Search

The countries most vulnerable to climate change eked out a historic deal at COP27 in Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt, as wealthier nations finally agreed to pay into a so-called “loss and damage” fund that will provide payments to poor nations for losses and damages associated with disasters related to climate change.

Vulnerable nations are often the smallest-emitting countries, and for years they have been petitioning historically wealthy, high-emitting countries to help pay for natural disasters linked to climate change. Leading up to COP27, leaders from developing countries promised that the annual climate conference would not end with a final agreement unless their demands for loss and damage payments were met, and they emerged from the negotiations victorious. However, while negotiators agreed to help fund climate-related restitutions for vulnerable nations, they could not agree on language related to the phasing out of fossil fuels, so progress on global carbon emissions reductions remains stagnated.

Funding for loss and damage — and climate change adaptation

As the largest historical emitter of greenhouse gasses, the United States opposed loss and damage funding, because it feared that a commitment to funding climate damage mitigation in vulnerable nations could be construed as an admission of liability. However, as negotiations ran overtime, countries opposed to loss and damage funding, primarily the U.S. and European Union member nations, capitulated. The fund is likely years away from being operational, as negotiators have yet to determine who will oversee the funds and how they will be dispersed. 

Governments also made significant advancements in adaptation funding negotiations. Adaptation planning helps vulnerable countries become more resilient to climate change, and countries pledged over $230 million to the United Nations Adaptation Fund while at COP27. However, the U.N. estimates that it will take $4 billion to $6 billion to transition to low-carbon economies and adapt to a warming climate, and some participants expressed concern that developed countries have never met previously made financial commitments to fund climate transitions and adaptation measures in poor countries. 

COP27’s omission of emissions 

Unfortunately, approving loss and damage funding came at the cost of updating emissions reductions targets. Language about phasing out the use of fossil fuels was rejected by oil-rich nations, and the agreement lacked an acknowledgment that global emissions must peak before 2025 to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. 

At the close of the conference, U.N. secretary general Antonio Gutteres expressed his disappointment in the outcome and said, “We need to drastically reduce emissions now – and this is an issue this COP did not address. A fund for loss and damage is essential – but it’s not an answer if the climate crisis washes a small island state off the map – or turns an entire African country to desert. The world still needs a giant leap on climate ambition. The red line we must not cross is the line that takes our planet over the 1.5 degree temperature limit. To have any hope of keeping to 1.5, we need to massively invest in renewables and end our addiction to fossil fuels.”

Current climate pledges and targets place the world on track to hit 2.5 degrees Celsius of warming by the end of the century. Prior to COP27, the 193 nations that signed the Paris Agreement were required to update their current climate targets, known as Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs, to keep emissions in line with a 1.5 degree Celsius warming limit. However, only 29 countries did so. 

Where do we go from here? 

While loss and damage funding is an enormous climate victory and an important milestone in the global fight against climate change, the omission of language surrounding the phasing out of fossil fuels and the need for drastic reductions in emissions is an embarrassment for COP27. Organizers dubbed COP27 “Implementation COP,” but in reality, as countries ignored their commitments to update their NDCs and curb emissions, and lead negotiators refused to address fossil fuels as the main source of greenhouse gas emissions, there was little implemented that will slow humanity’s race toward catastrophic climate outcomes.

Image credit: Melissa Askew via Unsplash

Climate-related disasters and natural hazards push 26 million people into poverty each year, according to the World Bank. The plight of these vulnerable communities worsens without funding, technical skills and access to reliable sources of energy and electricity so citizens have the tools necessary to take on climate change.

In 2020, U.S. environmental nonprofits received only 2 percent of all charitable dollars, as discussed earlier this year by Michael Thomas of Quartz. But funding is only a small part of the equation. To accomplish long-term change, equipping these organizations with the tools and expertise necessary to drive societal outcomes is even more important. There is a huge need for these resources, and therefore, organizations must step up to help make an impact and effectively address climate change. 

A formula for taking on climate change

The power of science, technology and innovation can help communities most exposed to environmental hazards become more resilient in responding to climate change. 

While digital transformation is an important component of success for environmental organizations, research from Omdia indicates that up to 70 percent of existing digital transformation projects fail to meet their objectives. 

When it comes to communities and organizations working to respond to climate change, failure is not an option. Helping to ensure these groups can succeed is one of the most impactful ways organizations can help tackle these pressing challenges. 

Collaboration for transformation

In order to maximize success, addressing these issues must be a collaborative effort. We need to bring together the private sector, non-profits, governmental entities and individual employees.

