week, in which people must stay home except to shop for food and for medical emergencies. As part of this lockdown, the nets have been removed for 21 days. This is because no one is allowed out to maintain or remove them. 

The nets are supposed to go back up at the end of the lockdown. I hope they don't. 

For the record, there is no evidence they keep people safer than non-lethal alternatives, they are incredibly damaging to marine ecosystems, and people do not support their use. 

Overall, environmentally speaking, it's not all bad. However, it's not all good either (as I will discuss in a subsequent post). I understand it's annoying for some to hear conservationists discussing this virus in a positive way. I hope it is clear that's not the intention. These potential "wins" for the environment do not detract from the literal losses to everyone else. 
I personally, wish this virus wasn't happening. I wish we were all carrying on our normal lives. I wish the healthcare service was not being pushed to its' limits, and I wish people weren't dying. 
I also wish we could and would start to tackle climate change with effective policy, real lifestyle change, and a better understanding of what we are doing to the future of this planet and our own species by not. I wish we would do this because we know it's necessary, and not because we are scared we will get a virus if we don't.

Veganism. The marmite of dieting. Some people have a very negative perception of veganism in principles and practise. Some think veganism is the greatest thing since sliced bread. 

Although perhaps seen by some purely as a millennial fad diet, the vegan movement is growing in popularity; not because people think its cool and edgy to eat avo bagels everyday, but because scientists have called for diet change to tackle climate change. 

The IPCC special report 15 (click here for summary) stated that people should cut back on meat and dairy consumption in an effort to combat global warming. These industries are highly polluting and contribute significantly to global GHG emissions. 

The fact is, the science is there that shows that a plant based diet is an effective way for individuals to minimise their carbon footprint. In fact, a plant-based diet can reduce your carbon footprint by as much as half compared to a meat-heavy diet. Red meat in particular is responsible for the most GHG emissions. 

I have been vegan for a little over a year, after being flexitarian and then veggie for a few years. But I am in no way the perfect vegan. I eat cheese at Christmas, and have the occasional dairy milk (maybe more than occasional...). There is a stigma of perfectionism surrounding veganism. It does come in-part from other vegans. Some vegans would never ever "cheat" or divert from being 100% plant-based, and so sometimes they come down hard on vegans who sometimes digress. However, in my experience non-vegans are more judgemental. On the whole, people are lovely and don't care, but there is definitely pressure once you declare yourself as vegan to never even look at a steak or egg again. 

This is utter nonsense and does far more damage than good.

Every little helps. Something is better than nothing. Do your bit.

These statements are so commonly thrown around when discussing sustainable living and they are so important. No one is perfect and so you should never try to be. The same goes for lifestyle: you can't always be a perfect vegan or live a completely zero waste life and that's fine. Meat-free-Mondays is better than eating meat 7 days a week. Vegetarian Mon-fri and then dining out for steak at the weekend is better than eating meat 7 days a week. The occasional slice of brie or piece of chocolate (entire bar) is a massive improvement on my previous diet. The only issue I have with slogans such as "every little helps" is that people become complacent. "I could be worse so therefore I am fine" is the capitalist mantra to making people feel better. But, something is better than nothing. 

Turning vegan overnight is unrealistic. It's possible, and I applaud anyone who has done this. For me, it was a slow process over years. I initially stopped eating meat in my 2 year of university. I only ate meat if other people were cooking for me or if I went out for meals. I therefore was not buying any meat from the supermarket. My rationale was, I don't want to be rude if someone is making me a free meal, and I don't want to pay for something in a restaurant if it's not what I really want. I eventually turned completely vegetarian. This was made miles easier by the fact my friends are left-leaning environmentalists who are either veggie themselves, or would happily eat a veggie meal (and that I was a poor student who cooked 99% of my meals myself and rarely ate out). I turned vegan after reading the IPCC SR15 and have lived in Cape Town for most of that time, a very vegan-friendly city with lots of vegan restaurants. 

I recommend taking it slow. Learn some recipes, talk to other vegans (feel free comment here and talk to me), phase meat out. Try meat alternatives and see which you like (the beyond-burger is beyond-amazing). Look at your go-to meals and see how to make them veggie/vegan. Get some staples in: oat milk, nutritional yeast, beans, coconut milk, peanut butter, fruit, nuts, seeds, avocado, oreos. 

I think I can say with some confidence that is has never been easier to be a vegan. Veganuary is a craze that took the world by storm last year with immense success. Try it for one month and see how you feel. It might not work for you. If you have a nut or soy allergy for example, it will be incredibly difficult and may have adverse health impacts. Some people who suffer from IBS struggle, but some people experience massive improvements. Try it, and see. You might not stay vegan forever, but you might learn some amazing new restaurant or recipes to come back to in the future, thus reducing your meat/dairy consumption. If you plan to do veganuary, I strongly recommend signing up to: this mailing list. They send you tips and recipes EVERY DAY in January and it makes things so much easier, especially if you are completely new to this. Let me know if you try veganuary out and how it goes for you!!

I am NOT trying to induct you into a weird vegan cult. I am not even telling you to be a vegan or vegetarian.  I am expressing my opinion and I am presenting you with science. 

Seems like an obvious statement: plastic pollution (PP) is not the same as climate change (CC); climate change is not the same as plastic pollution. Yes it seems obvious that plastic polluting our oceans or littering our streets has little/no bearing on rising atmospheric temperatures or arctic sea ice melt. 

However, I think there is a common misconception that they are the same thing; or more specifically that by presenting a solution to one, we can solve both. 

