Tag: politics

  • Juneteenth in a Burning World: Prison Labor, Wildfires, and Systemic Racism

    As we reflect on Juneteenth and its legacy of freedom, we must also reckon with the ways systemic racism still permeates our society—especially in how we prepare for and respond to climate disasters. Today, one of the most egregious examples of this injustice is playing out in real time: while the federal government dismantles environmental protections and disaster infrastructure, it increasingly relies on the underpaid, or often unpaid, labor of incarcerated people—disproportionately Black and brown—to fight wildfires. This is not just a policy failure; it is a modern form of environmental slavery.

    Photo by Heather Mount on Unsplash

    Defunding Disaster Response and Climate Policy

    Climate change has intensified the severity and frequency of wildfires across the United States. Over the past 40 years, the average number of acres of forested land consumed by wildfires each year in the United States has increased by 1,000%.

    Rather than addressing this crisis with the urgency it deserves, the Trump administration has actively undermined the nation’s ability to prevent and respond to climate disasters by:

    • Defunding Disaster Infrastructure: Trump has pushed to phase out FEMA, shifting responsibility to under-resourced state governments.
    • Data Destruction: Eliminating NOAA’s “billion-dollar disaster” database erases a critical tool for tracking climate-related damage and allocating aid.
    • Withdrawal from Climate Agreements: Exiting the Paris Agreement and cutting $3.7 billion in clean energy and carbon capture funding—including California decarbonization projects—further isolates the U.S. from global climate efforts and abandons marginalized communities to worsening environmental risks.
    • Unequal Disaster Aid: FEMA’s funding formulas often require local cost-sharing, leaving low-income communities behind. Studies show that as the proportion of people of color increases in a region, the amount of federal disaster aid tends to decrease.

    The Rise of Exploitative Prison Labor

    As federal climate infrastructure erodes, the state turns to prisons—not prevention. In California and beyond, incarcerated people are increasingly relied upon to fill the labor gap in wildfire response. These individuals—often Black or brown—are paid as little as $1 a day, if anything, to perform life-threatening work without proper training, gear, or protections.

    This isn’t rehabilitation or opportunity. It’s exploitation. Incarcerated firefighters are frequently barred from post-release employment in the very field they risked their lives to serve. They are often denied parole, early release, or livable wages. Meanwhile, the state profits from their labor during climate disasters caused in part by the very same policies that left their communities unprotected.

    This system is not new. It is a direct continuation of America’s long history of racialized labor exploitation. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery except as punishment for a crime—and this loophole has been systemically weaponized to maintain racial hierarchies through incarceration. For example, Black Americans—just 13% of the U.S. population—make up 37% of the prison population. Over 80% of arrests are for low-level, nonviolent offenses, and Black youth are disproportionately targeted for surveillance and criminalization.

    The more fires we face, the more bodies are needed. And because of systemic racism in policing and sentencing, those bodies are overwhelmingly Black and brown. This creates a feedback loop: environmental neglect feeds incarceration, and incarceration becomes a substitute for climate policy.

    The Feedback Loop of Neglect

    Black and Indigenous communities, along with other communities of color, are more likely to live in wildfire-prone areas or to suffer the cascading consequences of these disasters—such as poor air quality, housing instability, and economic loss. These vulnerabilities are not accidental.

    The same communities that are over-policed, under resourced, and left behind in public health planning are then called upon to clean up the very disasters they were never protected from in the first place.

    This is not just an environmental issue—it is a racial and human rights crisis.

    Why This Matters for Juneteenth

    Juneteenth commemorates the day when enslaved people in Texas finally learned of their freedom—two and a half years after emancipation was declared. It is a day of resistance, celebration, and reckoning. But it is also a reminder: freedom was delayed, and it remains incomplete.

    In 2025, Black Americans are still being forced into unpaid labor under deadly conditions. Still disproportionately policed and imprisoned. Still left out of disaster response while being asked to carry it on their backs.

