Photo by Via Tsuji, used under Creative Commons licensing.

 

Reposted from Lucy Moore's blog with permission. Last month’s post “Anglo Sisters” brought a comment I was not expecting.  After taking liberties with women from Texas, I was sure I would get a response or two from that corner, but not a one. Instead I received a thought provoking message from a cousin. She and I share a great great grandmother who was Dakota and Ojibway, and she began with a question: How do you think your ancestors would feel if they knew that you were totally denying your Indian heritage? I was stunned. I would never deny that heritage. I honor and treasure it, and share it when appropriate. Did it occur to me to mention it in “Anglo Sisters”? No. That was a story about identifying with a culture that is not yours, and learning to identify with the one you were born into. I identify myself as Anglo, I was raised Anglo, I am seen as Anglo, I have had all the advantages of being Anglo. I am not hiding all the other ancestors that contributed to my particular being; they are making themselves known in ways I cannot imagine.  But most of the time the fact that I have an Indian great great grandmother is not relevant. And especially here in the southwest I am hypersensitive to the danger of appearing to be part of the “wannabe” tribe, those who have a trace (or not even) of Indian blood but who “wannabe” native and masquerade as a tribal person. So, end of subject? Of course not. I continue to muse on this question of who we are, who we appear to be, and how to be honest with ourselves and others. Why did it not occur to me to mention my Indian ancestor in “Anglo Sisters”? Was I really in denial? Did I sacrifice the truth of my identity for the sake of a good story? I can defend myself on all these points, but still the questions are worth asking. I also muse on, and am amused by, the way people pick and choose their ancestors. When I was a teenager a relative told me that “we” were related to Charlemagne. I was studying world history at the time and thought that connection was pretty cool.

And then I got to thinking about the enormous number of ancestors I must have – really countless if you go back 1200 years to the time of Charlemagne. How curious that one out of that multitude survives in my family lore. What about the pickpockets and the murderers, the poor and the hardworking, the ordinary and the boring? I know they are there in the thousands. And then, to further complicate things, along comes Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who has been passing as Black. She has chosen to be Black, and her commitment and passion are not to be argued with. But I can understand how offensive this is to African Americans. As a mediator working in all kinds of cross-cultural contexts, I have learned that what people want most is to be heard. They want to know that the listener cares, respects what they are saying, and maybe even empathizes. They don’t want you to become them, they want you to understand them. If you try to understand another culture by taking on the trappings – wearing the headband and beads, curling the hair and darkening the skin – it is trivializing that history and legacy, tossing aside what it really means to live that life, to carry that identity through generations. I am reminded of other wannabes, like those my husband encounters from time to time. He is a Vietnam combat vet and occasionally runs into someone of the same age group who is posing as a brother in arms. A few key questions and the person is outted as a pretender.  This is very hurtful to those who earned their membership in that group legitimately and with great sacrifice. I’m sure there are many more examples, but I will let you ponder them yourself. At this point all I can say is that neither hiding your identity nor taking on that of another is a healthy option. And one more thing: we are all – or at least most of us – completely mixed up biologically, and in some cases psychologically as well. And back to my cousin. We had a dialogue on the subject and this was her conclusion in her last email.

I do think that discussions are needed, about race, and racial identity. And ethnic identity, too. But I cannot bring myself to comment on anyone else’s self-identification. The world is made up of lots of “quirky” people. Some are pretty odd. And I think that kindness is the best way to approach our differences.

I couldn’t agree more. Thank you, cousin. And, here is my much-loved grandpa, Nelson Honoré Boulet, whose mother was part Objibwe and Dakota and whose father was a French Canadian lumberjack. He had to drop out of school in the 6th grade but loved learning, spoke French and Norwegian, and was teaching himself Spanish when he died at 102.

Reposted from Lucy Moore's blog with permission. 

[For those of you not in the Southwest, the term Anglo usually means anyone not Indian, more or less synonymous with White.]

It’s embarrassing, but one of the hardest things about being Anglo for me has been admitting it. After years living in Navajo country and more years working with Pueblos and tribes, I sometimes drift into some kind of fantasy that I am not really Anglo, that I am almost an Indian, that I am more non-White than White. Of course this is not true, and I try as quickly as possible to bring myself back to reality before I do anything that might embarrass myself and others. One memory that helps bring me back comes from Acoma Pueblo several years ago.

I had a free day and decided to indulge myself and go to the traditional dances at Acoma Pueblo. I jumped in the car, zipped through Albuquerque, turned west toward Acoma, then south to the pueblo’s mesa top. I spotted it in the distance, rising hundreds of feet off the valley floor, so beautiful, so powerful. I felt very lucky to be on my way to a special ceremony in a community that would welcome me and all others who came with respect.

I arrived early, parked in the lot at the bottom of the mesa and walked up the dust and sandstone path to the top. The adobe houses, the white church, the ancient cemetery, the smells of cooking, all was very comforting. I felt oddly at home. I was ready for a spiritual experience, a reprieve from the demands of my life in Santa Fe.

It was 10:30 and the first dance would probably be starting soon. I walked behind the houses that ringed the dirt plaza, peeking between them to find the perfect viewing spot. I assessed the level of the sun and its direction, the location of the kiva, and other vague criteria. I found an area between two blocks of adobe houses where I would have a good view. There were a couple of dozen folding lawn chairs set up in four rows in front. I picked a spot next to one of the buildings and behind the rows of chairs. The chairs, I thought with anticipation, will be filled with elders and children, and I will be able to see what is going on in the plaza over their heads.

I leaned against the wall and looked out beyond the plaza and above the roofs on the other side to the sky. It was spectacular. The clouds were puffs, huge ridiculous, snowy white puffs, bigger than they should be, so big I wondered how they could hold themselves together. Surely they were drawn by a preschooler and pasted up above the pueblo for this special day. And the color of the sky, also straight from a preschool box of crayons, was simple, gorgeous, clear blue. A perfect day for dances at Acoma, dances which promise to be a delight to the eye and ear, and an inspiration for the soul.

My reverie was broken by the sound of chatter, chattering women coming across the plaza in my direction. They were not the elderly Acoma ladies I had pictured sitting in front of me; nor were they a younger generation preparing with excitement for the feast to come. They were from a tribe to the east, from Texas. They were tourists — from Dallas, I surmised — and they had targeted those empty folding chairs as prime seats. “How lucky we are to get here early,” I heard one say, “so that we could get good seats.” As they got closer I saw that the glint coming off their breasts was the sun striking their large, extra large, silver and turquoise squash blossom necklaces. They each had on a hefty concho belt as well. They were decked out and they were ready to see the dances. They settled themselves in four front row seats, and continued to talk, unaware of me behind them, leaning against the wall in the shade and blushing violently.

I stared at the backs of their heads and thought critical thoughts. “How could they be so insensitive? Don’t they realize that these chairs are not for them?  Don’t they know that they should be unobtrusive like me?” Pueblo members were beginning to gather and I could hear the drums from the kiva. The dance would start soon. I was certainly glad that I had nothing to do with those women from Dallas. I made sure to stand as far from them as I could so that no one mistook me for part of their clan. I assured myself that I was a different kind of Anglo, one who had lived and worked with Native people — and here I began to slip back into that fantasy — one who was really more Indian than Anglo… underneath it all.

The folding chairs were filling up with Acomas, and I was getting more and more agitated about the tourists in those chairs designated for Acoma elders and children. I was torn. On the one hand I wished that the Dallas women would snap to and move themselves to some secondary position where they belonged. On the other hand, I reveled in the fact that they remained ignorant, because that made them all the more distinct from me. There could be no confusing us, them and me. They were insensitive and I was enlightened and aware. I was dying for them to get up and move, to see the light, and at the same time I was relishing the fact that they were the Anglos and that I was not.