For example, the IBM Sustainability Accelerator is the company’s initiative to help global organizations and locally led environmental efforts build needed digital capacities and meet their goals. The accelerator leverages IBM technologies, such as hybrid cloud and artificial intelligence, and an ecosystem of experts to enhance and scale nonprofit and government organization interventions. 

Each year, the sustainability accelerator selects new projects and organizations to help communities tackle some of the biggest sustainability issues worldwide. IBM recently announced five new members of the program, all focused on accelerating clean energy projects. It supports the transition to help the world achieve SDG 7, with a focus on inclusive solutions to bring clean energy to the most vulnerable communities. The selected organizations for the clean energy cohort are United Nations Development Programme, Sustainable Energy for All, Net Zero Atlantic, Miyakojima City Government and Environment Without Borders Foundation. 

Through IBM’s work, the company developed a framework that could be used as a model for other organizations that would like to move forward on matching business capabilities with societal and environmental needs. The steps include:

Identify and align. Determine your organization’s capabilities, offerings, and resources. Then, hone in on sectors or activities that map well to those competencies. Understanding where you can make a differentiated impact is key. For example, IBM’s technology capabilities and subject matter experts allow it to provide tech tools and expertise to make a unique impact, specifically for vulnerable populations (where the need is the greatest). 

Define smart goals. Creating goals that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound will provide a framework for your organization to track progress and remain accountable to its commitments.

Activate locally. Think globally, but scale and activate locally. Each community or region is unique, so it’s important to engage with local groups and individuals who can help you understand the nuances of the culture. Leverage your local employees and partners to interact with local organizations and volunteers, ensure projects are delivered with local resources, in local languages, and through local team members.

Ignite the passion. Today, employees hold their employers accountable for supporting issues they care about, and corporate responsibility initiatives are now an important talent acquisition and retention tool. So, tap into the passion and interests of your people. The causes you support as an organization should also allow employees to use their professional experience for good. 

Build connections. Collaboration is key to a successful endeavor in support of local environmental organizations. Find members of your network with similar interests and complementary capabilities that can expand or round out your projects. Call on partners, investors, universities, academic and governmental organizations that may have similar social and environmental goals.

Let’s create powerful change together

There’s real power in leveraging your organization’s expertise to help nonprofits address environmental challenges. Collaborating with other entities that have complementary capabilities and well-aligned goals creates the kind of synergy we need to make a lasting difference. IBM looks forward to expanding the Sustainability Accelerator and multiplying its impact with additional partners. The only way we can all solve these giant challenges is by working together.

Interested in having your voice heard on 3p? Contact us at editorial@3BLMedia.com and pitch your idea for a guest article to us.

Image credit: Pexels
 

Sustainability is everywhere – and now it is coming for packaging. Studies show that more than 60 percent of consumers in 2021 went out of their way to purchase products in environmentally-friendly packaging. And if consumer demand isn't enough to motivate brands to adopt sustainable packaging, then government regulations – already in force or being strongly considered in countries all over the world – will push companies to change their ways.

Plastic packaging, which nearly every sector and industry relies on to wrap, ship and protect their goods, accounts for more than a quarter of all plastic created annually – and more than 85 percent of that is thrown away. As consumers — and governments — become more aware of these facts, the pressure on brands to adopt sustainable packaging policies will increase significantly. They will also need to understand the different options, especially the differences between recyclable and compostable materials, in order to choose the most effective packaging. 

“Sustainability in packaging” means different things to different people. To many, including those in the plastics industry, it means recycling; taking packaging that was already used once and reusing it, possibly numerous times. The idea of plastic recycling has, of course, been greatly advanced by various industries as the ultimate sustainable solution. But it turns out that plastic recycling is far less efficient than claimed; according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, only 9 percent of plastics are recycled, with the rest either dumped in landfills or the oceans — or incinerated. 

Thin flexible plastic, often used to wrap everything from clothing to food for shipping to customers, is especially difficult to recycle, and is often not actually recycled at all.

Recycling plastic, including flexible plastic, is also not economical in most use cases. Recycled plastic often costs more than new plastic because collecting, sorting, transporting, and reprocessing plastic waste is exorbitantly expensive. Furthermore, large amounts of plastic are sent to the dump because the items are too dirty to be recycled, or too mixed up with other types of waste. Sorting or cleaning it is often impossible and almost always not worthwhile economically.  As the petrochemical industry is rapidly expanding, the cost of new plastic will only get lower.

A better alternative would be the adoption of compostable packaging, which solves some of the challenges posed by recycling, and complies both with consumer and government demands for sustainable packaging. Nowadays, there is a growing awareness among consumers and governments that when it comes to sustainability, plastic recycling just won't do. That’s why brands have been considering compostable packaging – where the materials used mostly break down in the environment, leaving a footprint that is far smaller than that left by conventional plastic and even enriches the earth by producing an end-product of agricultural compost that helps soil retain water, capture more carbon and produce better crop yields.

