Search

The U.S. Postal Service has relaxed its opposition to electric vehicles (EVs) over recent years. The latest breakthrough came last week when the Postal Service finally stopped insisting on custom-built vehicles to replace its ancient fleet of delivery trucks. That means more automakers will have a chance to participate in the agency’s fleet electrification efforts — and Ford Motor Co. is among the first to benefit.

The Postal Service lags on fleet electrification

The Postal Service announced a major new fleet modernization plan a little over two years ago, but it left little room for EVs. Instead, the main thrust of the initiative was to replace the agency’s existing 165,000 delivery trucks as quickly as possible. Designed in the 1980s with a 25-year lifespan in mind, the trucks have become obsolete in terms of safety and driver comfort, as well as fuel efficiency.

The Postal Service introduced its original modernization plan on Feb. 23, 2021, along with a 10-year contract awarded to Oshkosh Defense. The company was tasked with delivering a new fleet of specialized “next-generation delivery vehicles” which the Postal Service described as running either on electricity or gas. 

But critics quickly noticed that the contract stipulated a mere 10 percent of the new vehicles would actually be electric. Howls of protest from electrification advocates ensued.

Postmaster General Louis DeJoy defended the plan, arguing the Postal Service did not have enough money in its budget to pay up-front for EVs. Congress responded by working to fill the funding gap. 

New research has helped to further the case by demonstrating the benefits of fleet electrification. Electric vehicle advocates — including Ford and other auto industry stakeholders — also pitched in by supporting a new analysis that addresses shortcomings in the research originally cited by the Postal Service.

Hitting the gas on fleet electrification

All of that advocacy work paid off. With $3 billion in new funding from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, the Postal Service was able to focus more attention on fleet electrification in a new plan announced in December of last year.

The new plan still falls significantly short of the 100 percent electrification mark, but it is an improvement. The Postal Service plans to acquire a total of 106,000 delivery vehicles through 2028. Oshkosh will supply at least 60,000 of its custom-designed vehicles to that total — and at least 45,000 of those will be electric.

The Postal Service has also stated that all of its new custom Oshkosh vehicles will be electric after 2026. That timeline won’t require an about-face for Oshkosh. The company has pointed out all along that its custom vehicle designs can accommodate either internal combustion engines (ICE) or battery-electric technology. The delivery trucks are also designed to be retrofitted from an ICE to a battery as needed.

But the Postal Service appears to have reservations about Oshkosh’s ability to ramp up operations quickly enough to satisfy electrification advocates. The new plan also calls for the acquisition of an additional 21,000 EVs from various off-the-shelf manufacturers over the next five years. 

Putting the pieces together on postal fleet EVs

Ford’s hand in the EV movement appears to have paid off, too. On Feb. 28, the Postal Service announced that it had selected Ford’s E-Transit electric van as its first off-the-shelf delivery vehicle. The agency plans to purchase 9,250 E-Transit vans, which will be manufactured at Ford's factory in Kansas City, Missouri.

The agency still needs to complete a supplemental environmental impact statement before the arrangement is finalized, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. If all goes according to plan, the vans will begin arriving in December of this year. 

As part of the effort to improve its EV profile, the Postal Service also engaged three suppliers to deliver a combined total of more than 14,000 charging stations, it announced in February.

What’s all this about “woke” capital?

It remains to be seen if Ford or Oshkosh will suffer any backlash from the “anti-woke” movement among Republican officeholders in more than 20 states. Though the “woke capital” canard claims to protect state pensions from mismanagement, it is simply an attempt to thwart investment in decarbonization technologies and gin up an emotional response that helps drive conservative voters to the polls.

Missouri has emerged as one of those hotspots for the “anti-woke” movement. And Republican Sen. Josh Hawley, who hails from Missouri, has emerged as a leader in the charge against “woke capital."

Another leading “woke capital” warrior in Missouri is State Treasurer Scott Fitzpatrick. Last August, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch business columnist David Nicklaus noted that Fitzpatrick and State Attorney General Eric Schmitt have been advocating against ESG (environmental, social, governance) investments, with a particular focus on the global firm BlackRock.