The drums were louder now, and from the posture and movement of those around me I could tell that the dancers would soon appear between the break in the houses across the plaza.  Perhaps it was the beat of those drums, the anticipation, those oversized clouds, a pang of guilt —  whatever it was, I had a revelation. My pettiness and judgementalism, my competition with these women for who was the most deserving outsider to be present at this very special cultural event, all these unpleasant and unworthy emotions subsided. I saw these Dallas ladies in a new light. I realized they were doing the best they could. They had no knowledge about where they were, but they had taken the trouble to get themselves up to the mesa top in time, on this special day, and they cared enough to sit in the heat of the late August sun and wait for the dance. They saw chairs and made an assumption. This was all foreign to them.

At the last possible moment my conscience kicked in. After all, I knew so much more than they did. I was Anglo, and I was kidding myself to think any differently. And these tourists were Anglo, and by God, we needed to help each other out. Much to my surprise, I was flooded with affinity for them. They were my sisters! Moving in their direction, I squeezed between chairs until I was standing behind them.

“Excuse me,” I whispered,” leaning over and smiling at them. “I just wanted to let you know that these chairs are always reserved for the older Acoma people and the children, so that they can have a good view of the dances. Probably you didn’t know….” Before I could finish, there was a muffled shriek in unison from the foursome, and they began to rustle in their seats, gathering purses, parasols, and water bottles. “Oh my, no! I didn’t know that! “Well, thank goodness you told us!” “How embarrassing!” “We would never want to do anything wrong!” They vacated the chairs in such a hurry that one collapsed. The last Dallas-ite turned quickly to right it, and smiled at the elder who had been sitting beside her. “I was just resting, you know. Sorry about that.” The grandma smiled back.

My Anglo sisters followed me to where I was standing at the side of the building behind the chairs. With many thanks and apologies they settled in to enjoy the dance. The clouds were even puffier and more outrageous than before. The first set of dancers rounded the corner of the opposite building and appeared in the plaza. We five Anglo ladies gasped with quiet appreciation.

Reposted from Lucy Moore's blog with permission.

I went to have blood drawn the other day. As I waited in the crowded waiting room, I watched the technicians open the door to the blood drawing area and call out a name.  Which one will call my name, I wondered. I hope it is a good one, not one who has insomnia, is mad at a spouse, had a fender bender on the way to work, is suffering from low blood sugar and needs a candy bar. Finally my turn came. A middle-aged, cheerful woman named Maureen ushered me into the cubicle, where I sat down and rolled up a sleeve. She tied the tubing tight around my upper arm and began patting the area where she hoped for a plump vein. There were too many “hmmms” and “arrghs” for my comfort and when she finally pricked the skin and began exploring it was painful. Now, the noises were coming from me. She was full of apologies as she abandoned that site, put a bandaid on, and said she would have to try the other arm.

I was unhappy. I had lost confidence in her, and was worried she would torture me again with no success. I dutifully rolled up the other sleeve and stuck out my left arm. She tightened the tubing and patted and poked with her finger. More “hmmm”s and a final “I don’t know about this,” at which point she whipped off the tubing and shouted, “Mike!”

“I’m going to let Mike do this one,” she said matter-of-factly.  “Sometimes that’s just the thing to do.”  I was so grateful, and gushed with appreciation.

Mike whisked through the curtain with a smile. He was small, young, with hair sticking up all over his head, and black horned-rim glasses. Maureen thanked him and left to call another patient. In less than a minute Mike had performed the deed, and disappeared like a genie with three tubes of my blood.

I keep thinking about Mike with gratitude, but actually I am more interested in Maureen. She admitted failure with such clarity and grace; she knew she was just not the person for this job, for whatever reason. And she knew what to do: call in someone else, maybe more experienced and skilled, to get the job done. Did she kick herself that she hadn’t been able to find that elusive vein? Was she embarrassed? Was she resentful that Mike had to come bail her out? I saw no signs, just ultimate professionalism and a realistic view of what was needed.

I am particularly impressed because for me doing what Maureen did is very difficult. As an environmental and public policy mediator, I offer the ultimate in people skills. I am the one who keeps calm in the midst of turbulent emotions and high-stakes conflict. I am the one that interprets one enraged side to the other, that guides the group toward a more peaceful place, hopefully toward common ground. I have been doing this for over 25 years and am confident in my skills. In certain situations, I am sure that there is no one who could do the work better than me.

But I have had my own Maureen experience. I was mediating the development of a set of regulations for a federal agency. There were tribal members in the collaborative group and with much experience in Indian country I knew this was probably one of the reasons I was hired. As we entered the last phase of drafting, I worked with the tribal members to help them document their needs. The result was a 20 page statement that included all their concerns, something I thought was useful for the group to see. But I had misjudged the impact that this would have on the agency. They were furious, felt I had betrayed them, and finally that I was not a competent mediator to let things go down this inappropriate road.

In talks I realized that their trust in me was seriously shaken, and that I needed to resign and let another mediator step in. I needed to call in Mike. But I did not have Maureen’s objectivity and apparent lack of ego.  I felt a flood of emotions that clouded the situation and made the transition difficult. I felt embarrassed, victimized and unjustly accused, I was insulted on the one hand, and filled with self-doubt on the other. In sum, I was a mess and it took me a while to put the experience in perspective and realize that, like in anything, there are times when you are the right one for the job and times when you are not. The reason is not important, and your ego is not the centerpiece. The process and its ultimate success are at stake, and stepping aside takes courage and humility.

Good for you, Maureen!

Photo by David Tan, used under Creative Commons licensing.

 

Once my ten-year old son and I were in the grocery store, and we witnessed a crime. A man stood over the mounds of grapes, plucking and tasting one after another from different bunches. “What right,” I hissed to my son, “does he have to eat grapes? What if everyone did that!” I ranted all the way home, so much so that “the man who ate the grapes” became one of those family phrases that can bring a chuckle decades later. Where did that outrage come from? Like many passions it came from childhood. When I was in grade school, my mother was a graduate student in philosophy, and I learned from her about the categorical imperative. What I grasped at that impressionable age was that if you are thinking about doing something, you should imagine that everyone around you, even everyone on earth, will do the same thing. Because if you have the right to do it, then, of course, so does everyone else. I immediately saw that I should not throw my gum wrapper out the car window. If everyone did that the air would be thick, the ground covered, with foil and paper. And, if everyone acted like the man who ate the grapes, we would be left with a pile of stems, right?

Photo by Derek Key, used under Creative Commons licensing.

 

Another passion that has guided my choices as an adult came from my father. From him I gained a deep appreciation for the democratic process. He was an enthusiastic, if not always successful, politician in my early years. He loved the race and was passionate about his underdog causes. I learned from him the joys of participating in the system, imperfect as it may be.  The concept of democracy, where ideally each person has an equal voice, moves me deeply; I confess to even tearing up in the voting booth when I think about it.  If we all took each vote that seriously, thinking about our needs, the needs of others, the greater good — and the categorical imperative — wow, it could be an amazing world! Now I find myself all grown up, a professional mediator, and I see that these values instilled by my parents are core to what I do and why. My cases are complex conflicts over the use of natural resources and protection of the environment. My first and most important job is to get the right people at the table to find a solution. I am insistent that every interest with a stake in the outcome be represented. Each of those voices has a right to participate, to have a say in that ultimate solution. Of course it would be easier in many cases if the troublemakers, the obstructionists or the little guys were left out. Then the powerful players could cut a deal “on behalf of everyone.” But that strategy offends me deeply. To resolve the most difficult conflicts we face requires us all to take part, get educated, speak up, and above all to listen to other voices. To approach these problems like the self-absorbed man who ate the grapes will not do. I welcome your thoughts and stories about the origins of your passions and values. And by the way, you can still be my friend if you have sampled grapes at the grocery store. I am working on my tolerance.

So, the Bundys are at it again. Two years ago Cliven Bundy and his gang took up arms against the Bureau of Land Management in Nevada claiming the feds had no right to charge a private citizen grazing fees on public lands. “Public” apparently means “help yourself” in their dictionary. I don’t know if Cliven considers that stand-off a success, but he got a ton of publicity, and my understanding is that his cattle are still grazing – or trespassing, depending on your point of view – on federal land. The conflict lives on in court, where it has been for a couple of decades.