Around the world, brands are starting to adopt compostable packaging, often to replace traditional flexible plastic. Among those who have made the switch is apparel and accessory company Gabriela Hearst. For that brand, which makes products in limited numbers and from sustainably-sourced materials, compostable packaging was a natural next step and part of a larger commitment to protecting the environment. Sustainable textile company Pangaia has also recently adopted compostable packaging.

Consumers have made it clear that they want sustainability in packaging – and brands are responding, with many implementing recycling programs for the plastic they use. But as consumers become more aware of the challenges with recycling, they will be seeking better end-of-life solutions. Companies that adopt those better methods will be better able to connect with consumers – developing for themselves a reputation as a company that truly cares about the environment.

Interested in having your voice heard on 3p? Contact us at editorial@3BLMedia.com and pitch your idea for a guest article to us.

Image credit: Wander Fleur via Unsplash
 

Earlier this month, more than 100 Starbucks stores were met by picket lines on this year’s Red Cup Day — the one day per year that the chain’s highly sought-after holiday collector’s cups are available. Striking workers set out to make a point about their employer’s practice of chronically understaffing retail locations by staging their single-day walkout on one of the brand’s highest-traffic days. The strike was also meant to draw attention to the company’s “scorched earth” response to unionizing efforts. Such efforts could be a sign that organized labor is headed for a comeback in the U.S. as employees from food service and retail industries with historically low unionization rates have attempted to bring collective bargaining power to their workplaces over the last few years — many of them successfully.

The Red Cup Day strikes were just the latest protest from food service employees frustrated with their working conditions. Workers at a Chipotle Mexican Grill in Michigan are among those who have done so, with more of the chain’s restaurants looking to follow the course. Fast food services like Starbucks and Chipotle, or fast casual as the chain dubs itself, have long been thought of as almost impossible to effectively unionize. But a Burgerville in Portland, Oregon proved that it could be done — forming the first fast-food union in 2018. The following year Little Big Burger, a Portland based chain, formed the Little Big Union.

It isn’t just better pay and benefits that are motivating fast food and other food service employees to finally unionize. Chipotle workers have been spurred into the movement in large part by a need for better health and safety measures in their restaurants — for themselves as well as their customers. Likewise, workers at a small locally owned distillery and cocktail bar in Minneapolis, Minnesota – Tattersall Distilling – unionized in the name of not just overtime pay but antiracism training and proper personal protective equipment. Employees at Anchor Brewing in San Francisco, California reportedly organized in part to protect the brewery’s legacy from being lost under new ownership. They’re also fighting to recover falling real wages and better labor conditions.

Working conditions are a big part of the union drive by Starbucks employees, which began almost a year prior in Buffalo, New York. Aaron Cirillo, who protested along with co-workers outside one of the Manhattan shops is quoted in Reuters as saying, "They're working us to the bone because we're so understaffed.”  While the barista reported that he originally did not want to pursue unionization due to the likelihood of retaliation by the coffee retailer he changed his mind after waiting indefinitely for equipment to be repaired and better benefits — “This is a hostile environment and we have to do something about it.”

Red Cup Day generally boasts a substantial increase in sales over previous days the same year and was 87 percent higher in 2021. Customer typically show up early and wait in long lines for the cups until they run out. Because of this it is also a day that employees report being run ragged beyond their usual fast-food hustle. This made Red Cup Day an ideal setting for unionized Starbucks workers to get their point across to customers, who were largely supportive of their efforts. And those customers still got to take home a red cup — but this one came with the Worker’s United logo and a grinch motif to represent Starbucks’ union busting.

Striking stores represent just 1 percent of the coffee chain’s 9,000 venues. Still – with most of those 1 percent forced to close by lack of staff while those left open were operated by management and borrowed crew – the union is hopeful that its actions will have a big effect. “With 100 stores nationwide on strike today, I think it will definitely make an impact,” employee Ash Macomber told Vox from the picket line outside of the closed Starbucks near Portland Maine where she works. “Not only with profits, but to show the company that we are stronger together, and once we collectively take action, then maybe change can really be made.”

Image credit: Starbucks

We’re close to wrapping up our November coverage, and we’ll be pausing our business and sustainability news during the long Thanksgiving weekend, resuming again on Monday, November 28.

In the meantime, we do have a few things to be thankful for as the long holiday weekend approaches. So, until we return next week, here’s where we have been seeing some hope.

