Conservation With Kate: 2019

For my U.K. based friends (& non SA-based), an explanation:

A UCT student, Uyinene Mrwetyana, was missing for a few weeks and in the last couple days it has been announced that she was raped and murdered by a man who worked at a local post office.

She went into the post office; he lured her into an office, hit her over the head with a scale, raped and murdered her. He has confessed.

This happened during women’s month. This happened locally. This happened during the day. This happened in a post office.

This is my community now and it’s hurting. This event has touched everyone I know here. My heart and the heart of the city breaks for the family and friends of Nene; and all other women who have suffered the same fate because of a culture that doesn’t keep women safe, and a government that seems to think it’s our responsibility to keep ourselves safe.

People are angry: angry at the fact that no justice system can reverse this. Angry that nothing can change what happened now. Angry that so many more women are speaking out and taking action than men are. Angry that men stay silent, or say the right things but do nothing. Men don’t experience this issue to the extent women do, but they should care just as much.

People are angry that no where is safe.

A post office. A f*cking post office. A “normal” guy: not a typical guy you’d cross the street for. How are we supposed to know who and where is safe?

Men: don’t be offended that people are angry. We know that he is not what all men are. But if you don’t want to be painted as “trash” then I’m sorry but you have to prove you’re not. It is not women’s fault if we can’t tell the good guys from the bad guys: that’s on YOU.

I love this city with all my heart. It’s become my home, and it’s the greatest place I’ve ever known.

I wrote this because firstly, I’m hurting and I’m angry. Secondly, this isn’t international news and I know that’s normal. But I’ve been sharing things about it and I want people who know me back in the U.K. to know about what life is like for women in places like Cape Town. Yes, we don’t walk home alone at night in England, we always tell people when we are home safe, we get shouted at by strangers. Awful things happen anywhere in the world, I know that.

But things are different in the U.K. We can get the train/city bus alone at any time of day. We can walk through a subway alone at any time of day. We are safe in university run student accommodation. We are safe at the post office. We are privileged.

Thanks for reading.

#JustNo #BreakTheSilence

No comments

The Amazon has been on fire for the last 3 weeks and it is suddenly breaking news. I have seen countless posts about this on social media and in the news. There has been a lot of finger-pointing as well as to who's fault it is that it took 3 weeks for this news to reach a global audience.

I have seen people posting things like "because no one cares enough, I'm only hearing about this now" or "I'm sharing this because the news won't". Firstly, the news is. Secondly, this sort of stuff never makes headline news immediately, so I don't know why everyone is shocked. And thirdly, this is not the fault of individuals or news organisations not caring.

This is just a fundamental issue in today's society whereby the environment is not considered as important as other sectors and therefore not given as much press attention. It has nothing to do with the Amazon itself and it has nothing to do with the BBC or CNN or whoever you watch, not caring about the Amazon forest, indigenous people, or wildlife. And it certainly has nothing to do with members of the public not caring enough.

It is great that people are talking about these fires and the wider implications. But it is just talk. You can shout about it on social media all you want, and you can be angry that it took 3 weeks to reach you. That's a completely valid reaction, and definitely understandable.

But this is a classic example of something that is today's news and forgotten tomorrow. Everyone is a conservationist when something bad happens. This isn't a criticism: I think it's wonderful how much people care, especially our generation. You do not have to dedicate your life/career to a cause to care about it.

But, your frustration is misdirected. The problem is not that no one knew about these fires from the offset: it's that these fires are happening in the first place at a record breaking rate and extent.

There are loads of reasons the Amazon burns: deforestation, deliberate fires, wildlife, etc. When it comes to environmental problems, it's never straight forward. These issues are multifaceted and complex; and they're not going away. Not without top-down approaches (which is very relevant given the Brazilian presidents' relaxed attitude towards environmental policy), or normal people making sacrifices and compromises to their everyday life.

We will have to drive less, fly less, and eat less meat. We might have to restrict our hours of electricity. We might have to restrict our water consumption. We might not be able to eat imported foods. These things aren't extreme: their likely realities if we want to prevent that 1.5 degree rise.

