This week, our class took part in an ecological footprint exercise where we visually represented our individual impacts by changing our position on the field. I noticed that this exercise made some of my classmates uncomfortable. Some classmates expressed concerns about the fact that not all of these decisions (such as driving a car to school or eating meat) were in the control of the students who we would, ideally, do this exercise with one day. It was also pointed out that some of these Earth-impacting decisions are influenced by things like low socioeconomic status, which would obviously be unproductive and harmful to make students feel badly about. While I do agree with both concerns, I still think these uncomfortable exercises are so important.
As I thought about this, I had an “Aha” moment- choices that help or harm the Earth can be caused by both excess privilege AND lack of privilege. It is not an “either or”. For example:
-Riding the city bus to work can be a symptom of living in a large urban centre (think how expensive the rent is!) with a well-designed transit system, AND a symptom of being unable to afford a car.
-I usually eat plant-based so I can save money, AND I am able to eat that way because I had the privilege of being taught to cook cheap, healthy, eco-friendly meals growing up.
I think the conversation about personal footprints is so hard to have because it reveals all kinds of complicated inequities without actually talking about them.
A funny thing I’ve noticed is that middle-class adults sometimes express seemingly conflicting beliefs about this relationship between economics and environment within the same conversation. It usually goes something like this: “It’s the big companies that really are doing most of the damage anyways, this is caused by people like Jeff Bezos”. And then a few moments later: “Well maybe if I could afford to, I would (start a compost in my yard, buy reusable instead of disposable, eat less animal products, etc.)”. It’s unintentional, but these comments reveal the truth that sometimes the problem is too much money, not enough money, AND independent of money all at once. Although accessibility does factor in here (e.g., some people physically can not wash reusable dishes), all of these choices have the potential to save a lot of money- or, if done in different ways, cost a lot of money.
In BC’s math curriculum, we teach students about money starting from Kindergarten. We teach students to budget for and think about decisions that they’re not old enough to make yet, like which groceries are bought, what is cooked for dinner, or how they get to school. Why don’t we teach students how to make choices that are both financially AND environmentally conscious at the same time, even before they can make them? Speaking of ecophobia, could we teach our students to have a sense of joy and agency around these choices that meaningfully reduces the guilt, shame, and fear surrounding our eco-footprints? Imagine this science project: grade two students are taught to grow sprouts- a nutritionally dense and allergy-friendly food- in recycled glass jars at school. The only waste produced AND the only cost is the paper packet the seeds came in. Students are not taught about the evils of plastic-clad store sprouts. They are simply taught how wonderful these little DIY sprouts are. Students get to eat their experiment, and bring it home to teach their caregivers. It can be repeated at home in a tiny apartment kitchen, or on gleaming marble countertops.
Imagine that when these students get to middle school, we have the honest conversation with them that our footprints can be too big because of wealth, poverty, AND neither, and that the positive changes we make can be caused by the exact same things. It’s social studies, financial math, and environmental science, all together. I have so much hope that we can keep up these conversations in a good way, let’s look at what the complexity and discomfort teaches us rather than turning away from it.