Finally, a climate fund for developing countries

Back in 2009, poor countries were promised funds at the COP15 negotiations in Copenhagen for climate adaptation and mitigation. Such a commitment is only fair, as wealthy countries have been spewing emissions while developing nations have had to cope with the fallout. 

Though details are still murky, during the waning hours of the COP27 climate talks in Egypt, negotiators found agreement on launching a loss and damage fund that would provide financial aid for the world’s poorer nations that are now suffering the most adverse effects of climate change. This development is one of the larger accomplishments at this year’s global climate negotiations, a saga that has generated its share of criticism — and deservedly so.

Indigenous voices are finally being heard

Indigenous communities have long been shunned at the global climate conferences, a decision that is as racist as it is shortsighted, as these communities offer ideas on how we can all become better stewards of the earth. “Although the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has become a big supporter of land tenure for Indigenous and local communities — acknowledging the effect that it has on sustainable practices — little has been done to bring about actual change,” TriplePundit’s Riya Anne Polcastro wrote earlier this month.

Well, there is a slow but steady shift going on. More women’s advocacy groups, for example, are speaking out loudly in support of Indigenous people’s rights and supporting these communities’ efforts at securing their fair share of climate financing. A new standard for ensuring land and resource rights for Indigenous communities also emerged during COP27.

A secondhand idea we like for the Sunday after Thanksgiving

The apparel industry has been a huge driver of environmental degradation over the past several decades. This time of year is a stark reminder of how commercialism is pushing the planet toward a collision course with climate change: Just note the enduring popularity of Black Friday and Cyber Monday. True, Small Business Saturday is a compelling alternative. Giving Tuesday is also worth noting, though it’s become less about nonprofits and more about the privately-owned companies that profit from people’s generosity by skimming off a portion of those funds.

But what about Secondhand Sunday? The popular online marketplace Poshmark has an answer: a day during the long U.S. Thanksgiving weekend that is dedicated to “supporting secondhand sellers, circular fashion and the planet.” Poshmark is calling on people to buy used instead of new this coming Sunday, November 27, and is also asking them to share their best finds on social media with the hashtag #SecondhandSunday.

With those three trends trending to a more positive direction, we’re off for the long holiday weekend. Do you have a trend you think has defined 2022? You can always shout out on Twitter. In the meantime, we wish you a most meaningful holiday with your friends, family and loved ones.

Image credit: Joseph Gonzalez via Unsplash
 

With COP27 now in the rearview mirror, we can point to a commitment to global decarbonization as one of the outcomes resulting from the recent global climate conference. Whether any commitments out of Egypt actually pan out is debatable — especially considering the continued finger-wagging and arguing between the world’s largest polluting countries that are still ongoing days after COP27 ended.

Government is taking the lead on decarbonization, but business needs to step up

Even before COP27 started, recent legislation enacted across the globe shows promise for driving decarbonization. Take, for example, the potential impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act in the U.S. Through the Inflation Reduction Act, the U.S. will be investing billions of dollars in supporting business and industry that demonstrate reporting of and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

And, if enacted, the Federal Supplier Climate Risks and Resilience Rule that President Biden proposed at COP27 would require major contractors to publicly disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risks and set science-based emissions reduction targets.

Recent policy shifts such as Japan’s Green Transformation (GX) program and the European Union’s climate crisis package also could pave the way for more deployment of renewables. China, India and South Korea have also launched policies that will boost spending on renewables and other cleaner forms of energy this decade as well.

In addition, a coalition of 19 countries including the U.S. have formed the The Net-Zero Government Initiative at COP27 in order to harness the power of government to increase the demand for business and industry to embrace decarbonization. These governments have committed to achieve net-zero government emissions by 2050, with strategies and interim targets to be published before next year’s COP28.

We also can’t dismiss local efforts to tackle decarbonization. Take a look at the Under2 Coalition, which brings together over 270 state, provincial, regional and local governments representing 1.75 billion people and 50 percent of the global economy. Members commit to keep global temperature rise well below 2°C with efforts to only reach 1.5°C, with over 40 states and regions committing to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 or earlier.  

Never dismiss the power of partnerships

But it isn’t enough for governments to take action and wait for the private sector to do its part to push forward on decarbonization. To that end, partnerships can often drive climate action efforts further and faster. These four in particular standout:

The Clean Energy Ministerial Industrial Deep Decarbonisation Initiative (IDDI) is a global coalition of public and private organizations who are working to stimulate demand for low carbon industrial materials. Within the next three years IDDI expects to have encouraged a minimum of ten governments to make public procurement commitments for low-carbon steel and cement by 2025. 