And now Ammon and Ryan Bundy, Cliven’s sons, have rounded up their own posse and gone to southeast Oregon to support another ranching family, the Hammonds, who are facing jail time for arson on federal land. At this moment they are occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge building and the Fish and Wildlife Service has closed its offices in the area. Schools are also closed for the week.

There is plenty to be concerned about. Again they are armed. Again they are full of tough talk about staying til justice is done. Again they are hearing the “word of God,” exhorting them to break the law on this piece of land that is not theirs. They are ready to die if it comes to that. These are elements of many of the worst conflicts in the world today, and these are the elements that make my mediator’s heart sink. 

But, wait, a ray of light! The local community, including the Hammonds, are rejecting the uninvited support. Their public statements include: “They don’t speak for us,” “We don't need outsiders telling us what to do," “We are a law-abiding community,” “Bundys are here for their own gain, at our expense.” Even Susan Hammond, wife of the soon-to-be imprisoned Mr.  Hammond, said "I don't really know the purpose of the guys who are out there.”  Most seem to want the uninvited supporters, now calling themselves Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, to go back where they came from.

As an environmental mediator I have dealt with dozens of nasty conflicts over the use and management of natural resources. (And, no, I do not want to go to Oregon.) What I have learned is that there is a powerful bond between people and their land. If it is your land, by birth, by deed, by heritage or culture, your stake is greater than any other interested party. If you are a tribe, for instance, or a traditional rural community, and your people have been in a certain place for centuries, you have a powerful card to play at the negotiating table. If those resources are the foundation for your livelihood, your identity, your beliefs and values, then you are not going anywhere. You are staying put, and you will be cautious – not necessarily hostile – but cautious about those who want to share in those resources, who want to join you in your homeland.

This is the source of the deep conflict in the southwest between land-based traditional communities and newly arrived environmentalists, who with the best intentions invite themselves in, full of ideas for a better way of doing things. Aside from whether the new ideas are good ones or not, the approach and the assumptions can be inappropriate at best, and insulting at worst. The environmentalists may be confused and hurt by the reception, and may choose to dig in and fight, or may leave for greener pastures where they will be appreciated. In New Mexico a conflict between environmentalists and a traditional sheep-grower’s cooperative was resolved through mediation, but the process was a difficult one for all involved. The environmentalists who opposed the coop’s grazing their sheep grazing in a wildlife refuge had to learn about the culture and history of the land and develop respect for the particular link between the community and the land. The sheep growers had to come to the table and negotiate, something they were in the beginning unwilling to do.

And so, Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, do you see the parallel? Those local folks have power based on their sense of community and their attachment to that piece of land. The battle with the Fish and Wildlife Service is theirs to fight, with the tools they choose. You have arrived uninvited and are being politely asked to leave. I would suggest you do so ASAP.

And to the federal government, I say smart move. Shut down and wait it out. Let those with the real power, those on the land, handle this invasion. They are the best equipped and have the moral authority to defend themselves.

Did you catch Lucy Moore's blog post about the Bundy brothers last week? Since the late 1980s, Lucy has worked as a mediator, facilitator, trainer and consultant, specializing in natural resource and public policy disputes. In her book, Common Ground on Hostile Turf, she shares the most compelling stories of her career, offering insight and inspiration to anyone caught in a seemingly hopeless dispute.

Through ten memorable stories, she shows how issues of culture, personality, history, and power affect negotiations. And she illustrates that equitable solutions depend on a healthy group dynamic. Both the mediator and opposing parties must be honest, vulnerable, open, and respectful. Easier said than done, but Moore proves that subtle shifts can break the logjam and reconcile even the most fiercely warring factions. Check out Chapter 5, "Finding Common Ground," below. 

Despite more than 100 years of stewardship and protection from agencies like the National Park Service, America’s wild places are still vulnerable to commercial and residential land development. In the Grand Canyon, uranium mining and increasing rates of tourism not only threaten land and air quality, they also undermine a social balance that Native Americans and other local groups have worked hard to maintain.

On March 10, Satellites in the High Country author Jason Mark and Common Ground on Hostile Turf author Lucy Moore will come together for a free webinar as they discuss the importance of wild places in America and how stakeholders can work together to resolve their environmental disputes. To learn more about these issues, we asked Lucy about the role of environmental mediation in conversations surrounding wild places. Check out her answers below and register for the webinar for free here.
 

Can you provide context for some of the proposals and controversies currently surrounding the Grand Canyon? What plans are there to involve the public in discussions surrounding these situations? 

The two controversial development proposals at Grand Canyon are on different tracks, given the different jurisdictions and legal frameworks. The future of the Navajo Escalade Project, proposing to build a major resort on the edge of the canyon with a tram to the confluence of the Colorado and Little Colorado Rivers, seems to depend on the political preferences of those in power. The current Navajo Nation president Russell Begaye opposes the project and has put it on hold indefinitely. Whether or not it survives and is viable is up to the tribal council and the Navajo citizens it represents.

The second controversy involves the major housing and shopping center development at Tusayan, the small town adjacent to the National Park. Tusayan would like to be able to offer housing and services to its own residents and to the hundreds of Park employees who are currently in mobile homes within the Park, cramped and with no hope of home ownership. Proponents of the development claim that it would relieve pressure on the Park and allow the town to become a badly needed commercial center in the area. Opponents are concerned about the size of the development and its impact on groundwater, air and other environmental resources. Because the development requires road easements from the neighboring Kaibab National Forest, this proposal is wending its way through a federal decision-making process, the environmental impact assessment.
 

As an environmental mediator, it’s always a difficult question to know when and how to weave the public into a formal mediation process. I believe strongly that the public has a right to know who is at the table, who they represent, what the goals are and when they can have their say.  A challenge is in the definition of the public. Should local residents be given priority? What about those from elsewhere who have an interest in the proposal, either pro or con? I find it a strong argument that if you live and work on the land your “stake” in the outcome is greater than the environmental organization executive director who flies in from the coast to testify. But we can all think of examples where local control is not in the best interest of the long-term health of the resource or the community, and outside voices are needed. Keeping a balance, and maintaining respect, is tricky indeed.

The federal process at Tusayan, cumbersome and time-consuming as it is, does require public involvement and a comment period at different points. How seriously those comments are taken and how they are weighed is always a worry for advocates. Does the number of comments on one side or another matter? Is anyone who counts really reading my comment? Is the decision already a done deal? When I am managing the public meetings prior to these comment periods I make sure that the decision-makers are there, that they are paying attention, are responsive to questions, and are respectful. That’s all I can do.

I don’t know if there are requirements for public involvement in the Navajo decision-making system, but I am sure that the grassroots citizens have ways of making their wishes known. And, also, outside interests advocating for environmental and cultural protection, or economic development, are certainly ready to become involved if there is an opportunity to influence the decision.
 

Mohave County Supervisor Buster Johnson has suggested that uranium mining in his county could be worth $29 million. Could you share some of your experiences in environmental mediation that involve the balance between economic development and environmental quality?

Finding that balance can be impossible. Sometimes there are ways to modify a project so that it provides some economic benefit and offers some environmental protection. But for major projects, like a uranium mine, it will be difficult to negotiate a “smaller” mine. The developer will have needs of scale to make a profit; the opponents will see any mine as unacceptable.

I have an example from many years ago that sticks with me as a valiant effort to meet the economic and preservation needs of a region. I hang onto it, I think, because it is a rare example of someone who could see both sides and find a creative step to take.

The Mexican Gray Wolf is an endangered species that has been reintroduced by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in southwestern New Mexico and southeastern Arizona. The wolves are raised with minimal human contact and under strict protocols that prepare them to behave in the wild mountains of this region as they once did. Ranchers and small-town folk in the region have opposed the program from the beginning, and over the years some have killed wolves with a variety of motives: protection of cattle, fear for their own safety, or general resentment of feds butting into their business. The USFWS educated communities as best they could and offered compensation for cattle killed by wolves, but the killings continued.

