Climate change is a Hard Truth for many people — some people are so overwhelmed by this crisis that they deny it

Christine

<p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Over the past few months, I&rsquo;ve been discussing with my therapist the concept of Hard Truths. Hard Truths are facts or realities that are difficult to accept. They are most often used in the context of psychological care, helping a patient face and accept a painful or even traumatic reality. There are Hard Truths in all of our lives, perhaps relating to our families, our friendships, or just the circumstances we&rsquo;ve been dealt in this life. These truths need to be recognized in order to move forward. The phrase &ldquo;the first step is acceptance&rdquo; has been turned into a bit of a cliche, yet remains true as a piece of wisdom. Without accepting the reality of a situation, however difficult, the resolution will be challenging, if not impossible. Even though Hard Truths are most often discussed with individuals, they don&rsquo;t only pertain to personal challenges, but can also be applied to our greater society's realities and dilemmas.&nbsp;</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Climate change is a Hard Truth for many people. As we know, some people are so overwhelmed by this crisis that they deny it. Based on </span><a href="https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/about/projects/global-warmings-six-americas/"><span style="font-weight: 400;">The Six Americas framework</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">, developed by the Yale Program on Climate Communication, in 2022 approximately 11% of the U.S. population was considered &ldquo;dismissive&rdquo;, meaning they believe climate change is not real, it is not a threat, or that it is human-caused, with most endorsing conspiracy theories. To these deniers, climate change in itself is such a difficult reality, that they have made it into a falsehood.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400;">I&rsquo;ll often attend expert talks or speaker panels on climate change and consistently the question comes up: &ldquo;How can we convince the climate-deniers in our lives that climate change is real?&rdquo;. Of course, the speakers provide some tips and advice, perhaps even sharing personal experiences with a climate dismisser in their own lives. While the desire to engage in good faith with these individuals is understandable, I would argue that it is a greater use of our time and energy to shift our focus from trying to convince the &ldquo;dismissive&rdquo; population of the truth, to exploring the Hard Truths for those who accept climate change and are &ldquo;cautious&rdquo;, &ldquo;concerned&rdquo;, or &ldquo;alarmed&rdquo; by the crisis. Focusing our attention on these groups, approximately 70% of the U.S. population combined, and helping them face the Hard Truths in climate may bring us closer to the resolution than spending the energy on the loud minority of deniers.</span></p>
<h2><strong>Hard Truth 1: Climate change will impact you or someone you love</strong></h2>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400;">For many years floods, droughts, heat, and other impacts of climate change seemed far away, geographically and temporally. In hindsight, we can see that communication about climate change in mainstream media, up until recently, was primarily focused on the environmental impacts of the crisis. So, even today, when thinking of the climate crisis, the average U.S. citizen likely imagines the videos of polar bears trying to climb onto a small iceberg. This imagery and messaging from previous decades have resulted in a large swath of the public recognizing climate change as an issue, but not for them. It is something distant, something that will never actually affect them. Only 47% of U.S. citizens believe that climate change will personally harm them (see figure from Howe et. al).&nbsp;</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400;"> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">The Hard Truth is climate change is here and it affects us directly. The increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events like storms, droughts, and heatwaves result in flooding, wildfires, food system disruptions, stressors on electrical grids, displacement, and more. Even if these environmental or economic changes might not be explicitly linked to climate change, it is the root, and it will impact you or someone close to you.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400;"><strong>Figure 1.</strong> Estimated percentage of adults who think global warming will harm them personally (national avg. 47%), 2021</span></p>
<p><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/b372237c396542effe2512c6050a4a516b19d9e5.jpg?" alt="Estimated percentage of adults who think global warming will harm them personally " /></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Source: Howe, Peter D., Matto Mildenberger, Jennifer R. Marlon, and Anthony Leiserowitz (2015). &ldquo;Geographic variation in opinions on climate change at state and local scales in the USA.&rdquo; Nature Climate Change, </span><a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2583.html"><span style="font-weight: 400;">doi:10.1038/nclimate2583</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">.</span></span></p>
