Our world is transitioning into the realm of the “new normal” of extreme storms.  Ice is melting and sea levels are rising far more rapidly than originally predicted by scientists.  As we continue down the slippery slope of non-renewable energy resources and impending climate change, why in the world does Santa still deliver coal to the kids who have been bad?

For a man who flies around the world in one night bringing joy to kids everywhere, you would think Santa would look out for future generations of children and cease punishing kids with coal.   Perhaps those that were on the naughty list could receive something like fruit or episodes of public embarrassment from their parents?

With a world population of almost 7 billion people, that is a lot of naughty kids receiving coal every year.  But instead of punishing those on the naughty list, Santa is punishing himself, and every other child on the planet, considering coal is one of the many non-renewable resources contributing to climate change.

Get it together Santa or instead of a sleigh you will need a flotation devise and some swimmies for your 9 reindeer.

On Saturday, December 1, 2012, University of Maryland’s School of Public Health hosted the First Annual Environmental Justice and Environmental Health Disparities Symposium for Maryland and Washington, DC.  Dr. Sacoby Wilson spearheaded the effort which brought together several hundred of the region’s faith leaders, public health and environmental experts and students, community activists, and social and environmental justice advocates.  Finally, an opportunity for dialogue about the environmental health of our region’s most vulnerable communities.

On our way to the conference, early on a Saturday morning (with a toddler in tow) we wondered who else would show.   During the opening plenary session, the huge auditorium seemed to dwarf a modest, but dedicated crowd.  Those who managed arrive in time for the opening session were treated to an upbeat and uplifting message from Cassie Meador, artistic director of Dance Exchange.  In Spring 2012, Meador walked 500 miles from her home in Washington, DC through the hills and mountains of Maryland and Virginia, ending at the site of a strip mine in West Virginia, unearthing stories old and new.  Her journey was intended to help build a deeper understanding of the path that natural resources take from the mountain to the electrical outlets in our homes.  Meador’s work is a refreshing reminder of the great potential of art and stories to engage people and communities in environmental health and justice work.

Dr. Wilson framed the day with the ideas of “make space” and “take space.” He encouraged, that if we were someone who tended to speak a lot, to make space and allow for someone else’s voice to be added to the conversation.  Likewise, if we were someone who tended to shy away from participating in discussions, open up and add our voice to the mix.  It was really great to have this as a frame for not only our participation in the Symposium, but our interactions outside of the event as well.

By lunchtime, the place was literally packed wall-to-wall with a great diversity of people buzzing with energy and new connections.  Vernice Miller-Travis, Vice-chair of the Maryland State Commission on Environmental Justice and Sustainable Communities, gave the keynote address on “Environmental Justice and Environmental Health Disparities: Issues, Challenges, and Solutions.”  What a great opportunity to hear from someone who has spent so much time dedicated to environmental justice issues.

The symposium created a space for so many new connections to be made.  We met faith leaders, community health and hunger advocates, organizers, experts from EPA and other government agencies, academics, and students.  It was great to see a few old friends in the crowd as well, including several Town Creek Foundation grantees who presented on panels (Food and Water Watch, Maryland Pesticide Network, Center for Livable Future, and Maryland Environmental Health Network).

There were an overwhelming number of concurrent sessions –too many interesting topics to choose from –ranging from environmental justice and water issues in the Chesapeake Bay to how recently enacted Federal and Maryland health laws can be implemented to achieve environmental justice and health equity.

The session on connecting the science of disproportionate impacts to environmental justice law aimed at addressing the question: if science is advancing, why are environmental justice communities still being disproportionately impacted?  Environmental justice was equated to turning around a battleship; it is done in incremental steps.  We were reminded that this goes beyond changing the political will of today, but requires a commitment to longevity, even the most obviously changes still took decades to achieve (e.g., Clean Water Act).  Decisions and actions do not change just because we know something.  We have to build momentum from the ground up and remain committed to the longevity of the cause in order to really start turning this battleship around.