    To honor Juneteenth is to demand more than symbolic freedom. It is to fight for a future where Black communities are not over-policed, over-incarcerated, or overexploited—but are protected, resourced, and central to our vision of a world that is prioritizes peace and prosperity for people and the planet.

  • The Illusion of Green Growth: Why Degrowth is a Necessary Path to Sustainability

    Many climate scientists, environmental activists, and researchers, including myself, now reject green growth models, not because of an opposition to progress or innovation, but because the promises of “green growth” in already high-income countries are fundamentally incompatible with the scale of ecological and social challenges present across the globe.

    This preference toward degrowth is rooted in mounting scientific evidence, supported by a recent groundbreaking review published in Lancet Planetary Health titled “Post-growth: the science of wellbeing within planetary boundaries,” which challenges the assumption that economic growth is necessary or even desirable for societal progress.

    Photo by Shelley Johnson on Unsplash

    A central argument made by the authors is that the dominant narrative, which claims technological innovation and efficiency will allow for continued economic growth while reducing environmental harm, is not supported by the data. Efficiency improvements are consistently outpaced by the scale and speed of economic expansion, leading to increased resource consumption, pollution, and waste—a phenomenon known as the “rebound effect.” This effect directly undermines the idea that growth can be decoupled from environmental harm.

    The belief that technological solutions alone can address today’s ecological crises exposes the use of binary thinking to address a multifaceted problem. This technological optimism can distract from the deeper, systemic changes needed to address how societies produce, consume, and define prosperity. Overreliance on technological solutions risks obscuring the fundamental drivers of climate change and social inequality. While technological shifts and innovation will play a role, it cannot substitute for the deeper structural changes needed to address how societies produce, consume, and define prosperity.

    Research shows that market-driven approaches and the current economic system delay effective climate action by hindering the deployment of transformative technologies. Many promising climate innovations struggle to secure funding or scale because profit-driven systems tend to prioritize short-term returns over long-term societal and environmental benefits. Ironically, green growth models also rely on rapid technological deployment as a climate solution, while many proposed solutions are either unproven at scale or insufficient to address the magnitude of the problems.

    Moreover, renewable energy and other sustainable technologies are not without environmental and social costs. The extraction of minerals essential for batteries and electronics, such as cobalt and lithium, is frequently linked to environmental degradation and human rights violations. This is not to suggest that clean energy should be dismissed, but rather that its deployment must be accompanied by systemic reforms. Without broader economic and policy changes, such technologies risk perpetuating existing patterns of overconsumption, social inequalities and human rights violations.

    Crucially, the pursuit of endless economic growth is fundamentally incompatible with the Earth’s ecological boundaries. Humanity has already exceeded six of nine planetary boundaries, threatening the stability of Earth’s life-support systems. The drive for economic expansion, especially in high-income countries, is largely responsible for this overshoot, often achieved at the expense of labor and resources in lower-income nations. High-income countries, in particular, have a disproportionate impact on global emissions and resource use, and their current levels of consumption are unsustainable. If these consumption patterns persist, they are likely to precipitate ecosystem collapse and irreversible climate impacts across the globe. To avert ecological catastrophe and biodiversity loss, high-income countries must significantly reduce their material and energy use.

    Green growth strategies tend to prioritize harm reduction through technological innovation and decarbonization, while neglecting the restorative practices needed to regenerate ecosystems.Even when labeled as “green,” economic growth models frequently fail to deliver meaningful social or ecological outcomes due to the fact that market-driven interventions often neglect ecosystem restoration that is viewed as “non-profitable”. A shift in priorities is needed—from GDP growth to enhancing human well-being, equity, and ecological regeneration.

    True sustainability requires a deliberate reduction in material throughput, regeneration of depleted ecosystems, and advancement of social equity.  It is not enough to simply shift to “greener” forms of production and consumption if they still enable the exploitation and oppression of nature and non-dominant groups.