Kevin Bixby is the founder and executive director of the Southwest Environment Center, based in Las Cruces in southern New Mexico. Distressed with the standoff and the decreasing population he also was able to see the ranchers’ point of view. Rather than take them head on and tell them they were wrong, uneducated, unenlightened and heartless people, he came up with an idea to meet both sets of needs. He designed (and I facilitated) a workshop in the heart of the reintroduction area for ranchers to hear from local residents in the Yellowstone area, where wolves were introduced a few years earlier. They described their struggle with the wolves, their fears and resentments, matching their audience perfectly. And then they talked about how they turned the situation around into a money-making venture, a much more profitable one, they said, than the ranching and outfitting they had been doing. They were offering to well-heeled eco-tourists an experience in wolf country that included going into areas on horseback, camping overnight, listening to wolves calling, hearing local legend and history of the area, learning the truth about wolves and their habits. The local New Mexico ranchers were intrigued, had lots of questions and stayed after the workshop ended to talk more to these compadres from another region. They took brochures, asked for phone numbers, and said they were interested in pursuing the idea.

I don’t know if anything came of it, but I do know that Kevin took a bold step in reaching out to that community – the traditional enemy of the environmentalist – and putting himself in their shoes. Thinking “what can I do to help these people whose needs are real?” is a rarity among advocates on any side. I thank Kevin for that moment of inspiration. 
 

In your book you mention that the Native American community is often – and with good reason – reluctant to align with the federal government, even when the goal is the protection of their land and sacred sites. Can you talk more about the challenges surrounding federal-tribal relationships? 

The federal-tribal relationship adds a layer of complexity to any conflict where a tribe, or tribes, and a federal agency, or agencies, are involved. Part of that complexity derives from their painful common history. It is difficult for tribal representatives at the table to forget about those travesties when they are sitting across from people working for that same federal government that perpetrated those crimes. The fact that it happened 150 years ago means nothing when it comes to matters of the heart. And it is painful in another way for the federal representatives to have to confront this history. No matter that they were not born until many decades after the atrocities; guilt has no expiration date.

Another part of the complexity comes from the inherent conflict of interest for the federal government. They have a trust responsibility to all federally recognized tribes to defend and represent those interests. At the same time, an agency like the Bureau of Reclamation may propose to build a dam that will prevent seasonal spawning for fish critical to the tribe’s economy and/or culture. Lawyers for the Department of Interior, which houses Reclamation, the National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Service, and many others, find themselves in conflict, bound to represent both the interests of the bureau and the trust responsibility to tribes. Tribes often feel in these cases that their interests are sacrificed for those of the non-Indian world. This is an artifact of federal law that is not within my purview as mediator to resolve. What I can do is help tribes air their anxieties, help feds listen and respond, and focus on the issues at hand and a resolution that is satisfactory to all. And finally, for me it is all about the relationship. If individuals can appreciate each other and see the humanity in each other, we have a chance at a good solution.

Want to hear more? Don't forget to register for the webinar this Thursday and enter for the chance to win a 5-day adventure with Jason Mark in Flagstaff, Arizona to learn more about the threats to the Canyon and explore its surrounding wildlands.

We asked our authors: In today's age of slacktivism, has Earth Day become meaningless as a way to make impactful environmental change? Check out what Lucy Moore, author of  Common Ground on Hostile Turf, had to say below. 

A couple of weeks ago I scrolled through my 50 some emails of the day and was struck by one from Crowdrise. The subject line read “Have you saved an animal from extinction?” It was a 24 hour emergency campaign to save the Greater Bamboo Lemur in Madagascar. I glanced, saw there was video, and hit delete. The world is too big, I told myself, and I know too much already about the suffering of humans, animals and the planet itself. But the question has hung in my mind and led me to think about activism.  How do we choose what to spend our time and energy on? How can we be most effective?

If I ask myself Have I saved an animal from extinction? the answer is obviously “no.” Would I like to? Of course. How should I choose among the thousands of animals that need saving? One from the World Wildlife Fund’s top ten?  The one that is the closest to home, the most exotic, the cutest? Or, the one that appears in my inbox? What should I do to save it? Take a trip to Madagascar or Alaska or wherever? Send money? Watch the video and click “like,” instantly bombarding  all my Facebook friends with the same problem?

Those choosing social media and digital activism have become known as slacktivists, the armchair activists who participate in the world by signing online petitions, “liking” on Facebook, “sharing” with all your connections, maybe sending money. The term can also include those of us who sport bumper stickers, wristbands and T-shirts with messages, and buy from socially conscious companies like Ben and Jerry’s and Paul Newman.

Critics would say that these are all ways of pacifying our consciences, assuaging guilt and kidding ourselves that we are making a difference. Real activism, they say, means educating yourself, choosing your cause wisely, committing your time, energy and other support to the effort, joining with others in protests or actions that have an impact and maybe include risk. I have a friend in his 80s who right now is at Creech Air Force Base protesting the use of drones that wage remote warfare, often with disastrous consequences for innocent people. He will likely be arrested. I admire him immensely and I think his form of activism is the best, the gold standard.

I don’t want to criticize anyone for how they choose to deal with this overwhelming world we find ourselves in. If you want to hide in a cave and meditate, cut off from all the bad news, I understand. If you choose to lead a good life, be a good parent, partner, and citizen, recycle and drive a Prius, more power to you. If you are driven to protest at Creech Air Force Base, you have my admiration and I’d be glad to pitch in for gas.

Or, if you choose to sign every internet petition that touches your heart or causes you outrage, go for it. And if you feel satisfaction that you have accomplished something with that signature, that you have joined a well-intentioned community and you convince others to do the same, why not? I would be sorry, however, if by clicking you are so satisfied that you decide not to bother with a more active step, like organizing or calling a meeting or writing a letter or calling a congressman. But my guess is that most of the chronic “clickers” would not be out in the streets or at Creech anyway, and if they are adding numbers to a righteous voice, that’s a good thing.

I can’t see that it causes any harm, and there are examples – Amnesty International, for instance—huge numbers signatures have had an impact. In repressive countries, social media, tweeting, and its equivalents are actually very active steps to take. The Arab Spring movement was born in a million clicks. And here at home, Bernie Sanders has millions of people clicking monthly to send him $27, creating a campaign chest that represents enormous power. There is real power in that armchair, recliner, bar stool or whatever.

So am I a slacktivist? Sure, but I try to be discriminating and not click every green button that comes along. I try to send my money where I am sure it will be wisely used, and this may require some research. And, I try not to forget the power of individual human (not digital) acts, like writing a letter to the editor or to decision-makers, or gathering friends together to strategize about how to make our voice louder. Oh, and most importantly, I try to protect myself from being overwhelmed, or I’ll end up muttering in a cave. My apologies to the Greater Bamboo Lemur.

The record was broken this year for the number of pounds of rattlesnakes harvested at the annual Rattlesnake Roundup in Sweetwater, Texas. I was blown away. The figure was 24,262 pounds. The favored hunting technique is spraying gasoline into their holes to drive them out to slaughter. The roundup includes a lot of other activities, like a Miss Snake Charmer contest, a gun show, a cook off, and special events for kids, who are admitted free if they’re under 12. And to be fair, Texas is not the only state with such an attitude. We in New Mexico have the Annual Coyote Hunt, based on the same premise that this threat to man and cows must be reduced by any means possible. Every state may be able to tout its own particular assault on wildlife.

There are opponents to the rattlesnake roundup who speak eloquently about the damage to the environment and other species as a result of the gasoline application. And there are a few brave souls who speak on behalf of this species’ right to a piece of this planet and claim that its threat to man and cattle is greatly exaggerated. Apparently there were only five deaths due to rattlesnake bites in the past year in the U.S. and no recorded cattle deaths in recent history. They point to educational no-kill roundups that bring even more tourist dollars and offer plenty of excitement. There are studies underway to explore changes in state law that would ban the Sweetwater-style rattlesnake roundup, but opponents to change are fiercely loyal to their traditions.

As a mediator, I am not tempted to volunteer my services in Sweetwater and take on the rattlesnake roundup controversy. We are taught to be careful of our own bias when helping those in conflict to find a solution. And if that bias exists to a degree that impairs your ability to be a neutral mediator, you should not take the job.