Next time you share something to do with climate change/the environment, think: would I give up steak or avocado for this? Would I give up my car? Would I turn off my electric power?

Don't be angry you didn't know; be angry that the Amazon is on fire.

Because now the whole world knows, and our lungs are still on fire.

Belizean rainforest

No comments

Plastic pollution: probably the most talked about conservation problem out there. We can largely thank the media for that; Blue Planet II for me was the turning point, and since then you can hardly log onto any media platform and not see something to do with plastic. In this post I want to talk about how plastic took over the world as a solution to a lot of problems, but quickly became one of the leading causes of pollution in the ocean.

The vast majority (maybe even all) of talk around plastic nowadays is very negative. Plastic is a pollutant, it's destroying our oceans and our terrestrial landscapes. Plastic undeniably is massive problem in our oceans especially. It's all over the world destroying marine life. Everyone knows this.

Humans' reliance on plastic is something I think we've all started to re-evaluate. Many people try now to live plastic free, or at least using as little plastic as possible. Many countries have even gone as far to ban single use plastic (yay!).

Anyone who has joined this trend, and consciously tried to use less plastic has probably realised that in some instance, it's very easy to live without plastic. Your morning coffee doesn't need to be in a plastic cup, with a plastic lid; a tupperwareserves just as nicely as plastic polystyrene; a bamboo toothbrush works just as well as a plastic one; and so the list goes on.

However, you would also have come across some major obstacles on your journey to a plastic free life. The main one being, if you don't produce all your own food, you don't have a say on the packaging. (Yes maybe if we all clubbed together and boycotted all brands that use plastic packaging and piled on the public pressure, maybe they would all stop but that takes massive global effort and we can't expect people who just want to shop for their families to join a boycott of essentially, all food). My point is, some things that you buy come in plastic packaging, and although you'd rather they didn't, you still need to buy them. It's annoying. Here you are trying to make environmentally conscious decisions, but the majority of supermarket food is in plastic packaging.

Herein lies the seemingly forgotten secret of where the plastic pollution problem comes from: plastic is actually amazing.

The reason we have so much plastic and became so reliant on it is because it's so versatile, useful, and durable. These features allowed plastic to take over the world. We didn't have the foresight to see that these same features would cause a massive environmental disaster. We just saw this material that could solve a lot of problems, and ran with it.

The reason plastic is so hard to avoid, particularly in supermarkets, is because one of the primary uses and most amazing features of plastic is its ability to keep food fresh. Imagine how much food would have been wasted globally if it wasn't for plastic.

What's worse? Food waste or plastic? This is a ridiculous question because of course the answer is: it depends. But if you really had to way it up and consider which of these two phenomenonscauses more a problem globally, I would go with food waste.

Without plastic, we would need to massively improve the way we produce and sell food. Imported fruit would arrive to shops brown and mushy. Even processed carbohydrates, like pasta, would never last as long if they weren't covered. Plastic allows us to globally trade food without having to throw tonnes and tonnes of it away.

Now I know there is a solution to this, which can be found in most cities worldwide: zero waste stores. These places (there are lots of different brands) are awesome. If you haven't been to one, I do recommend a visit.

Lot of these shops have overcome these problems with very simple solutions. Take the pasta example. In these types of shop, you can bring a tupperwareand fill it with pasta from a dispenser. Like a pick'n'mixsweet stand, you take as much pasta as you want and pay for it based on weight (usually). The same is done with all kinds of products. The pasta is kept fresh in its dispenser, and you can reuse your tupperwareas many times as you want.

Bingo. We're on to a winner here. So why do most people still shop in conventional supermarkets?

Convenience. That's my guess.

Using myself as an example, living in Cape Town there are many of these zero waste type shops in the city. But the city is massive and the closest one to me is about a 20 minute drive away. I don't have a car so mostly rely on Uber/friends to get around the city (except the university which has a brilliant bus network) as public transport isn't always safe. There is a supermarket less than 5 minutes (walking) from my house. I do all my shopping there. Does this mean I use more plastic than I would at a zero waste store? Yes of course it does. But if I drove (in an Uber) to the zero waste store every time I needed to buy food, imagine what that would do to my carbon footprint (not to mention how much I would spend on Ubers). Obviously when I shop I try to avoid plastic as much as possible, but I would rather walk to the shops and use a little more plastic, than drive just to avoid plastic.

