How can we build a healthier, thriving future?

Changemakers reflect on the past, present and future of Earth Day in panel discussion

Earth Day is a perfect moment to reflect on what has happened since its inception more than half a century ago, but also to contemplate what role we can all play in building a healthier, thriving future in which all life can thrive on our planet.

Our panelists bring together voices from policy, law, journalism and the coming generation of changemakers to discuss what Earth Day means today, what it has made possible and where we must go next.

Lisa Palmer is a journalist, author and editorial director at the Society of Environmental Journalists. She is a research professor at George Washington University and reports on climate, environment and sustainability. Her reporting has appeared in many outlets such as the New York Times, Nature, Scientific American, The Guardian, Yale’s E360 and many others. She’s the author of “Hot, Hungry Planet” and a Fulbright Fellow with global experience in research storytelling and science communication.

Michael Dorsey holds the Rob and Melani Walton Sustainability Solutions Service Chair with a concurrent appointment as professor of practice in the College of Global Futures at ASU. Dorsey is a globally recognized expert in sustainability, finance and environmental policy. He’s a co-founder of multiple organizations, including the Sunrise Movement, and advises on ESG investments. Dorsey has served in the U.S. and UN climate leadership roles and is a member of the Club of Rome, a group of 100 thought leaders addressing global challenges.

Karen Bradshaw is a professor of law, Alan Matthenson Research Fellow at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law and a senior sustainability scientist at the Julie Ann Wrigley Global Futures Laboratory at Arizona State University. In addition, she is a faculty fellow at Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics and a faculty affiliate scholar at the New York University School of Law Classical Liberal Institute. Bradshaw is the author of several books and her writing has won awards for influencing their respective fields.

Katie Spreitzer is currently pursuing a master’s degree in sustainability solutions and public policy at ASU. As an honors graduate of the ASU School of Sustainability, she brings a passion for climate policy and environmental education. Spreitzer has worked at the Arizona State Senate and the U.S. Department of Energy and continues to do her part by helping recruit future changemakers through her role at the College of Global Futures.

Editor’s note: This conversation has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

What do you think has been the reason for the increase in the number of people participating in Earth Day, and what role does environmental reporting play in this increase?

Palmer: Environmental issues are health issues, they’re planetary issues, they’re legal issues, they’re social issues, they’re sustainability issues. As journalists we work to connect the dots, so we need to be able to speak to experts in law and experts in sustainability and researchers, people who are at the forefront, to be able to do that. That’s kind of the responsibility that we have, and by doing so we can share the full picture. And so for environmental reporting, we need to be on the ground seeing how the research is being done or how a specific kind of innovation or response or solution is going to be meaningful for the public at large as well as to tell them about the risks. I think through those stories that we are hearing from our communities, we’re all recognizing that it’s a part of everybody’s job.

So many environmental laws and regulations were enacted around 1970. Which of these would you credit as a direct outcome of Earth Day, or were they the result of a deeper cause?

Bradshaw: It’s so difficult to say one is the cause or the catalyst of another because they’re interconnected in these very complicated ways. It’s sort of like the new recognition that there’s no single inventor of an idea — that many things happen in many ways from many people thinking simultaneously and cocreating around the world. So very often, any famous invention or idea happens in many places simultaneously, and I think with respect to both legal and social movements, it is also the case that there are many factors simultaneously occurring that collectively cause the thing to happen. But, to pinpoint a specific place where that occurs is difficult to say. I will say Rachel Carson’s work is incredibly meaningful and that built upon other things that were happening in the United States at the time like the Civil Rights Movement. And so there were all of these forces that collectively created this incredible moment of bipartisan, truly bipartisan action to enact what is today the field of environmental law. And environmental law is really just a bunch of statutes from the 1970s. The Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, National Environmental Protection Act — all of these different statutes, and they really haven’t changed or updated much since. So, I think Earth Day should not only be a reflection on what has happened and how we got here, but now also what can this generation do to create new and more responsive policies today.