<h2><strong>Hard Truth 2: Technology alone cannot save us</strong></h2>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400;"> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">The hope that technology can resolve the climate crisis is of course understandable. In the United States, there is great cultural value in innovation. This value can be recognized in the endless tv and movie documentaries on the stories of practically any innovation, like hydrogenated peanut butter or the Rubik&rsquo;s cube, as well as fictionalized portrayals of inventors, like </span><em><span style="font-weight: 400;">Jobs </span></em><span style="font-weight: 400;">or </span><em><span style="font-weight: 400;">Oppenheimer</span></em><span style="font-weight: 400;">, or of people believing in a great creation, like </span><em><span style="font-weight: 400;">Tetris </span></em><span style="font-weight: 400;">or </span><em><span style="font-weight: 400;">The Founder.</span></em><span style="font-weight: 400;"> Our innovative spirit has given us great technologies that we employ in every facet of our lives and we&rsquo;re thankful for them.&nbsp;</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400;"> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">Technology is and will continue to be an essential strategy in climate change mitigation and adaptation. However, technology is not the only solution. Climate change is not solely a technological problem so solutions cannot be dependent on technological innovation and implementation. The </span><a href="https://universityofcalifornia.edu/sites/default/files/Bending_the_Curve_F5_spreads.pdf"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Bending the Curve Report </span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">identifies other essential &ldquo;levers&rdquo; to pull in order to meet our goals, including governance, nature-based solutions, and socio-cultural transformations. These other &ldquo;levers&rdquo; can also be more cost-effective than technological solutions. A </span><a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1710465114"><span style="font-weight: 400;">study from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) </span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">of the United States of America estimates that nature-based solutions make up &ldquo;over one-third of the cost-effective climate mitigation needed between now and 2030 to stabilize warming to below 2 &deg;C&rdquo;. Non-technological mitigation and adaptation solutions will also be important for lower-income communities, who are typically the last to gain access to technological innovations, if at all.&nbsp;</span></p>
<h2><strong>Hard Truth 3: Addressing climate change requires cultural change</strong></h2>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400;">This Hard Truth is difficult even for some of the most dedicated climate change advocates. As discussed, the over-optimism in technology as a resolution to climate change results not only in an underestimation of policy and nature-based solutions, but of cultural solutions as well. We see this belief in technology get peddled by business leaders whose messaging centers on buying the right products, like an electric car, being a sufficient contribution to the climate crisis. This belief is also advocated by some academics, who state that with enough innovation and adoption in technology, the average U.S. citizen won&rsquo;t need to change their lifestyle or consumption habits; the idea of sustainability without any sacrifice.&nbsp;</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Several years ago I worked with a group of elementary and middle school students on a climate justice program. One day we were discussing resources and the idea of using resources wisely. I asked my students: &ldquo;If we lived in a perfectly equal world, could we all have mansions with electric cars and all the things we could ever want?&rdquo; Their immediate response was yes, that reality is possible. I had to explain to them that there are simply not enough resources on this planet for everyone to have their car, to have the newest clothes, to have it all. That idealized life, having all the material goods you could want, is not feasible and is not accessible to all, so we need to reevaluate what the ideal life truly is.&nbsp;</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400;">It&rsquo;s difficult to look in the mirror and recognize that our lifestyle, our culture, relies on the systems of extraction and consumption that cause climate change. This discussion also feels like a Pandora&rsquo;s box as addressing culture is complex, messy, and abstract. It&rsquo;s not as clean-cut as a diagram of projected solar panel sales or a cost-benefit analysis of carbon sequestration. But once we examine the cultural issues, we can imagine a better culture where we strive for deeper personal connection, more collaborative relationships, and stronger communities. We can have sustainability without sacrifice because we are not sacrificing, we are finding a better way to take care of ourselves and our planet.&nbsp;</span></p>
<h2><strong>Moving forward with these Hard Truths</strong></h2>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400;">It&rsquo;s important to note that when reflecting on these Hard Truths for yourself or when engaging with others on these realities of climate change, you end the conversation with an action that can be taken. While exploring and reaching acceptance of these Hard Truths is the essential first step, it is only that, a first step. Looking at the reality of climate change can lead to a variety of emotions from anxiety to existentialism and these emotions cannot be turned into hope or optimism when left without action. We don&rsquo;t need the buy-in from climate dismissers to do good work, but we do need to engage that group of &ldquo;cautious&rdquo;, &ldquo;concerned&rdquo;, or &ldquo;alarmed&rdquo; citizens and create a group that is both alarmed by these Hard Truths and empowered to take action.</span></p>
<div class="css-16rcf8n">
<div>
<div class="css-16rcf8n">
<div>
<div class="css-16rcf8n">
<div>
<div class="css-16rcf8n">
<p><em>Future Thought Leaders is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of rising Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.</em></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Some hard truths of climate change and how facing them can empower us to move forward