We shouldn't beat ourselves up over every bit of plastic we use. We should keep always striving to be as environmentally friendly as possible, and use as little plastic as possible. But sometimes it's unavoidable, and that's okay. Sometimes it's better to use a bit more plastic, than drive somewhere/throw food away, and that's okay.

My opinion is that plastic pollution is a big problem. I think banning single use plastic is a great step forward to minimise the impact of plastics. We also need to do something about the plastic already on the planet: there are some innovative ideas to deal with this coming out (which I won't delve into now), but we are heading in the right direction.

Plastic is a hot topic, and the momentum this issue has gained is amazing. I would never want to dissuade anyone from trying to reduce their plastic consumption. But plastic is just one problem. And we shouldn't forget everything else in the quest to rid the world of all plastic.

Plastic I have seen on beaches/in the sea.

No comments

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.

Photo by me from the Cape Town #ClimateStrike in March.

No comments

I have been thinking a lot recently about just how bloody hard conservation is. In the wake of the Notre Dame fire, Jonathan Kolby from National Geographic went viral for a statement he made comparing the fire to the battles faced on conservation.

I hope it goes without saying but, the parallels to the fire in no way diminish my deep sadness for the people of Paris, and all who felt a connection to the cathedral. Everyone has their place that makes them feel happy and safe, and reminds them of wonderful memories. To see that place burn is a horrible thing, and I completely get that.

This is Jonathan's quote, if you haven't seen it:

His words really got to me because he is right. As people who care deeply for the environment, we are watching it burn slowly and torturously every day. I am a positive person, and I try hard to be because I do believe there is no point wasting energy on being negative or mad at the world. Obviously, we all have bad days and that's fine, but I try to find good in things and not worry about something until I have to. I think it's easier to be happier if you look at the world in a positive light.

This is hard sometimes in conservation because there are so many wicked problems coming at you from every angle. We are heading into a sixth mass extinction. We are heading towards a climatic catastrophe. We are so close to causing irreparable damage to this planet, and often it feels like no one cares.

Nature has always, and will always be, my greatest source of happiness. It is where I feel happy and safe, 'my Notre Dame'. When I think of the times I've felt happiest or most at peace, they are almost all outdoors or involving wildlife. I think this is true of most conservationists, and a lot of other people too. So in some ways, it's easy to remain positive in conservation because you just have to think about what you're fighting for.

Conservation is a value-laden discipline. Some people probably think that's a bad thing. I can see why to a degree: if you're too emotionally invested in something it can be hard to step back and make rationale decisions. However, I think what makes conservation successful is that it is a value-laden discipline. If conservationists didn't care as much as they do, nothing would get done.

I find it really hard when people don't care as much as I do. This really isn't great because I am extremely passionate and it's rather unreasonable of me to expect everyone to exude the same level of passion as I do. This is a fault on me, not everyone else. It's something I'm working on for myself, but I think Jonathan Kolby touched on this is a beautiful way that has stuck with me.

You don't have to care as much as I do, but you should care.

I think herein lies the frustration Jonathan was getting at. "We're surrounded by burning cathedrals built across millennia and no one seems to care." This line broke me a little. I honestly had goosebumps and I didn't know what to say/think. I completely feel what he is feeling. It was a painful truth I wasn't ready for.

But then I thought about it some more. People do care. They really do. A lot. It was not just conservationists or employees of NatGeo that were making similar comparisons. I saw Jonathan's quote shared by tonnes of people who day-to-day have nothing to do with conservation. Our Planet (now streaming on Netflix) is having a similar impact. People are watching it and feeling passionate and driven.

This is so so important, and I really hope it is not lost. The problem is in translating that emotion into action.

The cynic in me finds it hard not to think that this is just "today's news" and tomorrow something else will come along, and all these people who read/shared his quote and felt something, or feel awakened by Our Planet, will go back to their lives and not really give it another thought.