The We Mean Business Coalition is a global nonprofit coalition of businesses and business-focused nonprofits with a goal of halving emissions by 2030 and accelerating an inclusive transition to a global net-zero economy by 2050 through creating a comprehensive roadmap for business to follow.

First Movers Coalition is a global initiative to jump-start the decarbonization of the 7 industrial sectors that currently account for 30 percent of global emissions. Members commit to purchasing a proportion of the industrial materials and long-distance transportation they need from suppliers using near-zero or zero-carbon solutions, despite the premium cost. 

The Climate Group is a non-profit organization that works with businesses and government leaders around the world to address climate change with a goal of achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. This includes programs such as Concrete Zero and Steel Zero, pooling its members' collective purchasing power and influence to shift global markets, investment and policies towards the sustainable production and sourcing of these materials. 

How partnerships can generate positive climate action impact

First Movers Coalition member companies work with their suppliers to help them achieve the required greenhouse gas reduction by 2030. Energy companies such as Iberdola in Spain and Ørsted in Denmark have adopted similar approaches to work with their suppliers. 

This strategy increases the impact of decarbonization efforts by incorporating all levels of the supply chain in the process — and various representatives from these companies made such points during the COP27 events in Egypt.

Ørsted, for example, launched a supply chain decarbonization program in 2020. Rasmus Nikolaj Due Skov, Senior Director, Head of Global Engagement & Bid Solutions, reported during a talk in Egypt that at the time few of their major suppliers were reporting carbon emissions, and none had set science-based targets. By the end of 2021, 97 percent were reporting on emissions and 36 percent had set science based targets.

Further, as Tareq Emtairah, Director of Sustainable Energy and Decarbonization Division with IDDI explained, “demand signals have always been a key driver of innovation so if you want to get industry and private sector to deliver cutting edge innovations you just have to ask for it, demand it, and they will do it.”

We’ll need more of these partnerships, and an expansion of current ones, if the world can truly achieve decarbonization. There is no shortage of critics, such as Bill McGuire, Professor Emeritus of Geophysical & Climate Hazards at University College London. Writing for the Guardian, McGuire summed up COP 27 shortcomings, and the climate conferences before it: “It really does beggar belief, that in the course of 27 COPS, there has never been a formal agreement to reduce the world’s fossil fuel use. Not only has the elephant been in the room all this time, but over the last quarter of a century it has taken on gargantuan proportions — and still its presence goes unheeded.”

This article was written with Leon Kaye.

Image credit: Rudy and Peter Skitterians via Pixabay

As with every global climate conference across the past three decades, expectations were high at COP27 in Egypt for countries to work with renewed fervor in the collective fight against climate change. The world was watching to see if we would finally make significant progress in two critical areas: phasing out fossil fuels from the global economy to mitigate harmful carbon dioxide emissions, as well as financing adaptation and recovery from loss and damage in the regions most vulnerable to climate change impacts. As a millennial who has now attended five U.N. climate conferences (COPs) across the past seven years, I witness the same story every time:

• Fossil fuel lobbyists proposing false solutions, and delegates from developed countries touting themselves as leaders of addressing the climate crisis when they are the biggest current and historical polluters. 
• A blatant disregard of grassroots voices from the Global South bearing the brunt of climate impacts which echo outside the negotiation halls during their daily actions. 
• Negotiators working arduously day and night rewriting policy documents that would simultaneously satisfy all country, political and economic agendas while effectively and equitably addressing climate change. 

One of the other observations I made — now the topic of my Ph.D. dissertation — is the growing communication divide between climate scientists and policymakers in these spaces. For the 10 days I attended COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh, I spent most of my time at the pavilion hosted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), located on the other side of the venue from the negotiation rooms. 

While a few negotiations in the first week invited these experts to share with delegates their findings from the IPCC’s sixth assessment report on climate change, most of their insights were heard in their small pavilion and the occasional side events in front of an audience of mostly observer organizations. 

The IPCC sessions provided crucial information from the Working Group II and Working Group III reports on the vulnerability to climate change and evidence-based options for climate adaptation and mitigation by a range of diverse, interdisciplinary scientists traveling from all corners of the world to share their insights. 

However, their sessions were frequently overshadowed by the large, flashy neighboring pavilions, some hosted by corporations and fossil fuel-rich countries. Technical difficulties and the tumultuous surroundings of the expansive “world climate fair” made it difficult to hear the IPCC scientists present the best available evidence on the multifaceted challenge we face and potential pathways our society can embark on, such as climate resilient development. The irony is that the COP is founded on these scientific findings and yet politicians and policymakers, particularly from developed countries, seemed not to be heeding their calls for more urgent action. 