    As highlighted in recent research published in The Lancet Planetary Health, degrowth offers a scientifically grounded pathway to remain within planetary boundaries while improving health and well-being (Beyer et al., 2024). By intentionally reducing overall consumption and production—particularly in high-income countries—and reorienting economies toward equity, social cohesion, and ecological restoration, we can address the root causes of environmental degradation and social inequality.

    The Lancet article emphasizes that degrowth is not about austerity or deprivation, but about prioritizing human flourishing, reducing unnecessary work and consumption, and ensuring that everyone’s basic needs are met. This approach has the potential to lower pollution, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and restore ecosystems, while also improving life satisfaction, reducing stress, and strengthening community ties.

    These findings point the way toward a healthier planet, fairer societies, and a higher quality of life for all—achieved not through endless economic expansion, but through a fundamental transformation of our values, priorities, and systems. It’s time to embrace a new vision of progress—one rooted in ecological balance, equity, and genuine well-being.

  • How the White House’s Proposed Pronatalist Policies Threaten to Escalate Climate Change

    Girls’ education and rights-based family planning are critical climate solutions through their dual impact on slowing population growth and accelerating climate action.

    Photo by Gayatri Malhotra on Unsplash

    The Climate Impact of Population Growth

    Population dynamics directly affect emissions, for example slower population growth reduces demand for energy, transportation, housing, and food which are major contributors to global emissions.

    Project Drawdown’s modeling shows that achieving the UN’s medium population projection of 9.7 billion by 2050 (rather than higher-growth scenarios) through expanded family planning and education could reduce CO₂ equivalent emissions by 68.9 gigatons by 2050.

    Rights-based family planning strengthens climate resilience by preventing unintended pregnancies, reducing maternal mortality, and keeping girls in school. Scholarships tied to marriage/childbearing could reduce women’s educational attainment as these life events can often alter one’s ability to complete school.

    Policies regarding women’s education and reproductive activities must remain rights-based, emphasizing autonomy and access—not coercion. Allowing women equal access to education and expanding family planning services are not just social imperatives but high-leverage climate solutions that address both mitigation and adaptation.

    The Clash: Trump’s Pronatalist Agenda vs. Climate Progress

    The Trump administration’s proposed pronatalist agenda, which includes baby bonuses, marriage-based educational privileges, and a “National Medal of Motherhood,” signals a return to traditionalist policies that ignore climate realities.

    Trumps Core Pronatalist Policies

    1. Financial Incentives
      • $5,000 “Baby Bonus”: A one-time cash payment to mothers per child
      • Tax Credits: Expanded child tax credits, though specifics remain unclear
    2. Educational Privileges
    3. Symbolic Recognition

    Key Concerns:

    • Incentivizing education through the act of childbirth puts women students at a disadvantage as data shows that women contribute 20.4 hours per week to childcare while fathers spend only 3.9 hours
    • Period tracking programs can be weaponized by the government to criminalize women who have received reproductive care
    • Maternal and child mortality rates rise as a result of increased child birth paired with decreased access to reproductive care
    • Financial incentives such as a $5,000 baby bonus fail to cover the true cost of raising a child, especially in a climate-disrupted economy.
    • Regressive policies reduce women’s voices and participation in the workforce—particularly in emerging climate sectors like clean energy, where women already make up only 33% of jobs.
    • Fertility-focused education replaces comprehensive reproductive healthcare, reducing access to contraception and skewing public health priorities.
    • Cuts to family planning programs, including Title X and CDC maternal health research, further restrict reproductive autonomy.

    The proposed policies normalize financial incentive as coercion for sexual acts, stripping women of their humanity and ability to live their lives as they choose. Placing a $5,000 price tag on birth is offensive to the value life and the experience of motherhood, while attracting people who may only be incentivized by the “baby bonus” and are not equipped to raise a child.