The food justice session brought to light the complex issues raised by industrial agriculture and the compounding impacts on communities directly impacted by pollution caused by those industries and those indirectly impacted through food availability.  The session linked in the health and nutrition of urban women and girls, and the challenges presented by hunger, particularly for children.   Certainly the issues and topics brought up were far more complex than could be addressed in a 75- minute conference session.  What was striking was the interconnectedness of the issues and problems –such as how industrial agriculture impacts community health not only in the places where food is grown through pollution, but also in the ways that the end products are delivered to consumers, frequently in the form of unhealthy, processed food available at local quick stops with few or no alternative options close by.

What made the biggest impression on us was the rich, diverse, and energetic universe of people doing important work who clearly need a network.  The pent up need for connectivity was unmistakable.  This symposium clearly only scratched the surface.  And, this symposium was focused mainly on highlighting environmental health and justice disparities.  Can you imagine what the conversation will be like when we start tackling the solutions?  This is just the beginning of a critically important dialogue that is desperately needed to connect and support the people doing vital work to build greater environmental and social equity in our Chesapeake Bay communities.

It appears likely that the 2013 Maryland General Assembly may take up the issue of pollution trading in the context of regulatory efforts to establish a growth offset program in support of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL.

On first blush it may appear as if environmental advocates will be challenged to organize an effective response. This is in part because much media coverage of pollution trading has used the issue as a platform for telling another story – that oldie but always goodie about environmentalists fighting with one another.

There is some basis for this story. There was a significant skirmish over the prospect of some environmentalists suing to remove trading from the Bay TMDL, but things have remained relatively peaceful since the suit was actually filed. Efforts to undermine the suit continue, but they are mostly outside of the public earspace.  Notwithstanding this, the ‘enviros at odds over trading’ narrative has established a secure hold on the journalistic imagination.

We would all do well not to get caught up in this false narrative. Not only does it misstate the reality, but it may cause us to misperceive our real opportunities and challenges.

The convenient storyline about environmentalists fighting over trading misstates the degree of environmental support for trading by confusing tactical differences over how to confront it with strategic differences over whether to promote it.  Most environmentalists with whom we engage do not embrace pollution trading as a preferred water quality improvement strategy. They recognize that its principal purpose is to enable and facilitate continued economic growth. By outsourcing pollution control responsibility from regulated point sources (e.g. industrial dischargers, combined animal feeding operations and wastewater treatment plants) to unregulated non point sources (e.g. agriculture) it allows the point sources to increase their discharges. If we think of pollution reduction as a public debt incurred by certain forms of economic development, trading allows some polluters to move their debt onto other polluters books, in order that they can take on more debt.

The hope is that a vibrant market can be generated because it is easier and cheaper to control some sources of nutrient pollution than others. It is significantly cheaper for farmers to reduce a pound of nitrogen than it is for power plants. The expectation is that this differential will produce willing buyers and sellers. Instead of paying more to reduce their own pollution, power plants and other point sources will pay less to get farmers to reduce theirs.

The most optimistic take on this is that it ‘unleashes market forces’ to identify and engage the most cost efficient pollution reductions. The least optimistic take is that it doubles down on the voluntary strategy – paying farmers to pollute less – that virtually everyone (outside of the agricultural community) agrees has failed the Chesapeake Bay over the last thirty years.

This pessimism is grounded in concerns about accountability. Regulated point sources are by definition the most accountable polluters. They have permits that govern their discharges and they are subject to an enforcement and compliance regime.  Unregulated non point sources – which have none of this –  are the least accountable. Most environmentalists with whom we speak fear trading because it allows polluters to outsource pollution control responsibility from the most accountable to the least accountable venues.

At the tactical level the important difference between these environmentalists is that some believe trading is not just a bad idea, but also an illegal idea. They believe that the EPA does not have the authority to authorize this outsourcing of pollution control, and that doing so undermines the spirit and the letter of the Clean Water Act. They feel, therefore, that it is necessary to prevent the EPA from doing this.