As someone who has decided to dedicate their life to conservation, this hurts me. I am only 22 so that might seem like a dramatic statement, or a little premature, but I am not studying this masters for a laugh: I fully intend to remain in this field for life. Plus, I actively try to live my day-to-day life as sustainably as possible. I am also fully aware that there are hundreds of issues worldwide that I may be ignorant of. Obviously I try my best to be clued in on what's going on in the world, and for me, yes climate change and conservation are the stand out issues. But that's not true of everyone, and of course that's okay.

What is hard for conservationists, or at least for me, is when people speak empty words, and do nothing.

Maybe I'm being unfair? Maybe sharing memes or quotes about the struggles of climate change and conservation is doing something? We all know public opinion can be a major force in driving change, and so merely supporting Jonathan's argument on instagram is a step in the right direction.

But is it enough? I don't think it is.

It would be unreasonable for me to ask you all to drop what you're doing and apply for a job in conservation, so I won't do that (but if you're feeling inspired you have my full support). However, what I do ask is, if you do care: do more. Don't just talk about it, and when you are talking about it, talk to people who don't care, or who don't know enough.

It's so lovely and wholesome being surrounded by like-minded people, but these aren't the people we need to listen. We could all sit around the fire talking about what wonderful people we are and how we're saving the planet; and bond over how much we hate oil companies and rhino poachers and have a jolly good time. But that's achieving nothing.

I think this stream of consciousness born from Jonathan's quote has forced me to realise all these things I was feeling. How lonely and frustrating conservation can feel. How it can seem like a losing battle. How many of our goals may be unachievable, or at least rely on so many external factors that we can't rely on (*cough* politicians).

I do honestly believe we can have a green future. I don't think all hope is lost. I don't accept global warming will increase more than 2 degrees. I don't accept that rhinos, polar bears, and tigers will go extinct in my lifetime. Call me naive, call me a dreamer, call me a snowflake if you really must (although please don't, I really cannot stand that term). There are ways to tackle climate change and there are ways to conserve biodiversity. They just need to be done.

Admittedly a lot of this does rest on the shoulders of governments worldwide. Climate change protests have been gaining momentum, and news coverage. I know protests can be a controversial topic, but there is growing frustration towards the inaction of the government to do anything and protests help us start conversations.

Pressure needs to be put on the government to do more in tackling environmental issues. It is plain truth that not enough is being done.

As I've mentioned, there are hundreds of issues worldwide that also need more attention. It's not just extinction and climate change. For me, the reason these two stand out are because they will impact everyone. Climate change does not discriminate based on gender, age, religion, sexuality. We will all be impacted, albeit not equally. People in developing nations will be disproportionately worse of: the cruelest irony.

The second reason they stand out for me is because they are largely man-made. We have manufactured ourselves a devastating, unsustainable, and almost irreversible disaster. Would the world be a better place without people in it? Yes.. no.. maybe.. I don't know! It's really not for me to say. We're here now. We have a chance to fix things. We can take it, but not solely with words: with action too.

No comments

I just finished my 'Freshwater Conservation' module of my masters degree and I want to talk about it.

I haven't written much about my masters course so here's a quick run-down of what I'm doing: I'm studying Conservation Biology at the University of Cape Town. It's a dream come true and I love it so much.

It's very intense and challenging, as to be expected with a masters programme, but it really is great. It's not like conventional uni in the sense that the modules run back-to-back, rather than side-by-side. So each module is 1-3 weeks, and that's all you do in that time. Then it's over and on to the next. This is great because you can fully immerse yourself in it, but obviously it has it's pitfalls: namely that each module is over quick and every week is just as intense as the last.

So last week was 'Freshwater Conservation'. Most of my experience is in terrestrial ecology/conservation and I knew very little about freshwater conservation. I had studied rivers in my geography degree (anyone who has studied geography in the UK knows how much the lecturers love rivers), but very little on the ecology. I was interested to learn more but wasn't expected to love the module as much as I did.

The best thing about studying conservation in a global biodiversity hotpot (the fynbos) is the field trips. We have at least one per module which is awesome. This module however went above and beyond, with a two night stay studying the Witte River, in Bainskloof (about 1.5 hours from Cape Town).