Nevertheless, Missouri will host a factory owned by an out-of-state company (Ford’s headquarters are in Michigan) that will help accelerate the energy transition by replacing more than 9,000 Postal Service trucks with EVs.

Similarly, Oshkosh Defense is headquartered in Wisconsin. But the company plans to manufacture its custom Postal Service vehicles in South Carolina, where State Treasurer Curtis M. Loftis, Jr. has also focused his anti-ESG attention on BlackRock.

A public statement on Loftis’s website dated Oct. 10, 2022, explains that “… these actions against BlackRock are just one step in protecting South Carolina’s financial interests from self-serving outsiders who have no stake in the well-being of taxpayers or public retirees.”

“[Loftis] continues to evaluate additional measures that may be taken to further cement the state’s independence from undue influence,” the message continues.

Image credit: U.S. Postal Service

New research from Catalyst is shedding light on the intersectionality of racism in the workplace. Half of women from marginalized ethnic and racial groups report experiencing racism at their present job. But for dark-skinned women, that figure jumps to almost 70 percent. And for queer and trans women of color? It’s 63 and 67 percent, respectively. TriplePundit spoke with Harvard MBA and author Zee Clarke about how colorism, texturism and racism in general are harming women in the workplace — and what can be done about it.

Non-prototypicality 

“Basically those that have a darker skin tone and features — whether it's our noses or tighter curls in our hair — people that have darker skin tones experience more discrimination,” Clarke explained. In the Catalyst study in particular, "the range of discrimination for those with lighter skin tones was that 34 percent of them experienced racism," she said. 

That’s far lower than the rate of discrimination experienced by darker-skinned women and lower than the average for women from across all marginalized ethnic and racial groups. Clarke broke down one reason that could be, as it relates to racism in general. “In my book, 'Black People Breathe,' I talk about what they call the theory of non-prototypicality which is when we fall outside of the prototype,” she said, explaining that non-prototypicality leads to invisibility. “I actually wrote a LinkedIn newsletter article called 'The Invisible Woman.' Basically, when we are in the workplace, we often feel like we are not seen or heard.”

But this theory could also explain why lighter-skinned women report less racism in the workplace as they are that much closer to the expected prototype. “When you get to the darker skin tones, it’s as high as 70 percent — that's colorism,” she said.

The career repercussions of racism, colorism and texturism at work

Racism, colorism and texturism don’t just hurt women’s happiness, mental health and general well-being — they have profound effects on women’s careers as well. “So how this manifested? In the study that I describe in my book, it’s that when Black women say something in a meeting, people will remember what was said, but they wouldn’t remember that the Black woman said it,” Clarke explained. “But when a white man says something, they remember what was said and they give the attribution. People know that ‘Bob’ said X. That obviously limits our ability to build a personal brand if we are invisible.”

“Another big issue is just access — access to upward mobility,” Clarke continued, describing the concrete ceiling that women of color face. “The glass ceiling can be broken, but the concrete ceiling feels like it can’t be broken for a number of reasons."

One of those is access to sponsorship. In particular, Clarke pointed to a 2022 Mckinsey study — which showed that Black managers are 65 percent more likely to progress in their careers if they have a sponsor, yet only 5 percent of up-and-coming Black employees have one, significantly less than their white counterparts. "When you have a sponsor, you’re going to get promoted,” she explained.

Unfortunately, non-prototypicality plays a role here, too. Women of color have little chance of sponsorship considering that C-suite management is dominated by white males who overwhelmingly take those most like themselves under their wings.

Micro-aggressions are macro-aggressions

There is little if any distinction between micro-aggressions and outright discrimination, Clarke said. “What's called micro-aggressions actually just becomes really macro and impactful.” She gave the example of a friend who was labeled "not a team player" in her performance review because she dodged an intrusive manager who was trying to touch her hair.