These two phenomena tend to be lumped together as 'environmental issues'; and as 'environmental issues' they can be allegedly be tackled in the exact same way and be treated as one thing: the same thing. This is just wrong. 

I see this misconception all the time on social media & on TV & in real life: 

'I don't use straws anymore because I'm worried about climate change'

'I'm reducing my carbon footprint by using a re-usable water bottle and coffee cup'

and it's a bit of a concern. These people aren't stupid, and they're not entirely wrong either. But the lumping together of plastic pollution and climate change as one thing concerns me because they are not the same thing. I worry it gives people an opportunity to ignore climate change... 

As we all know, plastic pollution has become a worldwide issue, and people from all over the world are taking great steps to deal with it. Fantastic. Cannot fault this. 

We are seeing people protesting climate change, calling for green energy, reducing their meat consumption or cutting it our their diet all together. The UK has become the first country to call a climate emergency. Great. All steps in the right direction. 

Climate change is a far more pressing issue than plastic pollution. THIS DOES NOT MEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION IS NOT PRESSING. It just means that climate change is worse. It sucks; I'm sorry. The worst part is, the plastic pollution problem is much easier to fix. Big steps are being taken (eg national bans on single use plastic) and individuals are also taking great steps (eg reusable coffee cups + water bottles, shampoo bars, taking tupperwares to shops, etc etc). This is all great. 

My concern with the lumping of plastic pollution with climate change is:

It gives government's and large corporations an excuse to do nothing about climate change. 

If they champion plastic pollution as their 'environment issue of choice' then they can tick their green box and market themselves as doing something good for the environment. They can deceive people into thinking that they are doing lots, whilst continuing to do nothing about climate change. 

This is the crux of my issue with the term 'environmental issues'. Plastic pollution is an environment issue. By reducing your plastic pollution, you can say you are helping the environment. However the climate and the environment are NOT the same thing. This can easily confuse people into thinking you're doing something about climate change, because we always hear climate change referred to as an environmental issue. 

In essence: a massive company with a huge carbon footprint can stop using as much plastic -> go crazy on promoting this -> and tell us all they're being environmentally friendly. Meanwhile, they're carbon footprint remains the same. 

Obviously, I am not criticising companies for reducing their plastic consumption. But what I am criticising is that this makes them 'environmentally friendly' or 'sustainable' if they are doing NOTHING about climate change. 

Having said all of that, CC & PP are not mutually exclusive either... 

Firstly, 

'I'm reducing my carbon footprint by using a re-usable water bottle'

^ this person, is actually entirely correct. 

Water comes from a tap. Buying it in a plastic bottle is literally pouring money down the drain. But more than that, it's adding to your carbon footprint. Plastic bottles you buy in a shop or vending machine would have come from somewhere. They would have been created in a factory, then either transported by road in a car or flown in a plane, or both; to then be purchased by you. If you have a bottle yourself, and turn on your tap, that water has not been flown or driven. Therefore, having & using a reusable water bottle does reduce your carbon footprint (yay finally some good news). 

Secondly, just because they're not the same thing, does not mean they both don't need to be dealt with. They are both serious environmental issues, that both need attention. It is no longer acceptable to not pay attention to the environment: from governments, from corporations, from people. But this attention needs to be spread across multiple issues, and not just one. 

Conclusions: 

If you're doing nothing about climate change, you have to change. We simply cannot ignore it. We all need to be better at holding those doing nothing (or causing the problem) accountable. And we mustn't be tricked into thinking people are doing more than they are. 

When you hear the terms 'environmentally friendly' or 'sustainable', work out the exact context in which they are being used. Plastic pollution can no longer be a scapegoat for climate change. 

I went to the #FridaysForFuture #YouthStrike4Climate in Cape Town this Friday. This was a worldwide protest to demand more action from governments on climate change. It was inspired by Greta Thunberg, who I'm sure you've heard of by now, who walked out of school almost a year ago to protest for her future. 

Young people all over the world, across 100 countries, took the the streets to demand more action is taken to tackle climate change. This is not to say that nothing is being done; it is. But it is not enough. And people have an increasing fear that the experts are being ignored. If the government won't listen to them, who will they listen to??

I truly believe we have no chance of combating climate change without a drastic shift from fossil fuels, to renewable energy. The IPCC have said we need renewable energies to be providing 85% of electricity by 2050, and coal usage gone. This is not what is happening. 

The demands of this march from the organisers are for the government to declare a climate emergency, to teach the truth about climate change in schools, to communicate the crisis better to the public, and to bring the voting age down to 16 to recognise the stake young people have in our future. 

I believe we all need to be demanding more from the government when it comes to climate change. It is THE greatest issue we have today, and have ever faced as a species. People's lives are at risk if we do not do something. Africa accounts for only 3.8% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, but Africa is far more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change than those countries responsible for the greatest greenhouse gas emissions. 

Tackling climate change is an issue I think we can all get behind, no matter who you are. Somewhere along the line it has become a "left-wing" ideal to care about the environment. I think this is crap. Climate change will affect us all, whether you sit on the right or the left of politics, and so I think it should be something we all care about. 

The focus of these protests must continue to be change the governments can make. There are lots of changes we as individuals can make: eat less/no meat and dairy, drive less, fly less, etc etc. But if the prime minister/president turned around and said "I'm going to become a vegan and that's my pledge to tackle climate change" I would not be satisfied. I would commend them, because that is a great thing, but that is not enough. We need green economies. We need renewable energies to provide much more electricity than they are. 

I have great respect for all who protested yesterday (15 March 2019). That is a generation I am proud to be a part of. 

I stand with Greta.