So, what’s my bias that prevents me from jumping in to help find this common ground? To confess, I really don’t like snakes—of any kind (see my blog for more on that). The idea that a snake is harmless just doesn’t register with me, in that any snake will scare me half to death, and I consider that harmful to my health. But much as I never want to see another snake, my bias is in their favor. Every creature needs a place to call its own; every creature has the right to pursue its version of happiness. And we humans should stay out of the way if possible. There are encounters that can be disastrous. The two-year old and the alligator in Florida, the four-year old who fell into the Gorilla’s enclosure at a zoo. Sometimes the human is the loser, sometimes the animal.

And here in New Mexico a woman who fell behind in a marathon in a mountainous area came around the bend and frightened a bear cub up a tree. The mother bear was alarmed and attacked the woman, clawing her arms and neck. The woman wisely fell to the ground and stayed there motionless and after a few minutes of snorting, the mother bear departed, cub in tow. The woman was rescued, her wounds were not life threatening and she was released from the hospital the next day. Meanwhile the state Game and Fish Department had mobilized, tracked down the bear and killed it, thereby orphaning two bear cubs. The woman is now lobbying to change New Mexico state law that currently mandates that any bear that attacks a human must be killed, decapitated and tested for rabies. I admire her immensely and will support her efforts, choosing to work as an advocate in this case.

And back to the rattlesnake roundup. I hope that the folks in Texas can figure this one out, and from what I have read, they are at least exploring options. It may be hard to convince the Sweetwater crowd to shift their emphasis to education and drop the gasoline and slaughter. But, maybe neighboring communities that have gone before and made the shift can help. Maybe some will seek to change state law, as the mauled marathoner is doing. I do believe there is common ground there and that it is possible to continue the tradition in a more humane format. I wish them well.

A few months ago I wrote a post about the occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge building in Oregon by the Bundy brothers gang. They had come to the rescue (in their opinion) of locals who had been convicted of burning forest land. They saw these rural Oregonians as fellow victims of the federal lands policies—policies that deny them free use of public lands. They were not welcomed by most locals who preferred to handle the situation in their own way and resented the outsiders capitalizing on their site specific conflict.

The Standing Rock Sioux in North Dakota have drawn thousands of sympathizers, Indian and non-Indian, from all over the country, who are encamped near the site of a proposed pipeline that would cross under the Missouri River just upstream of the reservation. They are protesting with the tribe against the pipeline company and what they see as the complicity of federal agencies. Non-Indian residents in the area are concerned for their property, and some are frightened by the mere presence of thousands of Indians so close by. But the tribal leadership expresses gratitude for the support that they feel will help draw attention to the injustice of the situation.

So, is this the same scenario—Malheur and North Dakota?

I would argue that the stakes are different, that this is an issue of tribal sovereignty, not an individual citizen complaint against the feds. This is about US history, treaties, court cases, and policies that define the unique government-to-government relationship between tribes and the federal government. Standing Rock is calling for scrutiny of this relationship and a recognition of abuses in the past as well as the present. This is an objective shared by every federally recognized tribe across the country. The encampment at Standing Rock has galvanized tribal voices into a powerful protest. Many feel they are reclaiming a cultural identity and finding a new unity among tribal people which they hope to maintain and nurture.

But the two situations share one important reality. When all the commotion is over, the locals—in this case the tribe and their non-Indian neighbors —will need to resume the task of living side by side. As Standing Rock Sioux chairman David Archambault II reflected “I have to live here when everybody’s gone.” Public officials quoted in the recent New York Times article have started to talk about their hopes of a “peaceful endgame.” And a county commissioner summed up the future: “When this is all over, we’re still friends and neighbors.” The protest has empowered and emboldened Standing Rock, but it has also put yet another strain on local relationships. Perhaps coming from a place of greater strength, the tribe will be able to forge stronger relationships with their neighbors. After all, they share a deep love of the land and caring for their communities. All they have to do is reach across those fences with respect and a desire to be good neighbors. I wish them luck.

In honor of the first presidential debate tonight beteween Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, we asked Island Press authors: "If you were advisor to the president, what would your top priority be and why?" Check out their answers, in their own words, below. 

I'd urge the President to act on every possible opportunity to reduce the influence of money in the political process, because until that happens it will be increasingly difficult to make progress on anything else. 
-Dan Fagin, Toms River

Maintaining and extending the collaborative relationship with the Republic of Mexico over the shared waters of the Colorado River should be a sustained priority. The 2012 agreement known as "Minute 319", signed in 2012, included important water sharing provisions and for the first time allowed water to be returned to the desiccated Colorado River for the environment and the communities of Mexico. The deal was an important milestone, but it was only a temporary agreement. We need permanent solutions to the overuse of the Colorado River, and sustaining our partnership with Mexico is a critical piece.
-John Fleck, Water is for Fighting Over

1) Ending farm subsidies and other protection/promotion of food crops.
2) Embracing GMO neutrality. 
3) Ending federal support for state unpasteurized (raw) milk bans.
4) Reining in the FDA.
5) Ending the federal ban on sales of locally slaughtered meat. 
6) Ending federal policies that promote food waste. 
7) Improving food safety and choice by requiring good outcomes, rather than mandating specific processes.
8) Ending the federal ban on distilling spirits at home.
9) Deregulating the cultivation of hemp.
-Baylen Linnekin, Biting the Hands that Feed Us
For more elaboration on these bullets, see Linnekin’s full article on Reason.

My advice to a presidential candidate would be to recall the words of Neil DeGrasse Tyson, “The good thing about science is that its true whether or not you believe in it.” Natural forces are at work that will have adverse consequences, many of which are diametrically opposed to our national interests. Global climate change, the spread of vector borne diseases, and the rampant overuse of nonrenewable and renewable resources are just three such forces currently in play. The decisions that you make during your tenure will be pivotal relative to the health and well-being of our citizens, as well as the citizens of the world.  Recognize the fact that you are governing, just as Lincoln did, during a period of history that will resonate for centuries to come. Make wise environmental decisions even if they are not necessarily politically advantageous. Our futures depend upon it.   
-Alan Kolok, Modern Poisons

“I would urge the President to take strong action to pass climate change legislation in Congress. The form that climate change legislation would take would depend on the politics, but it is imperative that the U.S. begins to lead the world to action on climate change. Climate change isn’t even my own professional issue of focus (I would love to talk to the President about how to make our cities more resilient, green, and livable), but it seems to me clearly the crisis issue. Every major scientific study that is coming out is pointing toward serious consequences of climate change, happening now. Rather than thinking about climate change that will impact my kids’ lives, I am realizing it will deeply impact my own as well.”
-Rob McDonald, Conservation for Cities

If I had a chance to sit face-to-face with the winning candidate, my advice would be something like: Think about the welfare of our grandchildren when you make decisions on energy and environmental issues. Consider not just the short-term impacts but the long-term consequences of sea-level rise, extreme weather events, droughts, and loss of agricultural land. Set an example for reducing carbon emissions based on energy efficiency and renewable energy that can serve as a model for developing countries. Listen to our climate scientists and heed their warnings. Trust their advice on global warming in the same way you trust the advice of your physician with regard to your personal health.  
-Charles Eley, Design Professional’s Guide to Zero Net Energy Buildings

I would push for the next President to try again (yes, again!) to work on bipartisan climate action, perhaps with a revenue-neutral carbon tax like the Initiative 732 campaign that I’m a part of in Washington State. We’re proud to have endorsements from three Republicans in the state legislature as well as from a bunch of Democrats. The short-sighted opposition from some left-wing groups (including some mainstream “environmental” groups) highlights the risk of making climate change a partisan wedge issue for electing Democrats instead of an existential issue for all Americans. We need to try harder to build a big tent for lasting climate action, and that’s one one reason I’m so fond of the quote at the end of this NYT story (about the failed attempt by enviros to win control of the Washington State legislature for the Democrats in Nov 2014): “The most important thing is to normalize this issue [climate change] with Republicans,” said Mark Mellman, a Democratic strategist. “Anything that makes it more partisan makes it less likely that there will be legislation, until such time as Democrats take over the world. Which according to my watch, will not be happening anytime soon.” 
-Yoram Bauman, Cartoon Introduction to Climate Change