Natural Black hair is subject to a lot of unwanted attention and discrimination — from the uncouthness of those who can’t keep their hands to themselves, to being targeted by security and even state-sanctioned discrimination in the workplace.

“We all know that the Crown Act did not pass,” Clarke pointed out. “Which is that it's currently legal in the United States for a Black person to be rejected for a job specifically because of our hair. Is this a micro-aggression or outright discrimination? I’d say the hiring manager might say, ‘I wasn’t aware of it, it was unintentional.’ So then that might get characterized as a micro-aggression, according to the dictionary, but I would call that outright discrimination because we did not get a job and it's legal to do that.”

What can leaders do?

Clarke gave 3p a rundown of ways that management can combat racism in the workplace, starting with: “Amplify our voices!”

“It's so important for allies to use your privilege to amplify Black voices. What does that mean? I mentioned earlier that we often tend to be invisible, that people don’t attribute any of our work or our thoughts to us, so it's hard to build our personal brand,” she explained further. “So I would say, give Black people opportunities for visibility. Whether it is speaking in front of big teams, whether it’s special high-visibility projects. And also mention us when we are not in the room. Highlight our wins with key leaders and cross-functional teams. Help us build our personal brand, because we are invisible.”

Clarke also mentioned how important it is for leadership to create an environment that is conducive to all sorts of backgrounds and viewpoints. “The Catalyst study that I referred to, they found that curiosity was a key component to doing that. And how do you demonstrate curiosity? I’d say, ask for our opinions. And actually, listen to them.”

Image credit: RODNAE Productions / Pexels

There’s a lot of confusion in the sustainability market right now, and I think a lot of it has to do with acronym overload. GRI? TCFD? CSRD? It’s a lot to keep track of, even for specialists.  I’d like to sort out the confusion over one such letter scramble and explain how to distinguish EHS (environment, health and safety) from ESG (environment, social and governance): two disciplines that might seem almost identical, but are actually quite different. Let’s start with a little history on each.

EHS: Making employee safety paramount

Many companies have had EHS departments for decades. The purpose of EHS, first and foremost, is to promote employee safety. However, EHS also often tracks the impact of the business on the outside environment in the context of complying with regulations. The last two parts of EHS (“H” for health and “S” for safety) are well-established practices that report to federal agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in the U.S. Over time, EHS has developed a common language for the “E,” referring to environmental contaminants like pollution, waste generation and greenhouse gas emissions. Regulatory bodies around the world have synced on common standards and fines for all components of EHS.

ESG: The new frontier

Comparatively, ESG has a much shorter history. Unlike EHS, ESG has its roots in the financial sector. It was originally conceived as a way for funds to objectively grade holdings on their sustainability measures — for example, tracking diversity, equity and inclusion programs and environmental factors for investors looking for “greener” or more socially conscious funds. 

“E” in this context can refer to a broad array of environmental metrics that move beyond the question, “What waste is this company producing?” and asks, “How is the environment impacting the company, and how is the company impacting the environment?” We call this the “double-materiality” standard. That means the “E” could cover both what pollution the company is emitting (like a traditional EHS measurement would) and many other environmental impacts like materials lifecycles, water usage and reuse, economic impacts on communities affected by the company, procurement practices, and so on.

The “S” and “G” parts of the equation have an equally broad scope that can cover everything from diversity initiatives, to community relations, to executive compensation, to ethical guidelines for employees. Unlike health and safety, these areas are still being developed in the standards and regulatory landscape.

Compared with EHS, ESG is an evolving discipline, and organizations are still developing metrics and best practices to deliver on ESG’s ambitious goals.  

How can EHS complement ESG? 

So while there are areas of overlap — specifically in greenhouse gas emissions and following OSHA standards that might fall under “governance” writ large — ESG’s scope is so much larger that it can’t be seen by looking through a narrow EHS lens. 

Some organizations make the mistake of eliding the two departments, never defining where one department ends and another begins. In many cases, former EHS staffers are being transitioned into senior ESG roles, blurring the lines even further. 