Others have determined that their best response to the risks of trading is to work to make it – in practice – less harmful. They are skeptical about the prospects for eliminating trading and are therefore working to secure trading rules that will protect and even advance the public interest. Their efforts are focused on reestablishing the pollution control accountability that trading undermines, and instituting what amount to ‘transaction taxes’ to compel polluters to pay down their debt. This is useful work that we support. We recognize, however, that the ‘mend it don’t end it’ crowd is up against powerful financial interests who want the market to be governed by rules that will maximize their opportunity for profit. If the last thirty years have taught us anything after all, its that once unleashed, market forces are not so easily brought to heel.

(I confess to being a little amused observing the way that some environmentalists have backed themselves into a corner in which they are trying to ‘unleash’ and ‘leash’ market forces simultaneously. There is obviously another important conversation worth having here about the role of metaphor in political speech. George Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language” is probably the place to start, but we’ll have that conversation another day.)

It is not unusual for different environmental groups to adopt different tactics to confront a danger about which they largely agree. Often – as in this case – these different tactics can be compatible and complementary. Differences over tactics should not be confused for differences over objectives.  To the extent that there is tension between those working to ‘fix’ trading and those suing to end it, we think that tension is less a function of different views  about trading and more a function of different views about the risks of litigation.

At issue here are concerns that the litigation may undermine the entire TMDL/WIP process. There is concern that it will merge in the public mind with the Farm Bureau’s lawsuit that seeks to undo the TMDL. There is concern that it will provide aid and comfort to politicians and decisions makers who are resisting the TMDL and the WIPs. There are concerns that, if successful, it may result in vacating the entire Bay TMDL and also that, successful or not, it may generate calls to open the CWA to amendment.

We find some of these concerns more compelling than others. We believe, for example, that the difference between the trading litigation and the Farm Bureau litigation is obvious and familiar. The Farm Bureau believes EPA has done too much, while the plaintiffs in the trading suit believe EPA hasn’t done enough.  It really isn’t  difficult to understand or convey that difference, and claiming otherwise sows the confusion it purports to avoid.

We are also less compelled by the argument that the litigation will generate uncertainty that bolsters opposition to the TMDL/WIP process.  This has usually been communicated to us by folks who also tell us that the Farm Bureau is already moving heaven and earth to scuttle the TMDL/WIP process. While we expect that trading litigation may help bolster resistance and recalcitrance from local officials, we doubt that the additional impact is likely to be more than marginal. To borrow a preferred metaphor of trading advocates, the resistance train has long since left the station.

Concerns about the impact of litigation outcomes strike us as more serious. Were the litigation to result in vacating the TMDL the consequences would be significant and might significantly stall the whole Watershed Implementation Planning process. We think this concern needs to be discounted by its likelihood. The plaintiffs in the trading litigation do not believe vacature is necessary, will not seek it as a remedy, and would likely oppose it if the judge ordered it.  From our lay perspective it seems as if the TMDL does not require trading, simply allows it.  Trading does seem to be more intricately woven into the fabric of the state and local WIPs, although more conceptually than quantitatively. Litigation could provide clarity about the extent to which it is legal for states and municipalities to rely on trading. While a finding may cause distress and complications, it may well be better to establish clarity now, rather than several years from now.

Nevertheless, this is a serious concern that we would not blithely dismiss. It is important to point out, however, that concerns about the TMDL being vacated are concerns about the success of the litigation. If the TMDL were vacated it would probably mean that a Federal Court had determined that trading does illegally undermine the Clean Water Act in the way that the plaintiffs claim. Opposing the litigation out of fear that it will be successful indicates a willingness to accept undermining the Clean Water Act in order to preserve the possibility that the TMDL and WIPs as currently constituted will make progress in cleaning up the Bay.