I would urge the President to reassert cross-departmental efforts such as the Partnership for Sustainable Communities to further empower local governments and constituents to meet ongoing challenges of urban development, because those challenges of land use, transportation, affordability will not be entirely met by private market solutions. I would also advise that the new administration investigate further centralizing resources relevant to urban areas, and evaluate (as was once proposed by Richard Florida) a new cabinet-level position focused on cities and rapidly urbanizing areas. Finally, I would suggest to the President that the federal government should lead by example by illustrating methods to elevate civic dialogue, including program development and funding to encourage individuals to obtain firsthand knowledge of the cities around them through careful observation and input into urban political and regulatory processes.
-Charles Wolfe, Seeing the Better City

Challenging as this will be even to try, much less accomplish, the next President should work to return a spirit of compromise and cooperation to the American political conversation. On the current course, no real progress toward environmental or social sustainability is possible. The impacts of climate change and demographic pressure are now becoming obvious to people of all political persuasions. Growing awareness may eventually offer room for fresh policy ideas: a carbon tax with proceeds turned into dividends and a universal basic income for all citizens, access for all to comprehensive sexuality education and reproductive health services, and humane and sustainable migration law.
-Robert Engelman, More: Population, Nature, and What Women Want

As much as climate change will affect the United States, we likely have the capacity to adapt more effectively than most other countries—at least in terms of human welfare. At the same time, US demand for foreign goods and services is not going away; I, for one, don’t care what you say about the damn environment—I’m having my morning cup of tea or coffee come hell or high water (the latter an increasingly distinct possibility). If my personal recalcitrance is at all reflective of our national attitude, we nonetheless ought to be striving for a broadly-defined international stance that fully and coherently accounts for climate change. Specifically, in a world where the actions of our friends and our enemies will be increasingly defined by surging resource constraints (as well as “releases”—think Arctic oil…), our next President should focus on integrating foreign aid, fair trade, free trade, and military/security policy in a way that anticipates the incoming tsunami of threats—and opportunities—posed by climate chaos. 
-Charles Chester, Climate and Conservation

In general terms, I believe the wealth of the nation lies in two areas: natural resources and human resources. As a matter of national defense priority, these areas require policy attention at the national level. Attending to these issues requires commitment and collaboration among all political, ethnic, religious and socio-economic affiliations—it is time for the adults to take charge. In particular, it will be necessary to harness their combined strengths in a public and private partnership initiative. An outline of my top priorities topics includes the following:

Natural Resources/Climate Change:

• Clean energy and carbon reduction
• Ecosystem and land management
• Coastal and interior infrastructure protection
• Water resources
• Agriculture

Human Resources:

• Science and technology
• Public primary and secondary education

Public health

• Immigration reform
• Terrorism
• Social equity and income equality

-Michael Murphy, Landscape Architecture Theory, Second Edition

You could have knocked me over with a feather when I read Glenn Beck’s recent commentary in the New York Times.  “The only way for our society to work is for each of us to respect the views of others, and even try to understand and empathize with one another,” he wrote. He took the words right out of my mouth. And so, Glenn and I urge the next President to do exactly that, reach across the aisle, connect with the great diversity of people and views in this country, and with respect and empathy seek to understand.
-Lucy Moore, Common Ground on Hostile Turf

Given the evident impact of rampant development pressures and climate change on our nation’s wildlife populations and diverse ecosystems, I urge the next President to endorse and promote a strong federal leadership role in collaborative landscape-scale planning efforts among federal, state, tribal, and private landowners in order to ensure our natural heritage is conserved for present and future generations.
-Robert Keiter, To Conserve Unimpaired

Dear Future POTUS,
The U.S. must be consumed with the urgent goal of retooling the energy infrastructure of our country and the world. Cooperatively mobilizing with other nations, our government—we, the people—must immediately, using all just and complementary means at our disposal—e.g., directives, incentives, and disincentives—close down fossil fuel operations and facilitate replacing coal, oil, and gas dependencies with cradle-to-cradle manufacture and ecologically and socially sensitive installation of ready, climate-responsible technologies, including locally scaled wind turbines, geothermal plants, and solar panels.

No less urgently, as a globally-responsible facilitator, the U.S.—members of all administrative branches together with the citizenry who have chosen them—must, with forthright honesty and transparency, support a matured narrative of progress that is alluring across political spectrums. This story must redefine power to integrate economic prosperity with other commonly held values—such as equality, justice, democratic liberty, and skillful love for land that interpenetrates with human health and flourishing. It must recall people to ourselves and each other not as mere individual consumers, but as diverse, empowered, capably caring members—across generations—of families, neighborhoods, and of the whole ecosphere of interdependencies—bedrock to sunlight—the source of Earth’s life.
Sincerely,
Julianne Lutz Warren, Plain member of the U.S. and Earth, and author of Aldo Leopold’s Odyssey, Tenth Anniversary Edition

This holiday season, give the gift of an Island Press book. With a catalog of more than 1,000 books, we guarantee there's something for everyone on your shopping list. Check out our list of staff selections, and share your own ideas in the comments below. 

For the OUTDOORSPERSON in your life:

Water is for Fighting Over...and Other Myths about Water in the West by John Fleck
Anyone who has ever rafted down the Colorado, spent a starlit night on its banks, or even drank from a faucet in the western US needs Water is for Fighting Over. Longtime journalist John Fleck will give the outdoors lover in your life a new appreciation for this amazing river and the people who work to conserve it. This book is a gift of hope for the New Year.

Satellites in the High Country: Searching for the Wild in the Age of Man by Jason Mark
Do you constantly find your friend waxing poetic about their camping tales and their intimate connection to the peaceful, yet mysterious powers of nature? Sounds like they will relate to Jason Mark’s tales of his expeditions across a multitude of American landscapes, as told in Satellites in the High Country. More than a collection of stories, this narrative demonstrates the power of nature’s wildness and explores what the concept of wild has come to mean in this Human Age.

What Should a Clever Moose Eat?: Natural History, Ecology, and the North Woods by John Pastor
Is the outdoorsperson in your life all dressed up in boots, parka, and backpack with nowhere to go? Looking for meaning in another titanium French press coffeemaker for the camp stove? What Should a Clever Moose Eat leaves the technogadgets behind and reminds us that all we really need to bring to the woods when we venture out is a curious mind and the ability to ask a good question about the natural world around us. Such as, why do leaves die? What do pine cones have to do with the shape of a bird’s beak? And, how are blowflies important to skunk cabbage? A few quality hours among its pages will equip your outdoor enthusiast to venture forth and view nature with new appreciation, whether in the North Woods with ecologist John Pastor or a natural ecosystem closer to home.

Also consider: River Notes by Wade Davis, Naturalist by E.O. Wilson

For the CLIMATE DENIER in your life:

Cartoon Introduction to Climate Change by Yoram Bauman
This holiday season, give your favorite climate-denier a passive aggressive “wink-wink, nudge-nudge” with The Cartoon Introduction to Climate Change featuring self –described Stand-up Economist Yoram Bauman and award-winning illustrator Grady Klein. Give the gift of fun, entertaining basic understanding of what is, undeniably and not up for subjective debate, scientific fact!

Also consider: Heatstroke by Anthony Barnosky, Straight Up by Joseph Romm

For the HEALTH NUT in your life:

Unnatural Selection: How We Are Changing Life, Gene by Gene by Emily Monosson
Give the health nut in your life the gift of understanding with Unnatural Selection. Your friends and family will discover how chemicals are changing life on earth and how we can protect it. Plus, they’ll read fascinating stories about the search for a universal vaccine, the attack of relentless bedbugs, and a miracle cancer drug that saved a young father’s life.