For these reasons, it’s best to think of the two initiatives as complementary, with EHS nested within ESG, which has a broader scope. 
Here are a few typical questions I get about EHS and its relationship to ESG: 

Q: Do I need to start with EHS to begin an ESG initiative?

A: No, though if you want to have an award-winning ESG initiative, it doesn’t hurt to build on what you’ve started already in EHS. Even if you are starting from scratch, EHS represents only part of the whole. The ESG initiative will include EHS topics, but you won’t be able to pass off EHS as a comprehensive ESG program.

Q: How do I “convert” an EHS into an ESG program? 

A: The pathway to a mature ESG program will vary widely, but we recommend having two separate initiatives, one focused on sustainability writ large (ESG) and another that focuses on core health and safety compliance. The most important thing is to realize that, professionally, EHS and ESG are two distinct skillsets. We don’t recommend simply adding “sustainability” in an EHS job description after you’ve made the hire, then calling it a day on ESG.

Q: If I’m already measuring EHS metrics, can I use that data for ESG as well? 

A: Probably, but EHS data alone will not cover everything you need. One common misperception is that health and safety initiatives within EHS can substitute for social and governance initiatives within ESG — for example, that a safety initiative dealing with ergonomics (typically a health and safety issue) could also count as improving the social aspects of the workplace. Or that the compliance and regulatory aspects of EHS could check off some “good governance” boxes on the ESG side. 

Asking EHS staffers to cover everything that falls under ESG’s “S” and “G” categories is like asking a general practice doctor to diagnose and plan treatment for a tendon tear in your knee. The GP might give you some well-informed advice, but you’re probably better off going to the knee specialist if you want to get it permanently fixed. 

We’re seeing a bit of an ESG gold rush as sustainability becomes a must-have for investor funds, and new standards and regulations for things like value-chain emissions (so-called Scope 3) have either been released or are coming out soon. In the rush to get an ESG program up and running, it may be tempting to essentially rebrand EHS and call it a day. But that would be a mistake. The better move is to treat your existing EHS program as a building block while figuring out what kind of ESG program you want to build. 

This article series is sponsored by FigBytes and produced by the TriplePundit editorial team.

Image credit: Naiyana/Adobe Stock

In boardrooms and C-suites across the U.S., executives who are paying attention are likely wringing their hands — wondering just how prepared they are to meet the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) upcoming climate disclosure rules. The new rules are expected to force thousands of companies to disclose the full scope of their greenhouse gas emissions. This will be the first time that they have to account for emissions across the entire business cycle — and for many, that includes supply chains.

The SEC is expected to finalize the climate disclosure rules this spring, with the aim of enhancing and standardizing climate-related disclosures for investors. It plans to do so by requesting that companies provide climate transition plans. Companies with revenues over $75 million will have to report not only on their Scope 1 and 2 emissions — which come from their own operations and the electricity they buy — but also Scope 3, which includes emissions from both their supply chains and customers. The SEC fact sheet indicates that companies could be required to do this as early as 2024, using their 2023 numbers.

A new level of rigor required for the SEC's climate disclosure rules

But are companies prepared for the level of transparency required by the SEC? Not so much, says Alex Saric, chief marketing officer at Ivalua, a procurement technology firm that specializes in supply chain sustainability.

“Overall, I think very few companies are truly prepared for this,” Saric told TriplePundit. 

While a number of companies have been collecting and making public disclosures about their carbon and GHG emissions for some time, they haven’t been consistent about doing so. “It is generally incomplete, and the methodology is perhaps sloppy and not up to the standards the SEC is requiring," he explained. "Much more rigor and thoroughness will be required given the SEC mandates and the potential fines and other implications of the new rules.”

Companies have a lot to contend with these days — from supply chain resilience to the effects of inflation. Climate disclosure may be one thing leadership has yet to focus on, at least partially because the final rule is not yet in place. 

Betting on “weaker” rules could backfire

In fact, some companies may think they are buying themselves time by not taking action yet. Especially after SEC Chairman Gary Gensler told CNBC the agency was considering “adjustments” to the rules that some observers think could lead to the new requirements being “watered down."