    Contradiction With Climate Mitigation Strategies

    Energy and Emissions:

    • Emissions Scaling Issue: Even modest population increases have outsized climate impacts. The U.S. already has one of the highest per capita emissions rates (14.44 metric tons CO₂/person). Adding millions more high-consuming Americans (as targeted by “baby boom” policies) would directly counteract emission-reduction targets under the Paris Agreement.
    • Resource Demand Surge: More people = more:
      • Energy: U.S. households account for ~20% of national energy use
      • Transportation: 28% of U.S. emissions come from cars/planes
      • Food: Animal-based diets (common in U.S.) generate up to 20x more emissions than plant-based options

    Women’s Leadership Advances Climate Innovation and Governance

    Working Against Proven Climate Solutions

    Economic and Equity Concerns

    • Direct Costs: Climate-driven disasters cost the U.S. $165 billion annually (NOAA 2022) – a burden worsened by population growth in vulnerable areas.
    • Gender Equity Backslide: Cash incentives for mothers ($5k/baby) could pressure women into caregiving roles, reducing workforce participation and climate leadership opportunities

    Demographic Myths

    The Trump administration’s policies hinge on a misleading narrative: that declining birth rates threaten America’s future. In reality, U.S. population growth is slowing due to rising early adult mortality rates which experienced a sharp rise during the pandemic and remain elevated.

    Conclusion: A Crossroads for Climate and Human Rights

    As discussed above, educating and empowering women is a net-positive for people and the planet, however the Trump Administration’s framing of “Fertility Education” and incentives for Fulbright Scholarships weaponizes this positive connotation to increase traditionalist patriarchal power.

    Coercive and regressive pronatalist policies pose a dual threat—accelerating emissions while exploiting the very people driving climate innovation.

    Climate leadership demands a different focus—one rooted in lowering per capita emissions, not expanding the number of high-emitting households. Empowering women’s voices and rights-basedfamily planningnot only promotes gender equity but offers some of the most effective, evidence-based solutions to the climate crisis.

    As climate impacts worsen, our policies must elevate—not restrict—human potential. A truly resilient future is one where women are empowered, populations are sustainable, and climate action is just, inclusive, and science-driven.

  • Oppression to Action: Ecofeminism’s Critical Role in Solving the Climate Crisis

    As we witness both the decline of women’s rights and the weakening of environmental protections, the ecofeminist movement has become more crucial than ever.

    Shane Rounce, Unsplash.com

    Ecofeminism is a philosophical and political movement that emerged in the 1970s, connecting feminist and environmental concerns by recognizing the interconnected oppression of women and nature under patriarchal systems. The term was coined by French feminist Françoise d’Eaubonne in 1974, sparking a wave of academic and activist interest. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, ecofeminism gained traction as scholars and activists explored the links between gender inequality and environmental degradation. 

    Key figures in the movement include Vandana Shiva and Maria Mies, whose work has been instrumental in shaping ecofeminist theory and practice. Together, Shiva and Mies developed a comprehensive ecofeminist framework that emphasizes the interconnectedness of social and ecological issues, challenges the dominant paradigm of exploitation, and promotes a more sustainable and equitable world. 

    Patriarchal capitalism simultaneously exploits women and nature through interconnected systems of domination that view both women and nature as resources to be controlled and exploited for profit. As evidenced by Shiva and Mies, our capitalist-patriarchal framework has led to environmental degradation, the marginalization of women, and the erosion of sustainable economies.

    Shiva argues that women, especially in the Global South, often bear the brunt of this exploitation as they are the primary caretakers of natural resources and communities while being most vulnerable to climate impacts. Patriarchal capitalism not only perpetuates gender inequality but also threatens the very foundations of life by undermining ecological balance and sustainable practices. This system is built on a hierarchical worldview that prioritizes masculine traits like dominance and aggression while devaluing feminine qualities such as compassion and empathy.

    Traditionally feminine traits such as compassion and empathy are critical to include in the formation of systems that prioritize sustainability, longevity and equality over endless economic growth powered by exploitation. Research demonstrates a strong correlation between women’s political leadership and proactive climate change policies. Countries with higher percentages of women in parliament consistently show greater commitment to environmental protection, evidenced by their increased likelihood to ratify international climate treaties and implement more stringent environmental regulations. There is a statistically significant and positive correlation between the presence of women in climate negotiations and an increased mention of gender in climate policy discussions. This suggests that women’s participation leads to increased climate action in general as well as more comprehensive and effective climate responses by amplifying the focus on gendered impacts within environmental policy.