Whether you study an environmental science or not, I think we can all agree that getting out of the classroom is always preferable to staying in it. This is definitely true of conservation. People studying conservation are doing it because they love nature, but studying nature seems to involve a lot of time in front of a computer screen. It is so essential to go back to nature every now and then (or you know, as much as humanly possible) to remind yourself why you care, and to just give yourself a break. For me, fieldwork is the perfect middle ground.

The trip to Bainskloof essentially gave us an introduction into some field work sampling techniques involved in freshwater conservation and research, some of the problems facing these systems.

We set fyke nets in the river to see what's living there. My simple explanation of fyke nets is: they are big nets, cylinder or cone-shaped, that sit at the bottom of the river (when you attach them to something like a rock) with a wide opening. The have two 'wings' that fan out of the front and guide the fish in. 'The fish can get in but can't get out' is the basic principle. (The fish technically can get out but they don't know that. )

Fyke nets

The Witte River has a natural barrier (essentially some rocks at a slightly higher elevation to the river below tightly packed so fish can't just swim through), and so we set nets above and below it. There have been a number of invasions on the river: species that are not naturally found here have been brought here and introduced and are now damaging the ecosystem. The most notable ones are species of catfish, trout, and bass, as these predate on the indigenous fish. These fish are only found downstream of the barrier (for now) and so there is refuge upstream for indigenous fish. We set the nets above and below the barrier to compare. The nets don't harm the fish and are a standard sampling technique.

Below the barrier we only caught invasive fish: sharp-toothed catfish and small-mouthed bass. This was disappointing and worrying. There is a possibility that some poor indigenous fish did swim into the net, and were then predated on by these invasives. However, when we were swimming around in these areas and laying the net, we did not see a single native fish.

Above: Sharp-tooth catfish
Below: Left: Smallmouth bass. Right: Sharp-tooth catfish.

Above the barrier, it could be a completely different river. There are fish everywhere. It's amazing. They are much smaller but there are hundreds of them.

There is also a lot more algae. This is because the native fish - eg red-finned minnows and cape kurper - feed on the invertebrates (animals without a backbone - insects mostly) which feed on the algae. By having the indigenous fish there to control the herbivore populations, the algae has more opportunity to grow. Below the barrier, this isn't happening, and so there is a notable different in algae growth (and slippery-ness of the rocks).

I don't think I've ever seen such a clear contrast with my own eyes before due to invasive species. There are so many fish above the barrier, and basically none below. It's shocking.

Above the barrier!

The fish were introduced for various reasons (mostly angling) and some were more recent than others. Some were about 100 years ago, but the catfish are a much more recent invasion. Furthermore the catfish are much better colonisers, and there is fear they will be able to cross the barrier. They can cope out of water for a fair amount of time and can essentially walk on slippery surfaces.

Photo: Conor Eastment

The good news is, we only found indigenous fish above the barrier! This is hopeful, as it suggests the invasive predators have not managed to move upstream, and so this area is still acting as a refugium for the native species. Hopefully it'll stay this way.

We did catch an eel (long-finned eel) which is native and a natural predator for the indigenous fish. This was quite exciting! The invasive predators could also be a problem for the eels if they do cross the barrier, as they would be in competition now for food.

Long-finned Eel.

We also did some invertebrate sampling. Invertebrates (insects and such) can indicate how healthy an ecosystem is. Some insects are more sensitive than others, to variables like water quality. Therefore, if you have sensitive insects in your stream, it suggests your water quality is high. Equally if you have insects with low sensitivity that can essentially survive anywhere, it might indicate that your stream is not very healthy.

This kind of sample is really easy to do. We caught the invertebrates in a net by just moving it around the aquatic vegetation, or holding it downstream and allowing the river to do the work for us. Using an ID kit, we could ID the insects and calculate the score of river health. Anyone can do this using miniSASS: a citizen science toolkit for monitoring stream health. Read more: here.

I made a video about the trip as well which you can find here: https://youtu.be/k9mVn5rCx1g.

Bainskloof is really beautiful. It's worth a visit for sure. Great place to relax, swim, and just enjoy being in nature for a while.

No comments

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.

No comments

Pages

Blog Archive

Follow Me

Popular Posts

Instagram