We make this point with due regard for the years of effort to clean up the bay and a corresponding belief that honorable environmentalists can have different positions about this kind of trade off. It does seem, however, that the tradeoff needs to be framed and faced squarely. Doing so might help us to distinguish between strategically important intra-environmental differences and the less important tactical differences over which we sometimes tend to obsess.

In this context, the strategically important intra-environmental differences concern the contexts within which Bay restoration efforts occur. Recognizing that pollution trading poses threats to various values –  like the integrity of the Clean Water Act, the health and safety of low income communities, and the reassertion of public control over public resources – the most committed opponents of pollution trading are driven, in part, by the fact that they perceive there to be more at stake than simply the health of the Chesapeake Bay.

I don’t believe that those working to improve pollution trading schemes are indifferent to these other values, but I do believe that, for them, these are, at most, secondary and distinct concerns. I have written elsewhere of the view of environmentalism as fundamental and independent, untethered by ideology and disconnected from other values, and of how this view inclines many to try and orient their work so as to most effectively and efficiently catch whatever appears to be the dominant stream. There is a strong strain of independent environmentalism in Bay restoration work, and it drives and defends our perpetual quest for ‘unlikely’ allies and ‘unusual suspects’. It also promotes a sort of strategic vacuity – if your mission can be served, and your goals realized, in a variety of different social and political arrangements, most of your decisions tend to be tactical ones.

I think that the most interesting differences between the most committed opponents of pollution trading and the ‘mend it don’t end it’ crowd is a strategic difference.  I think that the most committed opponents believe (or at least suspect) that sustainability – the authentic, robust sustainability that we require – may be an emergent property of a more just, democratic, and equal society, and not simply a correction that can be grafted onto any society. I think that they understand environmental protection to be an interdependent, ideologically inflected value that necessarily privileges questions of vision and strategy.

From this perspective, the tactical decision to work to end (not simply mend) pollution trading is informed by strategic calculations about the  constellation of values that we need to strengthen, the ideological commitments that we need to broaden, the type of society that we should be striving for, who else is pointed in that direction, and when, how and where we can join with them. It is not simply an effort to catch (or avoid being run over by) the dominant stream, but part of a broader effort to generate an alternative stream that moves powerfully in the direction that we need to go. This difference – a difference that is really about strategy and vision, rather than about tactics – is, in my judgment, the difference that really matters.

This could be a productive difference. The most committed opponents of trading recognize that part of the long process of generating the alternative stream that we need involves opening and maintaining space to interrogate critical features of the dominant stream. These are features that remain largely uninterrogated as the ‘mend it’ crowd jumps (even if reluctantly) onto the trading bandwagon.

Being more inclined towards skepticism over the fetishization of markets and technology, and more committed to locating their Bay advocacy within a vision of a different and better society, the trading plaintiffs recognize that the trading conversation creates an opportunity for asserting key questions that are seldom posed in the Bay restoration conversation:

• How long can we expect technology and market machinations to outpace the impact of population growth in the Bay watershed? When will our ability to reduce our pollution footprints be overridden by the number of  new feet?

• What does the increasing financialization of nature (and the deepening hegemony of market fundamentalism of which it is a part) portend for the maintenance of public ownership of public resources?  What will that mean for the Bay in 2030, or 2040?

• What will be the value (or, for that matter, the durability) of a restored Bay in an increasingly degraded and unequal society ? What will be the consequences if our efforts to restore the Bay deepen and aggravate those inequities ?

Many in the ‘mend it’ crowd recognize that these are crucial questions. They insist, however, that they are impractical and can have no meaningful influence in the present environment. Their insistence, of course, helps to make and keep this true.

I think that a more creative and confident environmental community would embrace the trading litigation as an opportunity to engage the kinds of bigger questions and values that matter to people much, much more than the small, technical conversations around which their ‘mend it’ work is organized. Doing this would not require dropping their current work to reform trading, and it would not entail any hypocrisy or contradiction. It would simply involve acknowledging that the fact that we must play the cards that we are dealt does not preclude our continuing to aspire (and conspire) to change the game.

Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch, is now the author of the book Foodopoly: The Battle Over the Future of Food and Farming in America!

Foodopoly takes aim at the corporate control of our food system and the inability it creates for farmers to raise healthy crops and the limited choices it provides consumers.

With a significant ecological and carbon footprint, our current food system is grossly unsustainable.  Transforming the food system is no small task and requires a real societal shift.  If we begin shifting to local, sustainable food sources, we can minimize the destructive footprints associated with the current system’s structure, as well as, provide a platform and space where individual farmers can prosper outside of industrial contracts.

Below is a trailer for Foodopoly.  Check it out and get involved!

http://towncreekfdn.org//www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFu6xiGWrW8&feature=player_embedded

“In a meticulously researched tour de force, Hauter, the executive director of Food & Water Watch, examines the pernicious effects of consolidation in every sector of the food industry.”  Publishers Weekly

If you are interested in learning more about food system reform, check out some other great work being done!

• Real Food Challenge
• Food Mythbusters
• JHU’s Center for a Livable Future, Maryland Food System Mapping Project
• Future Harvest – CASA
• Maryland Hospitals for a Healthy Environment, Sustainable Foods

http://towncreekfdn.org//www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBngiABc73Q

“If you really care about starting a movement, have the courage to follow and show others how to follow.” – Dan Sivers, TED 2010

Blue Water Baltimore is a nonprofit organization working to protect and restore Baltimore’s waterways.  They do amazing work within Baltimore,  but there is one facet of their outreach work that has always stuck out to me – their storm drain arts.

Baltimore is an urban watershed, with significant water quality issues due to the built environment and the amount of trash that occupies the streets.  There is a disconnect among Baltimoreans between what they throw on their streets and into their storm drains and the quality of their local waterways.  Blue Water Baltimore is able to begin to break this disconnect through their storm drain arts outreach work.  They partner with other local groups, communities, schools, and artists to create fun works of art on area storm drains, serving as permanent reminders of the connection between storm drains and local water quality.

http://towncreekfdn.org//www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lXx_7Fqmko&feature=youtu.be

This is a great project that engages a diverse group throughout Baltimore to address not just an environmental issue, but a public health issue as well.

“The act of painting a storm drain has had a positive effect in every community we work with, given the multi-dimensional art and social change aspects of the projects. In the end, that’s the heart of the positive impact these stencils and art projects have. In any part of the city and in anyone’s life, the act of producing art is therapeutic and builds community when it can be done with neighbors and family. All of a sudden, a drain with rainbow crabs and oysters on it becomes a visible and tangible manifestation of the love that individuals and communities have for their neighborhoods. This love is the spark that will help our city become cleaner and more beautiful.”   – Amy Dewan in a blog on her AmeriCorp experience with Blue Water Baltimore.

Today is National Food Day!  Food Day is a national celebration and day of awareness around the need for a more sustainable, healthy, and affordable food system.  Our current food system is unsustainable, are large pollution source and emitter of greenhouse gases.

The ultimate goal for this day is to unify the food movement and push for and improve our nation’s food policies.

Until a few days ago, I was unaware of the real issues surrounding our food system.  The next time you pick up your groceries at your nationwide, chain grocery store, think about where your food is coming from and what it has gone through to be conveniently available to you year long.

Do me a favor?  Take it one step further and think about how convenient it is to have a grocery store at your disposal at all.   You may have the luxury to drive whatever distance to your favorite grocery store, but there are some people who are not.  There are areas across the country identified as “food deserts” who have little to no access to adequate food to support a healthy diet.  These are also areas that are typically populated by numerous fast food restaurants.  The Center for a Livable Future at Johns Hopkins University is currently working on mapping this issues for the state of Maryland.  No community should be a victim of food deserts, but it is a sad reality of the system we operate it.