    A crucial aspect of ecofeminist thought is the recognition and valuation of women’s work and knowledge. This acknowledgment extends to women’s roles in grassroots organizing and community-based activism, which often drive sustainable practices and environmental justice initiatives. Ecofeminists also emphasize the importance of biodiversity and sustainable practices, viewing them as integral to creating a more equitable and environmentally sound future. 

    Furthermore, there is a profound connection between women and biodiversity as women play a critical role in preserving the earth’s health. Women in rural and indigenous communities often possess deep knowledge of local ecosystems and sustainable resource management practices. This traditional ecological knowledge is invaluable for developing effective conservation strategies and sustainable land use practices.

    Shiva states that “the marginalization of women and the destruction of biodiversity go hand in hand,” highlighting women’s position as both vulnerable to and crucial for conserving biodiversity.

    Ecofeminist alternatives seek to promote systems that support a sustainable world which radically reimagines our economic and social structures, recognizes the importance of all living things, and prioritizes regeneration and equality over exploitation and domination. This movement is more urgent than ever in the current state of climate emergency paired with increasing violence against women and diminishing women’s rights.

    The Trump Administration has amplified interrelated social and environmental challenges as the they have withdrawn the US from the Paris agreement, removed climate change mentions from USDA websites, reversed support and incentives for low-carbon technology, overturned women’s rights resulting in increased maternal mortality and significant threats to women’s health, while setting the precedent that violence  against women is acceptable.

    President Trump and many of his elected officials have been accused and convicted of sexual assault and abuse, perpetuating and further normalizing exploitation of women’s bodies. Upholding this kind of behavior supports a culture that takes women’s ownership of their bodies away from them and puts it in the hands of those who want to harm and control them. This sends the message that your body does not belong to you and you don’t get to control what happens to it which is exactly what anti-reproductive rights movements support.

    Similarly, patriarchal capitalists have normalized and rewarded practices that abuse the earth by polluting ecosystems, degrading soil quality, and exploiting natural resources in pursuit of personal and economic gain with no regard for the impact this has on ecosystems and the beings that live within them.

    The diminishing support for climate action under the Trump administration exacerbates danger to women on a global scale as women are disproportionately affected by climate change. With 6 of 9 planetary boundaries already crossed, climate inaction will lead to increased natural disasters and decreased access to critical natural resources such as food and water.

    Climate-related disasters often lead to increased gender-based violence with women being 14 times more likely to be harmed during a disaster, as women are more vulnerable during displacement and when competing for scarce resources. On a global scale, women are more likely to be impacted by floods, storms, and heatwaves due to their roles in the household, limited mobility, and limited economic freedom.

    In this context, ecofeminist principles have become more critical than ever, offering a framework for understanding and addressing the intertwined issues of environmental protection and women’s rights. By recognizing the intersection of social inequalities and climate change, we can develop more effective and equitable solutions that address the unjust systems which have supported the current level of environmental degradation and inequality.

    Elevating women’s voices in environmental policymaking and ensuring their active participation in climate action is crucial for creating comprehensive and impactful strategies to combat the climate crisis.

    Ecofeminist solutions often promote alternative economic models such as subsistence economies, recognizing their potential to reduce environmental impact and foster community resilience. A subsistence economy is one where economic activity is primarily directed towards needs rather than profit. This shifts economic focus onto necessities without overexploiting resources, thus these economies naturally tend to stay within planetary boundaries and sustainable ecological limits. By emphasizing local production and consumption, ecofeminism advocates for decentralized models that can lead to shorter lead times, lower transportation costs, and increased flexibility in meeting local demands. 

    Prioritizing ecofeminist values and strategies can inspire collective climate action by reframing narratives, addressing root causes, empowering diverse voices, fostering community-based solutions, promoting holistic approaches, and cultivating hope and resilience.