I have seen a great deal of appreciation but limited attention and use of the findings from the IPCC reports by policymakers at the COPs. One potential solution is a redesign of the panel to make it more effective in meeting its mandate of directly informing policy. What could be helpful is going beyond assessments to have deeper interactions and a better two-way flow of information between policymakers and scientists, with science not sidelined away from policymakers. 

As I envision it, the IPCC would not only be communicating the science to the policy arena, but policymakers would also share their policy needs with the scientists. In the best-case scenario, we’d see more coherent, evidence-based decisions that are vital for tackling this climate emergency that my generation and following generations will inherit.

As a COP veteran, I see the difficulty of navigating these multi-stakeholder, inter-governmental processes where everyone has their own agenda and ideas on the best way to address climate change. It is frustrating to realize how long it has been since the Paris Agreement came into force and how far we still are from limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. 

The minimal progress made by a majority of the countries to achieve their nationally determined contributions is disheartening. As countries continue to disagree, holding climate talks hostage, many are on the verge of giving up on this process. 

It is reasonable to ask: Is this really the best way to address the complex problem of climate change? No one has a concrete answer. The one thing we can agree on is that, for now, this is the best we have. To create and collectively agree on an alternative mechanism that would be more effective and inclusive than the UNFCCC would take time that we unfortunately do not have. 

So, time and again, we all eventually return to this space to make countries accountable for their inaction on climate adaptation and mitigation. And, with the limited power that observers have, we try to enhance the equity and evidence base of COP decisions. 

I still hold out on hope that we’ll one day see results from the relentless efforts of climate justice organizations that have attended COPs since the very beginning. They played a huge role in bringing adaptation finance and loss and damage to the top of the agenda at COP27, so that we prioritize the most vulnerable groups in this climate crisis. The landmark decision of COP27 in establishing a funding facility for loss and damage is largely thanks to them pressuring negotiators since day one of international climate negotiations. 

I know I can’t speak for my whole generation, but my hunch is that most millennials are aware of the daunting challenge of climate change and prepared to carry on the good fight, taking a different approach than the generations before us who caused this mess. We will do our best to prioritize people over profit, kick the big polluters proposing false solutions out of these negotiations, facilitate a just transition, bridge the silos and enhance cooperation across sectors, halt ecocide and shift finance toward climate adaptation and recovery from loss and damage in vulnerable developing countries, and make this planet habitable for animals and humans alike. It may be far-fetched, and it certainly won’t be easy. But it’s better to hold onto optimism than give in to despair and climate anxiety. After all, what is the alternative? Ours is a future worth fighting for.

Image credit: UNFCCC via Flickr

Despite seismic government pledges to finance climate action in support of Indigenous, Afro-descendant and local community women and girls’ organizations, an overwhelming portion of the money has failed to reach these intended groups. Women in Global South Alliance for Tenure and Climate, a new advocacy coalition of 41 grassroots women’s organizations from Africa, Asia and Latin America, hopes to reverse these funding deficiencies. 

The coalition launched at COP27, the U.N.’s climate summit held this year in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. The alliance seeks to create an equitable shift in the climate finance landscape to ensure that the local women on the frontlines of climate action and biodiversity conservation are receiving direct, flexible and long-term funding to support their communities. 

Climate financing isn't reaching intended organizations

Historically, Indigenous peoples have been slow to receive their share of money earmarked for climate protection projects within their communities. A new study from two nonprofits focused on rainforest conservation — Rights and Resources Initiative and Rainforest Foundation Norway — found that just 17 percent of global climate funding meant for local, Indigenous communities is led by those populations. 

The money is instead funneled through larger organizations who have the bandwidth and resources to jump over lengthy administrative hurdles introduced by donors and governments. Indigenous peoples and local community organizations receiving a fraction of the direct funding threatens to exclude them from making important decisions that can have an impact on their communities. 

The funding disparity is even starker for women’s Indigenous groups. A 2017 report tracking funding data from 2010-2013 revealed that only 0.7 percent of all human rights funding went to Indigenous women’s organizations. Omaira Bolaños, director of the Latin America and Gender Justice Programs at Rights and Resources Initiative, says the alliance will “rectify this historical gap in access to direct climate finance for women and girls.” 

Will more pledges equal more direct funding for Indigenous women’s groups?

Government and donor pledges for Indigenous rights and gender equality have ticked up in recent years. In 2021, at COP26 held in Glasgow, Scotland, the governments of Canada, the U.K. and U.S. committed more than $7 billion to invest at the intersection of climate action and gender. 