The western United States is in a critical moment to determine water management. Much of the western United States (including Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) sources its water from the Colorado River basin.

Last summer the federal government began demanding the seven states come to a new agreement and cut their usage, but other quiet actors have come on the scene to have their hands in water management.

<p>The western United States is in a critical moment to determine water management. Much of the western United States (including Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) sources its water from the Colorado River basin. The river system, including the 1,450-mile-long river, its tributaries, dams, and reservoirs, spans these seven states in addition to thirty tribal reservations, providing water to roughly 40 million residents.[1] The region's residential, industrial, and agricultural activities have put great stress on the water supply. Since 2000 the river basin has been in a drought, culminating in state and federal governments needing to address water access and cutting usage.[2] This political and environmental challenge has made headlines in the U.S. since last summer when the federal government began demanding the seven states come to a new agreement and cut their usage, but other quiet actors have come on the scene to have their hands in water management.</p>
<p>Water Asset Management (WAM) is a New-York based firm that &ldquo;is focused on growth and success as a leading investor in identifying the best companies and assets ensuring and delivering water quality and supply globally&rdquo;.[3] One of the assets it has acquired in recent years is $20 million worth of land in western Colorado, neighboring farmers who have expressed cautious optimism as well as outright anxiety about a private organization from outside the community taking hold of lands along the Colorado River Basin.[4] WAM isn&rsquo;t the only firm that has been purchasing water access rights. In 2013 a company owned by Greenstone purchased land in Cibola, Arizona. Cibola is a small agricultural community on the border with California, and in 2019, the company sold the water rights to their land to Queen Creek, a Phoenix suburb about 200 miles away. The La Paz County Board of Supervisors opposed the recommendation of the Arizona Department of Water Resources to transfer the rights.[5] Still, the deal was sent on to the federal government nonetheless. The Department of Water Resources stated that they could only make the recommendation based on the laws and policies, not what they believe to be the most beneficial use of the water.[6] In Washington state, the Crown Columbia Water Resources has been investing millions along the Columbia River system and in Nevada, WAM has been purchasing property in the Humbolt River Basin.[7, 8]</p>
<p>Across these cases, the investment companies state that there is enough water to support urban growth and continued rural agriculture while local residents express concern about the ability to continue their ways of life in the years to come. As climate change increases the frequency and intensity of droughts and heatwaves in this region, water is predicted to become more scarce, and rural residents believe that their taps will be the first to run dry. Rural residents are rightly concerned that these companies prioritize profits over equitable, sustainable solutions, and that water will be pushed to wealthy urban and suburban communities, as evidenced by part of Cibola&rsquo;s water being sold to Queen Creek.</p>
<p>The companies purchasing the water rights assert that they use their expertise to develop and manage water assets, creating more access than the current state-managed infrastructure. However, numerous attempts at water privatization within the U.S. have proven that when private companies take control of this public resource, water and sewage services become more expensive, system maintenance is neglected, and water quality declines.[9, 10] Furthermore, private companies are less transparent, restrict public input, and require heavy governmental oversight to prevent corner-cutting.[11]</p>
<p>Water privatization is not an issue exclusive to the U.S. of course. In England, some have been calling for the renationalization of their water system because of the raw sewage being purposely dumped into the waterways.[12] In Chile, water was privatized under the Pinochet regime, and for regions like the Petorca province, this inequitable system exacerbates the impact of their own megadrought, restricting water access for most households. However, with the new constitution being drawn up, there&rsquo;s optimism to affirm water as a right in the new political era.[13]</p>
<p>To be clear, these companies purchasing land along the Colorado River Basin aren&rsquo;t at the point where they are bidding to take over local water systems, but they&rsquo;re taking advantage of vulnerable water rights systems to take regions piece by piece. We can look at these examples of water privatization in the U.S. and around the world not only as cautionary tales, but also for means of prevention and solutions.</p>