Also consider: Toms River by Dan Fagin, Roads Were Not Built for Cars by Carlton Reid, 

For the ADVOCATE in your life:

Prospects for Resilience: Insights from New York City's Jamaica Bay by Sanderson, et. al
Need an antidote to the doom and gloom? Stressed-out environmental advocates will appreciate Prospects for Resilience: Insights from New York City's Jamaica Bay. It’s a deep dive into one of the most important questions of our time: how can we create cities where people and nature  thrive together? Prospects for Resilience showcases successful efforts to restore New York’s much abused Jamaica Bay, but its lessons apply to any communities seeking to become more resilient in a turbulent world.

Ecological Economics by Josh Farley and Herman Daly
Blow the mind of the advocate in your life with a copy of Ecological Economics by the godfather of ecological economics, Herman Daly, and Josh Farley. In plain, and sometimes humorous English, they’ll come to understand how our current economic system does not play by the same laws that govern nearly every other system known to humankind—that is, the laws of thermodynamics. Given recent financial and political events, there’s a message of hope within the book as it lays out specific policy and social change frameworks.

Also consider: Tactical Urbanism by Mike Lydon, Cooler Smarter by The Union of Concerned Scientists

For the CRAZY CAT PERSON in your life:

An Indomitable Beast: The Remarkable Journey of the Jaguar by Alan Rabinowitz
The cat lovers in your life will lose themselves in An Indomitable Beast, an illuminating story about the journey of the jaguar. This is the perfect book for any of your feline loving friends, whether they want to pursue adventure with the big cats of the wild, or stay home with a book and cup of tea.

Also consider: The Carnivore Way by Cristina Eisenberg, Jaguar by Alan Rabinowitz 

For the GARDENER in your life:

Wild by Design: Strategies for Creating Life-Enhancing Landscapes by Margie Ruddick
Give your favorite gardener an antidote to the winter blues. The lush photographs of Wild by Design, and inspirational advice on cultivating landscapes in tune with nature, transport readers to spectacular parks, gardens, and far-flung forests. This book is guaranteed to be well-thumbed and underlined by the time spring planting season arrives!

Also consider: Brilliant Green by Stefano Mancuso, Principles of Ecological Landscape Design, Travis Beck

For the STUBBORN RELATIVE in your life:

Common Ground on Hostile Turf: Stories from an Environmental Mediator by Lucy Moore
For the person keeping the peace in your family this holiday season, the perfect gift is Common Ground on Hostile Turf, an inspiring how to guide demonstrating it is possible to bring vastly different views together. This book gives lessons learned on setting down at the table with the most diverse set of players and the journey they take to find common grounds and results. If your holiday dinner needs some mediation, look to the advice of author Lucy Moore.

Also consider: Communication Skills for Conservation Professionals by Susan Jacobson, Communicating Nature by Julia Corbett

For the HISTORY BUFF in your life: 

The Past and Future City: How Historic Preservation is Reviving America's Communities by Stephanie Meeks with Kevin C. Murphy
When it comes to the the future of our cities, the secret to urban revival lies in our past. Tickle the fancy of your favorite history buff by sharing The Past and Future City, which takes readers on a journey through our country's historic spaces to explain why preservation is important for all communities. With passion and expert insight, this book shows how historic spaces explain our past and serve as the foundation of our future.

Also consider: The Forgotten Founders by Stewart Udall, Aldo Leopold's Odyssey, Tenth Anniversary Edition by Julianne Lutz Warren

For the BUSINESS PERSON in your life:

Nature's Fortune: How Business and Society Thrive by Investing in Nature by Mark Tercek
For the aspiring CEO in your life who drools at phrases like "rates of return" and "investment," share the gift of Nature's Fortune, an essential guide to the world's economic (and environmental) well-being.

Also consider: Corporation 2020 by Pavan Sukhdev, Resilient by Design by Joseph Fiksel

As a mediator, I am always interested in unlikely bedfellows snuggling up to solve a problem, particularly in cases where there is no mediator, no third party to make the bed and tuck them in. These bold hookups, generated by the parties themselves, can result in creative solutions that one side or the other would have never considered but that end up meeting the needs of both. So, I read with great interest about a group of college Republicans and Democrats and environmental organizations that have come together (without a mediator) to tackle the mega-issue of carbon emissions and climate change.

Of course people come together to resolve disputes all the time—in the workplace (staff meetings), at home (kitchen table), at play (TV room, ESPN v. Netflix), to name a few. I deal with the bigger, public issues, like water rights, air pollution, waste disposal, public land management, etc. For these complex, multi-party issues a mediator is usually front and center to help get the right people to the table, clarify the goal, establish a timeline, set a respectful and collaborative tone, and all the other services we see as critical to successful resolution of the conflict.

So what brought these adversaries together, what common ground did they identify that held the hope of a mutually supported solution? I read the article carefully and the link to the Baker-Schultz legislation to tax carbon emitters for clues. 

Here are the facts of the carbon dividends plan:

• Industries that produce carbon emissions will have a choice: either reduce emissions to a certain level, or pay a tax, which would gradually increase over time.
• The tax that is collected from the emitters would be returned to the American people in dividend checks administered by the Social Security Administration. A family of four is estimated to receive $ 2,000 in the first year.

The bill is silent on who pays the tax, but I imagine the industry passes it on to the consumer, so we do.

I may have missed something, and would welcome being educated, but this is how it looks to me. A company will weigh its options: which will cost me more—to reduce emissions or pay the tax? If it costs less to pay the tax, then the emissions remain at the same polluting level. There is no benefit to the environment. But the American public is happy with money in their pocket to spend, perhaps on a new carbon-emitting product. The more the taxes go up, the more money comes back to us, and the smokestacks keep belching. At some point I would hope that the tax would get high enough so that producers would choose to spend money on reducing emissions rather than being taxed.

Finally, this sentence from the bill makes no sense to me:  “This [tax] amount would grow over time as the carbon tax rate increases, creating a positive feedback loop: the more the climate is protected, the greater the individual dividend payments to all Americans.”

But I return to my initial curiosity about these diverse interests—young Republicans, Democrats, and environmental groups—getting together to support the Baker-Schultz proposal.

Forgive my dark conclusion: getting more money in our pockets is the common ground, the one “good” that we can all agree on. It reminds me of the recent tax reduction legislation that blinded us to any thoughtful analysis with the promise of an immediate increase in paychecks. Apparently, the quicker that money can reach us—no matter the amount, no matter the long term consequences—the happier we will be. Are we so shallow, so short-sighted, so greedy for immediate gratification that we cannot entertain the greater good that would come from reduced emissions, or a host of other benefits from a more thoughtful, socially responsible use of money?

As a citizen, I am confused and depressed by the message I take from this example. But as a mediator, I congratulate these adversaries for reaching across the boundaries that separate them. I believe that this instinct is a noble one and that, aside whether an agreement is reached, real benefits accrue. Those who may have demonized each other now have a better understanding of the “other.” They may even leave with meaningful relationships that can serve them in the next encounter. These are good things.

Recent climate marches have captured our collective attention. Students and young people around the world have taken to the streets to demand action on climate change now, in order to protect the environment for a better future. The impacts that we can already see are not the only climate impacts that will affect quality of life for future generations. Some climate dangers have yet to materialize. We turned to some of our authors to find out—What do they think will be the most pressing climate change issue in the next 50 years? Why?