So, why was that legal framework so static?

Bradshaw: That’s a great question. I think that there was a moment of public attention that happened in part because of “Silent Spring,” this very innovative, once-in-a-lifetime book that went out to so many homes because at the time we didn’t have Twitter, we didn’t have our cell phones, we didn’t even have the broad array of media influences. But it became a book of the month and was sent to millions of American households. So it’s like everyone saw the same viral video, it was just in book form. And it created a catalyst, a shared social understanding, that was reinforced by things like rivers lighting on fire because they were so polluted. So you had a moment of bipartisanship, truly. Republicans and Democrats worked together to enact policies that moved the ball forward in some ways so far for the time that it wasn’t really necessary to do anything else, many thought at that time, because so much had been achieved. But then what happened in the ’80s, in the ’90s, in the early 2000s and where we are today is that the problems evolved and in some ways worsened. The catalyst, the moment of depolarization that occurred, had fallen away such that it was deeply polarized and no longer seen as such a bipartisan issue.

What milestones have stood out as critical turning points since Earth Day was founded?

Dorsey: I think probably the biggest one now is that the solutions, the things that we need like clean energy, like alternatives to biodiversity destruction, that stuff is now profitable but it wasn’t at the time of Earth Day. It didn’t make sense to offer those solutions. They were too costly. And we’ve seen, particularly over the past decade to 20 years, that stuff coming into the fore. In particular, just focusing on energy, the entire global solar output just last year displaced more than the emissions of all of the U.S., and at an affordable pace. Last year was the first year in humanity where we saw more than $2 trillion invested in renewables, mostly solar and wind.

And that’s only going to continue. Right now, we’re on a clip of solar deployment doubling almost every three years. It took us about eight years to go from 100 terawatt hours installed to 1,000, and under three years to get to the next 2,000. So that sort of explosive growth of the solution set is really, I think, monumental and it’s going to continue. We don’t have enough. We have got to do more. But that’s really the milestone.

Given all of that, why are we still growing the consumption of fossil fuels and related emissions?

Dorsey: Well, they’re growing but at a reduced rate. Just last year — and we could have an interesting debate on this — we had 30 companies dial out of coal. We had India and China, the two big coal players, reduce their deployment by 60%. Not enough but slowing down. So that is the pacing. And it’s interesting now, particularly in this political economic moment, you’ve got two discourses happening: one on the TV and in social media of certain people arguing against this stuff, but those same people actually are investing in it. So we can have a longer discussion about why that is. But that’s happening because of that price signal, because that change is there.

On a day like Earth Day, considering what has happened over the past 50-plus years, what’s your sense of what’s ahead?

Spreitzer: I feel hopeful about what’s going on. I know there’s a lot of things in the news that maybe aren’t so encouraging. And I talked to some of my friends who aren’t in the sustainability field, and they really don’t know what’s going on with climate change or sustainability. Maybe they don’t care? But I feel like what really does give me hope is I hear about these solutions that are going on that Michael talked about. And I hear about coal being slowly eliminated from being used in our fossil fuels. So when I hear about some of these smaller accomplishments, I think to myself, “Okay, well, I’ve been alive for maybe 22 years? And now we’re already making this jump from using an excessive amount of coal until now?” And so I feel like what really motivates me is hearing some of those smaller successes that we’ve had and really taking them and running with it. If I keep thinking about how bleak my future looks, then that’s not motivating for me, and that’s not motivating for anyone else. And so I think if we’re really able to home in on some of those smaller successes and uplift those voices that are able to encourage us to be more hopeful, that really helps me when I think about what’s going on and what my future is going to look like.

If you look at your generation, do you feel this position is how others look at it or are you more the exception?