“It’s anyone’s guess whether or not they will do that,” Saric said. “But it is highly risky for companies to bank on that. Even if they allow more of a grace period to comply, or change some aspect of the Scope 3 emissions requirement, it will most likely still go into effect. And if you start to move now, you are ahead of the game.”

Inaction is a “wasted opportunity”

The biggest risk of inaction is “a wasted opportunity,” Saric continued. “If companies wait until the last minute to get the transparency the SEC is requiring, they may find that it is not as rosy a picture as they had hoped, that the information they will need to disclose is not consistent with statements or pledges they have made in the past. And that’s not ideal at a time when they can be increasingly criticized for greenwashing. And in the worst-case scenario, some companies underestimate how much work is involved and fail to meet the minimum due diligence required by the final deadline and are subject to fines and penalties as a result.”

It's much better to be prepared to meet the growing expectations for corporate climate disclosure and action. “The biggest opportunity here is to really be positioned as a leader in an area that is increasingly important to investors, to customers and to employees," Saric said. "By being proactive and taking action up front, [companies] can identify areas they can improve. Even if they can’t address them now, they can start implementing concrete plans by being able to disclose that information. It shows they are a leader in a space that’s very important.”

The challenge of Scope 3 emissions

Saric acknowledges that it is a challenging task — especially for Scope 3 emissions, which account for up to 75 percent of a company's total footprint, according to the Principles for Responsible Investment, a group of socially conscious investors backed by the United Nations.

“Scope 3 is not just suppliers but the entire depth of the supply chain, from extraction to the transport of materials, all the sub-tiers,” Saric explained. “While many companies may know who their immediate suppliers are, very few have a view into their sub-tiers. Gathering this information is a very complex exercise.”

Message to suppliers: We’re all in this together

Supplier engagement will be key, Saric added. Collaboration — not dictums from above — will be the way to win cooperation from valued suppliers, he advised.

“Companies will have to engage, in some cases, thousands of suppliers — most of which won’t be affected by this requirement," he told us. "So they have to do it in a way that is both consistent and scalable and also feels mutually beneficial to their suppliers, rather than just issuing a demand for emissions data. If they build the right foundation, and the processes and mechanisms required, companies will be in a much better place once the SEC rules take effect.”

Image credit: Li-An Lim / Unplash

The effervescent Drew Barrymore has partnered with sustainable consumer brand Grove Collaborative on a line of 15 home goods products. The limited-edition collection features refillable packaging and two signature scents.

Consumers have signaled that they're ready for refillable and sustainable products, and there’s a blossoming potential to bring them to scale. Celebrity endorsements and partnerships like this one can help influence a growing number of consumers to take the leap toward eliminating excessive packaging and single-use items from their day-to-day lives.

Bright and bubbly like Drew Barrymore

“I am so excited to be launching my first sustainable collection of home care products with Grove Co.,” Drew Barrymore said in a statement. “I wanted to create a line of home accessories that were bright, modern and inspired by the beauty of the natural world. Every piece was designed and crafted to be sustainable, beautiful, and effective for the health of people and the planet. I hope the collection inspires others to take action and embark on their own sustainability journey — making it easier to use less plastic in their daily lives.”

The Fresh Horizons Limited Edition Collection includes refillable dispensers and a refillable glass spray bottle, as well as hand wash sheets, laundry detergent sheets, candles, and a dishcloth made from cotton and biodegradable cellulose. Dish soap, hand soap and multi-purpose cleaning concentrate are available as refills.

Beyond its eco credit, the collection features big pops of color and fun patterns that reflect the star’s bubbly personality and seemingly endless energy — not to mention two island-inspired, special-edition scents developed especially for the line.

There is zero single-use plastic involved in the line. More broadly, Grove Co. — which already opts for refillable packaging over single-use in many of the products it sells — has vowed to eliminate all plastics from products and packaging by 2025.