One last favor?  Tell me, do you think it is fair  that farmers, those responsible for growing the food our nation and our world, depends on should depend on food stamps?  Because I don’t.  The ideal family farm we like to envision is not the family farm of today and some farm families are forced to rely on food stamps.  Our food system is controlled by industrial agricultural systems.  There are a number of myths floating around in regards to our food system.  Anne Lappe addresses these myths in her film “Food Mythbusters: Do We Really Need Industrial Agriculture to Feed the World?”

If we begin to focus locally, and begin shifting our food purchases, thereby creating a space and market for small, family farms to make a living we could begin transforming the food system to a more sustainable model.  This cannot happen over night, but if we focus one community at a time, we could begin seeing a real difference.

A few weeks ago David Morris sent me The Thoughtful Voter’s Guide to Same-Sex Marriage. David is the co-founder and vice president of the Institute for Local Self Reliance, a recent Town Creek Foundation grantee. We support ILSR’s ‘Waste to Wealth’ initiative through which it is organizing support for expanding composting in Maryland.Founded in 1974, ILSR works to provide innovative strategies, working models and timely information to support environmentally sound and equitable community development. As its name implies, ILSR champions local self-reliance – ‘humanly scaled institutions and economies’ through which ownership is distributed as widely as possible.David works out of ILSR’s Minneapolis office, where he runs their program on Defending The Public Good. In their words, the program is a response to ‘the wild imbalance between those who favor protecting public assets and those who do not, between those who believe the public should take priority over the private, and those who do not, between those who would emphasize the ‘we’ over the ‘me’ and those who would not”.

David sent me the Guide because Maryland and Minnesota are two of the four states in which rigorous debates are currently underway about marriage equality. David is distributing the Guide in Minnesota and hoped I might be able to help to do so in Maryland. I am inclined to send the Guide to our grantees, and to profile it on our blog. I suspect that it will not be self evident to our grantees how we see any connection between their work and marriage equality. Most of these organizations are focused on restoring and protecting the Chesapeake Bay and/or on insuring Maryland’s rapid transition to a clean energy economy.

 Their instinctive reaction will probably be that they’ve not much to gain and possibly much to loose by entering the Marriage Equality conversation. They likely suspect that marriage equality proponents and supporters are already in the environmental camp, and they likely fear that the issue may alienate those whose support they are still trying to win.

I think that this reaction is reinforced by an argument that I often encounter in our grantees. This is the belief that environmentalism is, at bottom, a broadly held value that can override disagreements on a range of other things.  This is the hope that we can agree to disagree about a range of things – music, fashion, spectator sports, recreational pursuits, the value of the public sphere, the appropriate size and purpose of government – and yet agree on the importance of environmental protection. This view of environmentalism as fundamental (if sometimes latent) and independent – untethered by ideology and disconnected from other values – drives and defends our perpetual quest for ‘unlikely’ allies and ‘unusual suspects’.

There are many interesting things about this perspective, one of which is the way that it rejects – without naming – a range of alternative possibilities. It rejects the idea that the will to protect the environment may be activated by a specific constellation of values, and undermined by an alternative constellation.  It rejects the idea that our ability to protect the environment may be enabled by particular ideological commitments and undermined by alternative ideologies. In the particular case it overlooks the possibility that sustainability – the authentic, robust sustainability that we require – may be an emergent property of a more just, democratic, and equal society, and not simply a correction that can be grafted onto any society.

Now it would be easy to overstate this in unfair ways – indeed, I’ve probably already done so.  While many if not most of our grantees act as if they believe that ‘we are all environmentalists under the skin’ I do not discount the possibility that they may just be acting. After all, forty years of demonization generates a certain incentive to present oneself as non-threatening and normal, just like everybody else. More importantly, we have made real gains arm in arm with ‘unusual suspects’ and ‘unlikely allies’, and it would be shameful of me to ignore or discount this.