The most pressing climate change issue will be our capacity to provide adequate nutrition and water to every person on Earth. This is a challenge we already struggle with and climate change will increasingly cause droughts and extreme weather events. Both our water sources and agricultural production are sensitive to these climatic shifts. Potential future food and water shortages will lead to increased global unrest and political tensions. However, we can take steps today to prevent these future shortages by developing sustainable adaptation strategies. Our greatest strength as humans is our capacity to innovate, and if we do so carefully and responsibly we'll be able to prevent many of these future crises. 
-Jessica Eise, author of How to Feed the World

Clearly, the most pressing climate issue is figuring out how to get the global economy to carbon neutrality, and then developing the technologies for economically taking large amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere. But another critical issue that is not yet really being addressed is how we get in place national and international regimes to manage massive human migrations that will be driven by climate change. Regardless of the success that the global community has in implementing deep greenhouse gas reductions over the coming decades, we already know that anticipated future climate impacts will eventually cause large-scale migration of populations away from areas that are threatened by climate risks such as sea level rise, extreme heat, extreme storms, drought and wildfires, and towards areas of lower risk. The timing and geographic distribution of these movements is highly uncertain. They will, however, have a large impact on both the areas that lose population and the areas that gain population. And they will cause substantial economic, social, and political turbulence. As one commentator noted: "You can set up a wall to try to contain 10,000 and 20,000 and one million people, but not 10 million." How will we manage this climate migration? What legal status will the migrants have? How do we prepare the areas that are losing population, as well as those that are likely to find themselves with large unplanned in-migrations? It is time to start digging into these questions.
-John Cleveland, author of Life After Carbon

In my view, the largest threat to Earth in the decades to come will be unsustainable human population growth. This will trigger all kinds of irreversible environmental change. A smaller human footprint means first of all fewer feet.
-Michiel Roscam Abbing, author of Plastic Soup

Most scientists agree that climate change will increase the occurrence, intensity, and duration of extreme weather events, including flooding, hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, and wildfires. If we don’t do anything about this, most cities will become less comfortable—some by a lot. Depending on their location, cities and their inhabitants could suffer from the following possible scenarios: too wet, too dry, or too warm. Homes could be flooded on a regular basis, water faucets could stop flowing, or people’s lives could be confined to air-conditioned interiors because outside will be too hot. Fortunately, architects and city planners can help increase urban resilience—the ability of urban communities to bounce back from shock. If we do it right, we can even think of this as an opportunity to improve our cities and buildings. Dikes could double as flood protection and functional buildings, native species and drought tolerant plants can save water used for landscaping, and trees and plants can help cool down urban spaces. The future has always been uncertain, but our future may be even more uncertain. With climate change impacting our cities in unpredictable ways, the big question is: how do we design with these new risks?
-Stefan Al, author of Adapting Cities to Sea Level Rise

Climate change, as western U.S. water scholar Brad Udall frequently points out, is water change. What Udall means is that, even as we work toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we need to focus on reducing our vulnerability to changes even now being felt in the planet's hydrologic cycles. That can mean more water where we don't want it—think for example the flooding felt in the central United States from a freak storm in March 2019, or the creeping rise of sea level confronting our coastal cities. It often means less water where we've come to depend on it, like the shrinking reservoirs of the Colorado River Basin. Preparing for a future of water change is essential regardless of how successful we are in reducing our greenhouse gas footprint.
-John Fleck, author of  Water is for Fighting Over

The transportation sector remains one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, and thus represents the lowest-hanging fruit for governments looking to meet difficult carbon-reduction targets. Through our research, we've found that the Netherlands provides the best example of a clear path forward. A 2014 World Bank report ranked it in the bottom 25 nations for transport-related carbon dioxide emissions (as a percentage of total national production). In fact, Dutch transportation contributes just a fifth of their overall emissions, compared to a third in the United States, which—with 1.9 billion tons of CO2 emissions in 2016—overtook power generation as the most-polluting sector in the country for the first time in 40 years. Rather than wait for the electric car to save us, we should be looking to the humble bicycle, which—with the right infrastructure and policies in place—could immediately replace a significant number of trips we take by car, and begin moving us in a more sustainable direction for the future of our planet and our children.
-Chris and Melissa Bruntlett, co-authors of Building the Cycling City

The most pressing issue in relation to climate change is almost certainly the preservation and, if possible, extension of forest cover. Obviously, we must work toward reducing carbon emissions and increasing the adoption of renewable energy, but even the most optimistic scenarios around that would not solve the problem. Forests, and the oceans, provide the greatest sinks for CO2; we can fight to maintain oceanic biosphere and health, but we could—at least conceptually—increase the area of forests. And we MUST try to halt forest destruction.
-Joe Landsberg, co-author of Forests in Our Changing World

Society will not only need to prepare for current and impending changes due to climate change, we will need to do this while taking drastic action to avoid catastrophic consequences in the future. Many cities are vulnerable and dealing with the effects of climate change already. Forty percent of the United States’ population lives on 10% of its land mass—along coastlines. While cities have the power to make a greater impact on how we prepare for climate change, future planning and growth needs to be coordinated, thoughtful, and innovative. To start, policymakers should embrace and champion policies that encourage walkable, urban places and associated density—particularly in suburbs. Walkable, urban places create the opportunity for a lower carbon footprint, while contributing to a better quality of life for residents.
-Jason Beske, co-author of Suburban Remix

While the costs of adapting to climate change will be historic—in the US exceeding in real dollar terms the costs of fighting World War II and building the interstate highway system combined—the costs of inaction will be catastrophic. The UK’s National Oceanographic Centre (NOC) estimates annual global costs of climate-driven flooding, only one of multiple climate change impacts, at more than US$14 trillion. The NOC also projects that more than six hundred million people could be displaced by rising seas alone by 2100. In the US, seven of the ten most economically productive metros—representing roughly one-quarter of the entire economy and growing 50% faster than the US as a whole—face serious risks from rising sea levels.

Yet a blinders-on, single-issue focus on resiliency can mean falling into an all-too-familiar priority trap that pulls resources away from other compelling challenges. For example, the developed world is rapidly aging. People over the age of 65 will represent more than half of America’s (and the developed world’s) net growth for at least the next two decades—placing extraordinary stresses on healthcare costs that are projected to eat up all discretionary US federal spending by 2050. Growing income disparities in the US and across the developed world, accelerated by the shift to a knowledge economy that delivers most of its economic benefits to the better-educated top 20% of the workforce, are generating growing social as well as economic strains. Rapidly evolving technology means that within two decades the US and rest of the developed world will need to retool trillions of dollars in transportation infrastructure to adapt to autonomous mobility while at the same time responding to automation’s projected evisceration of the jobs of tens of millions of workers in the US alone. Nor can government stop funding transit, parks, and education—without facing grave social unrest and economic decline. And already today the developed world faces an enormous bill for fixing existing infrastructure—a figure that in the US will reach US$2 trillion, or almost 10% of the entire US economy, by the late 2020s.

Despite doubts expressed by US political leaders, the real question is not should we react to climate change, but how? The sheer enormity of the threat compels action. But how do we avoid the priority trap? My own experience planning for New Orleans’ recovery from Hurricane Katrina suggests three strategies: public private partnerships that unleash the innovation potential of the private sector, institutions and government working together; adopting the principles the Dutch originated following World War II—any resources spent on protection from rising seas or other climate forces need to also address livability, economic competitiveness, and wellness; and the time
-David Dixon, co-author of Suburban Remix

I just returned from Sweden where it’s all about climate change. The government is planting trees around the world, as well as working hard to reduce Sweden’s carbon footprint. Recycling options are everywhere. At the university where I spoke there are only washable dishes, cups, silverware in the cafeteria and break rooms. Everyone over four years old rides a bike, and those under four are in contraptions attached to an adult’s bike. Greta, the 16-year-old Swedish climate change activist, is inspiring us all with her courage and passion. For me the key question in tackling climate change is: Will we be willing and able to follow and support the youthful leadership taking on the challenge? It’s easy to write off the younger generation as inexperienced, whimsical, lost in their devices. That is old-fashioned and destructive thinking. These young activists are on the frontline of climate change, and we need to put our faith—as well as our money, influence and energy—in their leadership.
-Lucy Moore, author of Common Ground on Hostile Turf

Creating extensive ecological networks consisting of well-connected, large protected areas is most pressing priority because it is our best option to limit the extent of the sixth mass extinction. Climate change is adding to and exacerbating other threats to biodiversity, such as habitat loss, invasive species, pollution, over-exploitation of natural resources, and environmental degradation. Ecological networks can reduce the impact of all stressors, promote population persistence, and allow species to adapt to climate change by moving to climatically suitable areas.
-Dr. Annika Keeley, co-author of Corridor Ecology, Second Edition