<p>This discussion leaves us with the question: what are some ways that communities can prevent water privatization? Communities can ask their local and state agencies to review their water rights tracking systems in order to increase transparency around water rights ownership. If one&rsquo;s local government is pressed to cut spending and is inching towards privatization, show up to meetings and show how detrimental it can be for the community and campaign for alternative solutions, including public-public partnerships. Citizens can also pursue Water Rights and Local Self-Government Ordinances, which are &ldquo;rights-based laws [that] prohibit corporate water withdrawals, remove the rights of water corporations when they come into conflict with community rights, and assert the right of the community and its residents to local self-governance&rdquo; according to Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF).[14] Of course, wherever one is, a great deal can be impacted at the local level through knowing the issue, organizing for change, and even asking for help. There are numerous organizations worldwide that focus on humanity&rsquo;s right to access clean water, so no one has to push for change alone.</p>
<h3>References</h3>
<h5>[1] Food and Water Watch. &ldquo;Has Water Privatization Gone Too Far in New Jersey?&rdquo;, Jun 2010, https://www.inthepublicinterest.org/wp-content/uploads/FWW_PrivatizationInNewJersey.pdf</h5>
<h5>[2] Communications and Publishing. &ldquo;A Century of Watching the Colorado River: A streamage at Lee&rsquo;s Ferry Turns 100 years old&rdquo;. USGS, 22 Sep. 2021, https://www.usgs.gov/news/featured-story/century-watching-colorado-river</h5>
<h5>[3] "Water Asset Management - Home". Waterinv.Com, 2023, https://www.waterinv.com/home.</h5>
<h5>[4] Tracy, Ben, Andy Bast, and Chris Spinder. "New York Investors Snapping Up Colorado River Water Rights, Betting Big On An Increasingly Scarce Resource". Cbsnews.Com, 2023, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-investors-snapping-up-colorado-river-water-rights-betting-big-on-an-increasingly-scarce-resource/.</h5>
<h5>[5] Gutekunst, John. &ldquo;Supervisors&rsquo; approve resolution opposing Cibola water transfer&rdquo;. Parker Pioneer. 29 Sep 2020. https://www.parkerpioneer.net/news/article_40a9b530-029b-11eb-9cf9-af5c0d2d9fe4.html</h5>
<h5>[6] James, Ian. &ldquo;Tensions rise over company's plan to sell Colorado River water in Arizona&rdquo;. Azcentral. 30 Jan 2021, https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-environment/2021/01/30/plan-to-sell-colorado-river-water-in-arizona-sparks-tensions/4295089001/.</h5>
<h5>[7] Bush, Evans. &ldquo;Wall Street spends millions to buy up Washington state water&rdquo;. The Seattle Times. 29 Nov 2019. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/wall-street-spends-millions-to-buy-up-washington-state-water/</h5>
<h5>[8] Rothburg, Daniel. "In Nevada, Investors Eye Underground Water Storage As A Path To Profits".The Nevada Independent, Jun 2 2020, http://kuncnews.org/cashflows/2020/06/02/in-nevada-investors-eye-underground-water-storage-as-a-path-to-profits/.</h5>
<h5>[9] The Thurgood Marshall Institute at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc, &ldquo;Water/Color: A Study of Race &amp; The Water Affordability Crisis in America&rsquo;s Cities&rdquo;, 2019, https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/Water_Report_FULL_5_31_19_FINAL_OPT.pdf.</h5>
<h5>[10] "Water Privatization - Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund". CELDF, 2023, https://celdf.org/water-privatization/.</h5>
<h5>[11] "Water Privatization: Facts And Figures". Food &amp; Water Watch, 11 Aug 2022, https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/2015/08/02/water-privatization-facts-and-figures/.</h5>
<h5>[12] Derico, Ben, and Jocelyn Tabancay Duffyl. "In Chile, Even Water Is Privatized. The New Constitution Would Change That.". The Intercept, 2023, https://theintercept.com/2022/08/12/chile-drought-water-constitution/.</h5>
<h5>[13] Reclamation, Bureau. "Colorado River Basin | Bureau Of Reclamation". Usbr.Gov, 2023, https://usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/.</h5>
<h5>[14] Kendal, Amanda. "English Water Industry Needs Renationalising, Says UNISON | Article, News | News | UNISON National". UNISON National, 2021, https://www.unison.org.uk/news/article/2021/10/english-water-industry-needs-renationalising-says-unison/.</h5>
<p><em>Future Thought Leaders is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of rising Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.</em></p>
<h6>Photo by <a href="https://unsplash.com/@leslie_outofdoors?utm_source=unsplash&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=creditCopyText">Leslie Cross</a> on <a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/XCFPOmTlCK0?utm_source=unsplash&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=creditCopyText">Unsplash</a>​</h6>