Spreitzer: I think I’m a pretty positive person, but I do think while people might not care about what’s going on in our environment, they still know that Earth Day is April 22. And people still think they’re doing something good when they recycle or they bring a cup to a coffee shop. Society has changed from before to now; it has grown to accept some of these sustainability actions. I have the opportunity to travel to Vienna this summer through the College of Global Futures where I’m going to learn about all the great things they’re doing in Europe. One of my friends recently came back from a similar trip and said in France almost the entire French community has adopted a reusable cup program as a way of life. Realizing that societies can change at such a large level makes me hopeful that America can do this too, even in Arizona. I know politically it might be a little hard to pass some climate legislation, but maybe conversations that I have with people who aren’t in the sustainability field can encourage them to have some stake in the climate crisis and encourage them to do their part. I think it’s going to take more of that grassroots collective activism-type solution in order to solve climate change.

How can legal frameworks move things and to which extent do we really need that inner motivation?

Bradshaw: I loved Katie’s answer because we can translate young people’s optimism into changing the world through legal action. If I can get the person who understands they need to bring a cup into my classroom, we can do something with that. We can transform that individual action into an understanding of how to wield the tools of law and government, which are the backbone of contemporary Western society, in ways that culminate in large-scale social action. Really what law and government does is it takes a bunch of individuals and coaleses their individual interests and priorities into something that speaks socially. So law is at once everywhere and also hidden. It can coordinate groups of people in ways that can really create change.

And so the fun thing that’s emerged through the Radically Reimagining Initiative at ASU and more broadly, particularly in conversation with global partners, is understanding that you can take that enthusiasm and, instead of killing it, learn all the ways you’re able to manipulate and change law, government and society through legal innovation and then apply it to the things you care about. That kind of legal innovation is doing amazing work, but it requires more than going to Congress and asking for a new statute and instead engaging in much more organic ways.

How do we protect fact-based messaging and maintain public engagement?

Palmer: UNESCO and the UN are now funding large funds not just for academics but for journalists to begin reporting and investigating misinformation around climate change and looking at all the various crossover networks that might be involved and why. I’m seeing for the first time that journalists who do this job really well and can track down these sources and work together in a comprehensive network and start to track this can get the information to the public much clearer. Journalists are having to go out and correct information quickly and repeatedly. We always are drawn to these really outlandish and often surprising ideas and sometimes those are the ones that are not true. We can work with young people on seeing new ways we can get new, good, factual, evidence-based information that is accurate, can be verified and as well teach and share good sources of information. We can have the best sources of information, verify the information and if you see it in one news outlet, check another source to see what another news outlet is reporting to verify what you learn. So I think there’s that literacy element that’s a part of it as well because you know there are bad actors out there who are trying to confuse us. There’s a lot of evidence behind that as well and they’re wanting to eliminate action on things as well as kind of have us talking about one issue when we really should be investigating a deeper issue. It’s making sure that we give enough information to the public in the ways that they also want to be receiving it.

We academics increasingly are not trusted. In journalism there seems to be a slightly different landscape, where people pick who they want to quote based on their belief system. How do you navigate that?

Palmer: We are looking at the same silos of information. If somebody of your political views aligns with you, you believe that person. I think there’s a lot to be said that journalists and scientists have a lot in common. We both seek truth. We both want to verify it. We both look to be as accurate as possible. And we want to be socially and scientifically relevant. I think there’s a value for a journalist to be closer to scientists to understand their flow and help it to be translated and demystified. I think there’s a much greater opportunity for younger scientists to convey their work directly to the public or even in a broader network to policymakers. The same with journalism. We have to peel back the curtains a bit to share what we do and how we work so that people can see there’s a lot to the reporting that we do versus just the eight inches of text that is on your news feed.

What have we failed to fully grasp or act on since Earth Day was created?

Dorsey: I think really the thing where we’ve probably failed is not realizing that we’re in this time of big breakthroughs. There’s this sense of fear, the dystopian sensibility, but in fact the breakthroughs are coming and they’re coming very fast.