I do think, however, that our assertion and embrace (whether real or tactical) of independent environmentalism is not without cost, not least of which is a certain kind of strategic atrophication. If we believe – or if we act as if we believe – that environmental protection is an independent value, lurking in everyone, then the critical questions probably wind up being tactical ones: How do we orient our work so as to most effectively and efficiently catch whatever appears to be the dominant stream? If, however, environmental protection is an interdependent, ideologically inflected value, then it would seem that questions of vision – and therefore strategy – become unavoidable. What constellation of values need we strengthen, and how will we do so? What ideological commitments need we broaden, and how will we do so? What society are we striving towards, who else is moving in that direction, and when, how, and where can we join with them? How, in other words, do we generate a stream that moves powerfully in the direction that we need to go?

There is always important engagement on these questions, and I’d like to see our community more involved with it. The World Wildlife Fund UK’s Strategies for Change Project has produced a series of reports exploring the relationship between values and environmental protection, and discussing the implications for campaigners if the will to protect the environment is activated by a specific constellation of values and undermined by an alternative constellation. I assume that many of us have read Naomi Klein’s powerful piece in The Nation on “Capitalism vs. The Climate” and Gus Speth’s “America The Possible” essays.

This work seems to me to be united by a sense that the systemic challenges that confront us – political, economic, social, cultural, and, yes, ecological – will not succumb to free market fixes, tailpipe tactics and ‘unholy alliances’. Arguably we environmentalists have a special responsibility to engage this possibility, because the most pressing signals are coming in on our wavelength. If climate change is the paradigmatic example of the planet rebelling against its political, economic, and ideological operating systems, we ought to be the first to recognize that we won’t get where we need to be by agreeing to disagree about politics, economics, and ideology.

So, I am  posting about David’s Guide on our blog, and forwarding this post to our grantees.  I don’t know what our grantees will do with this, or what they will think I want them to do with it. I’m not so sure about that either. What I do know, is that right now, Maryland is ground zero in a fight over the direction (and pace) in which we will evolve as a society, and it does seem to me that that is something that environmentalists ought to stand up and be counted about.

This year marks the 25th anniversary of the Environmental Grantmakers Association.  Their annual fall retreat took place Sunday, September 30th-Wednesday, October 3rd at the Mohonk Mountain House in New Paltz, New York.  The retreat was filled with the most welcoming group of people, stellar views, thought provoking talks, and endless inspiration.

The philanthropic community is filled with well-meaning individuals who want to make a difference in the world.  But as William Cronin poignantly reminded the EGA community in Monday’s keynote, the Dawes Act (responsible for Native American Tribes losing 90 million acres of land) was created by a well meaning group of white men, at Mohonk, who wanted to make the Native Americans responsive to their land as farmers.

The Act, as well meaning as it may have been, destroyed tribal communities.  As a newcomer in philanthropy, Cronin’s statement was a welcomed reminder and caution to the impact a funder can have and the need to ensure each voice has a seat at the table.

In addition to having all voices at the table, we have to be cognizant that campaign wins do not generally occur over night.  If a win does not occur within the first year, the philanthropic community should work with the groups to help build a network or plan that will help it achieve the sought after success.

In a plenary talk given Tuesday morning, with Kumi Naidoo and Van Jones, Jones addressed that exact point of view.  He used the Civil Rights movement and the efforts of Martin Luther King, Jr. to explain the importance of looking beyond failed deliverables.  After MLK’s participation in the bus boycotts, it took years before the Civil Rights Act was finally passed.  If you were a funder, after year after year of not delivering the success of the Civil Rights Act, would you have continued to fund the work.  Some groups might not have.

As Van Jones thoughtfully pointed out, “when there is a quality of leadership, there should be a quality of commitment.”  We must remember this as we work with new and old grantees on the systemic and transformational change we seek to achieve.

We also cannot observe the landscape at the 30k foot level and expect to achieve real systemic, transformational change, if we start from a defeatist point of view.  How can you expect to really make a difference?