Private companies are buying water rights and betting on scarcity in US West

One of the most common responses I hear in my daily life and online in the comment sections of articles or videos about reducing your own footprint is “100 companies are responsible for 71% of the world’s emissions, we should be focusing on them!” 

“I think that it’s a ‘both-and’. I don’t think that it can be ‘either-or’ and I think that being so black-and-white about it is really detrimental because we do ultimately live in a capitalist economy and if you can’t show that there’s a demand for something, then they’re never going to supply it.”

<p><em>An old man had a habit of early morning walks on the beach. One day, after a storm, he saw a figure in the distance moving, seemingly dancing. As he came closer he saw that it was a child and they weren’t dancing, but were reaching down to the sand, picking up a starfish, and very gently throwing them into the ocean.</em></p>
<p><em>“Child,” he asked, “Why are you throwing starfish into the ocean?”</em></p>
<p><em>“The sun is up, and the tide is going out, and if I do not throw them in they will die.”</em></p>
<p><em>“But do you not realize that there are miles and miles of beach and starfish all along it? You cannot possibly make a difference.”</em></p>
<p><em>The child listened politely, paused, and then bent down, picked up another starfish, and threw it into the sea, past the breaking waves, saying, “It made a difference for that one.”</em></p>
<p><em>The old man looked at the child inquisitively and thought about what they had done. Inspired, he joined them in throwing starfish back into the sea. Soon others joined, and all the starfish were saved</em>[i]<em>.</em></p>
<p>This story, originally published in 1969 by Loren Eiseley, was retold to me several years ago in my environmental history class. We were discussing the role of the individual in the fight against climate change and my professor shared this story as an optimistic perspective on the power one person can have. I don’t remember very much from that lecture, but the story has stuck with me over the years because it spoke to my personal optimism. I genuinely believe that the small decisions we make each day cause ripples in our communities and beyond.</p>
<p>When it comes to sustainability, I know I’m nowhere close to stamping out my carbon footprint, but I’ve definitely reduced my consumption in recent years. I’ve made lots of little changes that work for me and my lifestyle, like buying used as often as I can or investing in reusable items over disposable ones. These changes help me feel that I’m not only talking about living in a more sustainable world, but I’m taking action every day to live more sustainability. I can also see the impact that my approach has made beyond enhancing my sense of purpose. Not everyone I’ve come across has understood my desire for individual changes, but at the same time, many people have responded positively. By me sharing the changes I’ve made, I’ve heard people talk about stopping buying plastic water bottles and purchasing a filter, grabbing a reusable container instead of a disposable zip bag, or ditching disposable blades and investing in a safety razor. I know that may sound like small changes, but to me, they demonstrate that people are starting to pause and ask “do I need this, or is there a better alternative?”, and in my experience, the motivation to seek those better alternatives continues to grow.</p>
<p>At the same time, I certainly hear the doubts about how much of an impact one person can make. One of the most common responses I hear in my daily life and online in the comment sections of articles or videos about reducing your own footprint is “100 companies are responsible for 71% of the world’s emissions, we should be focusing on them!”[ii] People also point out that individual responsibility is a concept peddled by oil companies to shove the blame onto consumers. In 2019 BP even tweeted a link to a carbon calculator that they created, encouraging people to share how they plan to reduce their footprint[iii]. Essentially, the argument against taking these individual actions is that they are too small and divert our attention from the truly responsible parties.</p>