“Working closely with Drew to craft the concept and design of these products has been such a pleasure, and we have been able to create something beautiful and modern that is also rooted in sustainability," Lucy Leahy, general manager of Grove Co, said in a statement. "This collection combines colorful designs, high-quality materials and high-performing products that are better for people and the planet. We are so excited to bring Drew’s first co-created collection with Grove Co. to life."

Scaling up refillable and sustainable packaging 

For now, refillable and sustainable products like these remain part of a niche market. But between their reasonable prices and celebrity partnerships with the likes of Drew and interior design guru Jeremiah Brent, Grove Co. has the potential to spearhead consumer interest and make converts out of the refill curious.

Indeed, a 2022 study by Trivium Packaging found that nearly 75 percent of consumers have an interest in refillable products, while 86 percent of those under the age of 44 are prepared to pay more for a product if its packaging is sustainable.

“The data ... presents a strong case that transitioning to sustainable packaging is not only the right decision for the environment, but also the right decision for any business,” Jenny Wassenaar, chief sustainability officer at Trivium Packaging, told Grit Daily of the findings. She described how metal packaging in particular is ideal for a circular economy, saying: “Once produced, metals exist forever and can be used, reused, and recycled endlessly without losing quality.”

A blast from the past

Single-use packaging is a relatively new thing, as McKinsey & Coo pointed out in its 2022 study on scaling up reusables. The near monopoly of disposable packaging is a product of very recent history. And although developing the systems to support reusable and refillable packaging may appear difficult, the industry is actually ripe for innovation. While single-use packaging has long been used as a method for advertising, brands could potentially build consumer loyalty by taking the initiative to change the way they package and be at the forefront of a reusable revolution.

Although single-use packaging is cheaper than reusable and refillable alternatives, changes to plastic regulations could play their own role in encouraging the switch. For example, the cost of single-use packaging could very well become prohibitive if the U.N. plastics treaty ends up including “polluter pays” language. Even further, the treaty could put the final nail in disposable packaging’s coffin — if single-use plastics are banned altogether.

As such, brands would do well to make leading the charge toward reusable and refillable packaging part of their purpose. And while innovation will be key, perhaps the most innovative concept can be gleaned from the past — as in standardized containers and home delivery.

The price range for Drew Barrymore's Fresh Horizons Limited Edition Collection starts at $5.49 and goes up to $14.99. The products are available online with Grove and Target and in designated Meijer and Target brick-and-mortar stores.

Image credit: Drew Barrymore and Grove Co. via Business Wire

“Love and justice are not two. Without inner change, there can be no outer change; without collective change, no change matters.” — Rev. angel Kyodo williams

In the last part of this two-part article series, we examined how white culture and white privilege impact the ways in which we engage with communities around sustainability. As Rev. williams suggests, to solve the problems of separation, obsessive productivity and exploitation caused by white culture, we need to advance our “inner change work,” which impacts the “outer change work.”

Unlearning white conditioning is an ongoing process — like an intention rather than a goal, you’re never completely done. I’ll be the first to admit I’m still a work in progress here. But here are some ideas on how to get started. 

Mindfulness meditation practice

The same mental process that helps you come back to the present moment when you’re working or feeling stressed can also be used to wake up from thoughts like “that person looks suspicious” when it’s just a person of color walking down the street. (“Suspicious” is a behavior, not a skin color, and sadly, deaths caused by police disproportionately affect people of color.) 

You can’t change what you are not aware of, so the first step to making change happen in your own behavior is to be aware of your inner dialogue. Don’t believe everything you think. Mindfulness meditation practice helps with cultivating more focused attention and relaxed awareness so you can catch white supremacy culture thoughts before they turn into racist beliefs, comments or actions.


Loving-kindness and self-compassion: Appreciate the parts of yourself that you don’t like

The zits, the self-criticism, whatever you don’t like about yourself, you can’t fix it with more self-hatred. (Believe me, I’ve tried.) The Buddha said, “Hatred is not conquered by hatred, but by love alone is healed.” Every major religion talks about the value of unconditional love. While that may sound doable sometimes for people who are suffering, with the abundance of self-criticism that white culture creates, how much unconditional love can you have for yourself? 