Funders also pledged $1.7 billion to support collective and territorial rights for Indigenous peoples and local communities. Reflecting historical funding patterns, however, reporting from Devex reveals that only 7 percent of the $1.7 billion land tenure and forest guardianship pledge has gone directly to those groups. 

An alliance to change the funding landscape

Despite this discouraging trend of channeling money through intermediaries, the increase in pledges presents a ripe opportunity for the newly formed Women in Global South Alliance for Tenure and Climate to influence the way the funds are ultimately dispersed. In the build up to COP27, the alliance members co-signed a call to action for governments to urgently provide direct funding to the groups who have been historically under-supported and under-funded.

Archana Soreng, a youth climate activist from the Kharia Tribe in India and a member of the U.N. Secretary General’s Youth Advisory Group on Climate Change, says Indigenous, Afro-descendant and local community women and girls should be “leaders of climate action, not victims of climate policies.”

“Climate finance must not leave Indigenous, Afro-descendant, and local community women and girls behind,” Soreng said in a press release. “We are working on a global issue that needs global perspectives which is what the formation of this new women’s alliance is about.”

Image credit: Dulcey Lima via Unsplash

First came Black Friday. Eventually Small Business Saturday, Cyber Monday and Giving Tuesday arrived. But what about the Sunday after Thanksgiving? Online marketplace Poshmark has the answer: Secondhand Sunday, a new holiday dedicated to “supporting secondhand sellers, circular fashion and the planet.” Poshmark is calling on people to buy used instead of new on Nov. 27 and to share their finds on social media with the hashtag #SecondhandSunday. 

While this new holiday has yet to grow into an actual social movement, it is another example of how perceptions of secondhand shopping are continuing to evolve. No longer is “buying used” something only done for oneself. It’s an opportunity to shop sustainably and affordably while buying unique, high-quality gifts for others, too. 

Call it what you will — secondhand shopping, thrifting, upcycling, vintage hunting, and so on — but consumers are buying previously owned clothing, shoes and accessories in record numbers.  And the trend is expected to continue throughout the 2022 holiday retail season. 

Inflation’s influence

According to a September survey conducted by Deloitte, the two most popular reasons people gave for gifting secondhand items this holiday season were “to save money overall” and “to afford something a little nicer." These results are far from surprising, considering the rise in costs of everything from utilities to groceries this year. Many consumers are looking to cut spending any way they can, and buying used is one way to stretch those budgets even further.

The same survey found clothing is the most popular secondhand gift category this holiday season, with more than half of respondents saying they are most likely to buy used attire.  

“Certified pre-owned” fashion

In response to this demand, many traditional fashion retailers are entering the resale market directly. In fact, 48 percent of retail executives in Deloitte’s survey said their companies “planned to sell refurbished/used products this holiday season.”

Websites like Poshmark earn revenue by charging a commission for each transaction individuals make on their online platform. What many fashion brands are doing now, however, is selling previously owned merchandise directly to consumers, just as they would with new products. This process is often referred to as “Resale as a Service” (RaaS). RaaS programs are often likened to “certified pre-owned” programs run by car companies. Both new and used merchandise are sold in the same branded retail setting (in person or online), and customers can be reassured that the used items have passed quality inspections before being resold. 

ThredUp reports that the number of fashion brands with RaaS programs has grown by 300 percent this year compared to 2021. Some of the biggest players entering the field include Tommy Hilfiger, Athleta, PacSun and Vera Bradley. 

As more sustainability-focused (as opposed to fast fashion) brands enter the RaaS space, the hope is that the stigma of “buying used” will dissipate, and consumers will look to resale first when searching for the perfect gift. 

Millennials and Gen Z: Secondhand shopping becomes second nature

For many consumers in their twenties and thirties, secondhand shopping is already part of their routine. PwC reports that 53 percent of millennials will include resale or upcycled items on their holiday shopping lists, compared with 37 percent of shoppers across all ages. (Specific numbers for Gen Z were not available.) 

Millennial and Gen Z shoppers are especially motivated by the “concern for and awareness of the environmental and social effects of the consumption process," Michelle Childs, an associate professor of retail merchandising and management at University of Tennessee, told TriplePundit. “These shoppers tend to think ahead about if their purchases and values align. They consider things like, ‘will this item end up in a landfill after only a handful of wears?’ or ‘was this shirt made in less than favorable conditions?’ They genuinely care about the impact.”  

Another important factor — specifically for Gen Z — when it comes to buying secondhand fashion, whether for themselves or others? Uniqueness. 

“Gen Z-ers have more discretionary income than previous generations do. They are often willing to pay more for secondhand items,” Childs said. “It used to be you only bought used because you couldn’t afford new. Now, it’s so you can be unique. Gen Z consumers participate in trends, but also want those one-of-a-kind finds. Secondhand shopping — especially vintage fashion — combines both of these desires while also helping the planet.” 