<p>I think that my sentiment towards this response to individual action has been summed up by Jonathan Van Ness in an episode of his podcast <em>Getting Curious</em>: “I think that it’s a ‘both-and’<em>. </em>I don’t think that it can be ‘either-or’ and I think that being so black-and-white about it is really detrimental because we do ultimately live in a capitalist economy and if you can’t show that there’s a demand for something, then they’re never going to supply it.”[iv] Van Ness argues that we as a society concerned with climate change don’t have to and shouldn’t choose between taking individual action and creating widespread, systemic change. Realistically, given our current global economic systems, a very effective way to create short-term change is with our consumerism because companies will respond to our spending. We’re already seeing this approach in action with Generation Z.</p>
<p>Generation Z (people born between 1997-2012) is gaining more attention as it enters adulthood and is emerging as a key market for companies. It is known to be more conscious and savvy in consumer habits than previous generations and more likely to prioritize sustainability over brand names[v][vi]. Notably, it is also quick to call out greenwashing, a practice to make products and brands appear more sustainable than they actually are. There are numerous instances of companies being criticized on public platforms for their greenwashing, for instance, a Tik Tok from 2021 focused on so-called “refills” in Kim Kardashian’s SKKN line gaining over 1.5 million views[vii]. Companies are well aware that they need to make environmental changes in order to remain competitive for this target audience and we can see through pledges to reduce plastic, carbon emissions, and more that steps are being taken.</p>
<p>Again, we do not have to choose between bottom-up and top-down approaches to fighting climate change. In fact, we need to approach it from all angles, including our lifestyles. By being the change we want to see in the world, by making choices each day for ourselves and for the planet, and even by picking up a few starfish, we can shift the culture around us to enable society-wide change.</p>
<h3>References</h3>
<h5>[i] Adapted from Eiseley, Loren C. <em>The unexpected universe</em>. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1969.</h5>
<h5>[ii] &quot;Just 100 Companies Responsible For 71% Of Global Emissions, Study Says&quot;. The Guardian, 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change.</h5>
<h5>[iii] @bp_plc. “The first step to reducing your emissions is to know where you stand. Find out your #carbonfootprint with our new calculator &amp; share your pledge today!” <em>Twitter.</em> Oct 22, 2019, 7:08 AM. https://twitter.com/bp_plc/status/1186645440621531136</h5>
<h5>[iv] Van Ness, Jonathan, host. “If Faith Moves Mountains, Can It Also Move Climate Action? With Dekila Chungyalpa. <em>Getting Curious with Jonathan Van Ness, </em>Earwolf<em>. </em>20 Jul 2022. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/getting-curious-with-jonathan-van-ness/id1068563276?i=1000570564347</h5>
<h5>[v]  &quot;The State Of Consumer Spending: Gen Z Shoppers Demand Sustainable Retail&quot;. First Insight. 2021, https://www.firstinsight.com/white-papers-posts/gen-z-shoppers-demand-sustainability. </h5>
<h5>[vi] Wood, Johnny. “Gen Z Cares about Sustainability More than Anyone Else – and Is Starting to Make Others Feel the Same Way.” <em>World Economic Forum</em>, 18 Mar. 2022, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/03/generation-z-sustainability-lifestyle-buying-decisions/.</h5>
<h5>[vii] ​​asocialantics, 17 Jun 2021. https://www.tiktok.com/@asocialantics/video/7110294466249886981?q=greenwashing&amp;t=1675895197325</h5>
<p></p>
<p><em>Future Thought Leaders is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of rising Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.</em></p>
<h6><br/>Photo by <a href="https://unsplash.com/@peterlaster?utm_source=unsplash&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=creditCopyText">Pedro Lastra</a> on <a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/br-Xdb9KE0Q?utm_source=unsplash&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=creditCopyText">Unsplash</a>​ </h6>


Christine Wenzel

Christine Wenzel

Some hard truths of climate change and how facing them can empower us to move forward

Recent publications

Readers also like

Want to know more about illuminem Voices?