If you think you’re smart enough to skip this practice, don’t. Practicing self-compassion when you feel like crap or like you don’t need or deserve it is absolutely critical for having more patience and compassion with the “other” you don’t like — whether that’s a person of a different skin color, religion, political party, or any other category you can come up with that triggers the feeling of “other” for you. The mind that wants to fix and judge yourself is the same mind that wants to fix and judge others.`

As UNtraining co-founder Rita Shimmin put it: 

“Loving yourself is a political act. We are taught not to love ourselves, and from that place we are easily manipulated... Love yourself so much that this love changes the world.” 

If you prefer to look at the science, this University of Sussex research found that seven minutes of loving-kindness meditation was effective at reducing racial bias. 


Practice seeing the “other” as a part of yourself


Is your sustainability work treating people as a resource to be controlled? Does your climate action technology treat nature like a machine to be optimized? What would change if you viewed the “other” (people, nature, etc.) as a grandparent, an uncle, a sister, a niece or nephew, and so forth?


The United Nations has some inspiration here that all religions see nature as an act of divinity that should be treated as such. 

The challenge is to remember that hatred is not ended by hatred, but by unconditional love. Our perceived “enemies” (an opposite political party, a dictatorial leader who is impacting resource flows to other countries, whatever) is also a person who is suffering because they are stuck in the trance of separation culture. When in doubt, go back to No. 1: the inner work.


See mistakes as learning opportunities


No matter how committed you are to being antiracist, to unlearning the white conditioning that contributes to the self/other dichotomy, you’ll probably make a mistake at some point. As Dale Carnegie said, “Look for areas where you can admit error and say so.” If you’re on a subway train and you step on someone’s toes, you apologize. If you say something that’s actually a microaggression and then pretend it didn’t have an impact, it’s like stepping on someone’s toe and then blaming the other person for the pain you caused. If you cause pain, you apologize for the impact (the pain), even if you didn’t intend to cause the pain.

The learning is in how fast you can become aware of the mistake as a learning opportunity, rather than denying or minimizing the impact or putting the focus back on you rather than the person you harmed, even inadvertently. 

Some more helpful resources

Here are few resources I find helpful, from the easier to the more challenging:

• "How to Be an Antiracist" by Ibram X. Kendi. This book covers how racism is endemic to our society: Racism is the “default” – even if you think you are a “good white person” who’s “not racist.”
• Guided meditation recordings. I like those from Nikki Mirghafori when my mind feels particularly self-critical.
• Emotional awareness resources. This blog I wrote is a good starting point. 
• The (re)Biz one-month program. Made for people who want to build a regenerative world and get unstuck from separation mindsets in sustainability work — note that you get $100 off if you mention my name as the referral source.
• UNTraining White Liberal Racism. This is a powerful series of programs over a few years (in six-month increments), which help us un-learn our conditioning that keeps us stuck in separation/white supremacy culture. Note that to avoid well-meaning white folks triggering people of color, they have programs specifically for white folks only to work on our stuff before doing activities with a mixed-race group. Because people of color also may have internalized oppression, they have groups for people of color, Jewish, and Chinese folks to explore cultural conditioning, heal from trauma, and more.

The more we see how white conditioning operates in us, the more we can make choices that are different from what our conditioning wants us to do. Treating ourselves with more kindness and awareness can help us be less reactive and more responsive to the events of life. 

Image credit: Kelsey Krach

Land Acknowledgment: Katharine is a Mayflower descendant who lives and works in unceded Lisjan Ohlone territory, what is now known as Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, Piedmont, Emeryville and Albany, California. The Sogorea Te’ Land Trust is an urban Indigenous women-led land trust that is today working hard to restore traditional stewardship practices on these lands, heal from historical trauma, and facilitate the return of Indigenous land to Indigenous people. May they be successful in their work!