Image credit: Hannah Morgan/Unsplash

For years, we’ve been relentless in pondering the key questions about the impact of climate change: Do global citizens fear it? Are the structures we build able to withstand — and mitigate — climate change? And, who must take the lead in creating this infrastructure? 

What do citizens want done about climate change?

We rarely, if ever, get a real sense of what global citizens think about those questions. But, Edelman’s respected 22-year-old Global Trust Barometer, which the giant communications agency now employs to gauge sentiment on special subjects, has found some interesting and insightful answers in securing the pulse of 14,000 respondents worldwide about climate. 

The major takeaways:

Seventy-seven percent worry about climate change leading to drought, rising sea levels and other natural disasters, and 57 percent agree little or no progress has been made to address it. 

Seventy-one percent say we must move faster on climate change issues, and two-thirds say we’ll have to dramatically change our habits to address climate change because institutions alone cannot do it.

Fifty-two percent believe politics drives climate policy, edging out the 48 percent who think science drives policy. 

Fifty-four percent think national governments should take the lead in addressing climate change, followed by state/regional governments and local governments – and then comes business, media and NGOs.

Citizens aren’t seeing leadership on climate change

Yet, while respondents think governments must take the lead, a majority – 54 percent — contend governmental leaders are unwilling to pass tough legislation that would force businesses and individuals to make climate-related changes.

This finding about government action — or inaction — is disturbing when it comes to building the structures required to withstand climate change. Take what we know increasingly about local government regulation regarding green infrastructure. In rural and less-dense areas, the policy options for incorporating green infrastructure include ordinances that preserve or restore pre-construction conditions on development sites, plus ordinances that direct development away from sensitive areas such as wetlands, streams and significant natural resources. 

In cities, however, green infrastructure offers the way to protect and restore natural habitats. Such green infrastructure includes plants and permeable surfaces that infiltrate stormwater into soil, thereby reducing levels of urban runoff to city storm sewers. 

The proverbial carrot-and-stick approach – that combination of reward and punishment to induce desired behavior – proves particularly instructive in local regulations. 

Here’s a “stick” example: A zoning ordinance adopted in January 2018 by Norfolk, Virginia’s city council includes a unique “resilience quotient system” requiring housing developers to reach a certain point total, based on the size or number of units, by including various resilience measures in the project’s design. Stormwater management is one such measure, earning points for installing a green roof, rain gardens or other stormwater infiltration systems; or using pervious paving systems, tree planting or providing a community garden space, among others. 

In Washington, D.C., “the green area ratio” is a zoning regulation for environmental sustainability that sets requirements for landscape elements and site design to help reduce stormwater runoff, improve air quality, and mitigate urban heat. It sets minimum lot coverage standards for landscape and site design features to promote greater livability, ecological function, and climate adaptation in the urban environment. 

As for the “carrot” approach, Philadelphia encourages more stormwater retention and green infrastructure practices by creating subsidies, grants and rebates for both residential and nonresidential projects. The city offers a lower price for qualified nonresidential customers and contractors to design and install stormwater best management practices that reduce stormwater pollution and enhance water quality. 

In New York, a multiagency Green Infrastructure Grant program led by the Environmental Protection Department offers grants for up to $5 million to private property owners in combined sewer areas of the city who promise 20 years of maintenance. Funds are provided for green infrastructure projects that manage the first inch of rainfall, and they include blue roofs, rain gardens, green roofs, porous pavement and rainwater harvesting. 

The EPA offers a handy guide for overcoming barriers to green infrastructure as well as guides for site-scale green infrastructure practices. 

As for the Edelman Trust Barometer on climate, it maintains that institutions leading climate action must show the benefits to individuals “because people recognize the positive impacts of current climate change solutions on a societal level more than on a personal level.” 

That reminded me that in 2006 in Chicago, where I’m based, I worked with the City Council and developers to pass what may have been the first performance-based stormwater management ordinance that drove green roofs, permeable parking lots, tree planting and bioswales on private property. 

Today, my business and my community benefit from this greening’s positive impacts. Perhaps based on them, subsequent city administrations have been able to go further with green stormwater infrastructure in public capital projects, permeable alleys and natural "streetscaping."

This possibility proves instructive in contemplating a conclusion of the Edelman climate report about government’s responsibility: Regulating for green infrastructure, which grows in resilience benefit over time, even as climate change risks also grow, is one helpful opportunity. 

That message for governments is a simple one: Meet the needs of today — and build for tomorrow. 

Image credit: Simon Hurry via Unsplash