In the short amount of time I have spent within the environmental and philanthropic community, it seems to me, that the environmental community is almost too nice, which negatively influences how they are perceived by legislators and agency personnel.  Just because our “friend” is in office, does not mean we should be afraid to make the large asks or hold them accountable for their actions.  It gets us no where, beyond the community not being taken as seriously.  This is not like having a friend in office, it is like having a child and there needs to be consequences.  We cannot expect to make the real transformational changes necessary in the community if we shy away from the hard asks.

Environmentalism is commonsense.  It should be a bipartisan issue and should be engaging a diverse group of individuals from various backgrounds.

On the third night of the retreat, Yoko Ono and Dr. Anthony Infraffea, moderated by David Fenton, spoke about fracking and the work of Artists Against Fracking.

When asked how to reach broader audiences with something as complicated as fracking, Yoko responded, without hesitation, “Truth is simple. We are the ones complicating it.”

http://towncreekfdn.org//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg2gAbb0NuE

After such a great conversation with Yoko Ono, we were joined by Natalie Merchant (also involved with Artists Against Fracking).  EGA was shown a sneak peak of the documentary ‘Dear Governor Cuomo, New Yorkers Against Fracking in One Voice’ (featured above), followed by a moving performance by Natalie Merchant and her band.

When I thought such an amazing night could not get any better, I was witness to a legit hoedown of EGA members and Natalie Merchant herself.  What a great way to celebrate, not only the great work of the environmental philanthropic community, but also EGA’s 25th anniversary!

And then Wednesday morning happened…

After such an amazing trip I sadly left the picturesque landscape surrounding Mohonk and attempted to head back to the good ole eastern shore of Maryland on Wednesday morning.  Apparently, someone upstairs did not agree with this decision, as 10 minutes before reaching exit 7a on the New Jersey Turnpike traffic came to an absolute stop.  This LOVELY food truck thought they would make the situation even better, by opening up and selling food, thus preventing cars from moving the little that they could.  What was suppose to be a 5 hour trip, turned into a 10 hour drive.  THANK GOODNESS for the companionship of my trusty iPod, a good cup of coffee, and the fabulous memories of my first EGA retreat.

THE END. 

…there was one brave woman and her very brave book.  – 1999 New York Times magazine, on Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring.

I grew up in the suburbs of Baltimore County where perfectly manicured lawns were (and still are) the norm.  My lawn was regularly treated with pesticides.  Once the lawn had been sprayed we had to remain off the grass for at least 24-48 hours.  At the time, pesticide treatment went on without question.  In retrospect I am appalled by how slow I was to realize the impact that practice could have on my health in the long run.  I mean seriously, how did I or anyone else in my family not think of what it could mean for our health, especially since we had to remain off of the lawn days after initial treatment?

Rich, green and perfectly manicured lawns are almost a societal non-negotiable.  To achieve that expectation we spray tons of pesticides on our lawns to create that perfect societal image.  There is a tremendous disconnect or false belief that a product that is meant to kill small insects would have no residual impact on humans.  Let me me just say – the dose does not make the poison.

Pesticides are meant to kill and have a residual and accumulative impact in the ecosystem.  Just because we are not the “tiny bug” the pesticide is intended for does not mean we are immune to their impacts after years of exposure.

Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring brought that issue to light in 1962 and generated public awareness and dialogue around the impact of pesticides in our ecosystems.  September 27, 2012 marked the 50th anniversary of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring and although there is still a lot of work to be done, there is some great work emerging throughout the state on environmental health related issues.  The Maryland Pesticide Network, a group that has been around for a number of years, has been fighting on pesticide related issues in Maryland.  Additionally, the Maryland Environmental Health Network, a newly formed network in the state, is poised to bring valuable support to the fights against pesticides and other environmental health issues.  These are two groups to keep an eye out for this fall as they will be important players throughout the upcoming Maryland legislative session.

If there is any year for the environmental community to really dive deep into pesticide related issues, let it be during the 50th anniversary of Silent Spring.