The president’s son-in-law before the election was given a half a billion dollars from the head of the Saudi sovereign fund directed by MBS in Saudi Arabia and it was a mandate on that half a billion to put $250 million of it in solar exclusively. If you listen to his father-in-law, you would be none the wiser. One of the architects, the lead author of the chapter in Project 2025, which is the boogeyman under the bed for lots of folks, she goes by the moniker online Mississippi Mandy, Mandy Gunasekara. She put out there that people are afraid of what’s happening with all of that stuff. Well her day job is at a private equity shop that she co-runs with her husband, where their two leading investments are renewable energy and financial technology, fintech. Who’s her husband? He happens to be the general counsel of Kingo Solar, one of the largest solar companies on Earth.

So some of this dystopian stuff I think is maybe a byproduct of the over-focus and emphasis on social media and that distraction. So one of the failures is just not recognizing these big breakthroughs that are happening. We need to focus our attention on what is meaningful and what has momentum and I think that’s really those solutions that are out there.

What should Earth Day look like 10, 20, 50 years in the future to remain really inspiring, effective and keep people as enthusiastic as all of you seem to be about it?

Palmer: In 10 years I want us to get to those must-haves and must-dos that we’ve been working on — what must we have to have a sustainable future? Achieving that means we must have a livable planet and we must have solid communities that work together. We must have trust in information and trust in each other and as well have it be economically viable. These are not exact, but they’re close. As a journalist covering these, why I do so is because it’s not just about trees and water and heat or whatever, it’s about all the facets of our society and I think of it as sort of this multifaceted gem. There’s so many different aspects to cover as a journalist to report out and to learn and understand — as I’m sure you feel in the classes and the coursework that you take and you teach. So for me in 10 years, I want this gem to continue to be relevant in all of these facets, for the people to continue to hold on to, work together, cross those boundaries and start to invest in and create this livable future. I’m looking at the 10-year timeline because I think that’s a really critical one to keep our eye on.

Spreitzer: I would probably also look at 10 years, but from the sense that younger people are starting to have really short attention spans. Because our youth population is really heavily embedded in social media and technology, scrolling through TikTok and Instagram and seeing bits of information within 30 to 60 seconds, I think looking at the 10-year timeline is going to really encourage us to gain momentum. I feel like every Earth Day I’m always like, “Oh, Earth Day is every day.” So sometimes it’s harder for me to get into that movement — but really try to encourage the younger generation to see Earth Day as a spark that starts a movement, a spark for them to realize, “Okay, my future is on the line and what can I do about it?” We have all the solutions available for us and, like Michael was saying, the solutions are out there, we just need to put them into practice. That’s why I’m ultimately going into public policy and the environmental policy route because we have the solutions available, we just need to put them into practice. So I think looking at Earth Day, we need to take our thoughts and put them into action. The younger generation is really all about how we get the ball rolling. If we use Earth Day as a way to gain momentum to take those actions, then that’s all we can ask for.

Bradshaw: I am a futurist. That means I like to cocreate new futures. So I am going to manifest a future in 10 years when we gather outside, and it’s not so hot in Phoenix in April that we cannot be outside. I’m going to manifest a future in which Katie or someone else in this room is leading this conversation because they’ve created a position for themselves that resonates with their enthusiasm for the environment and for the planet. I am going to manifest a future where we get here by walking, by biking, where we’re eating foods that are more aligned with values of production — so that we’re not doing sort of the academic removal game that we all play where we have our real lives and then we have our academic lives or our lives at school and where it feels like a more integrated whole. I’m going to say that perhaps we come here with companion animals because I’m a big proponent of interspecies equity. So I would not be sad if the ASU campus, like my own yard in Phoenix, has been re-wilded, so that we have bobcats and javelinas and hawks sitting among us on this outdoor platform where we’re co-creating new futures and reality with a new generation of leaders that are on fire and passionate to embrace the forms of hope and optimism and solutions-building. It’s more community embeddedness and outward facing rather than the more narrow academic mindset. So that’s a future I’m trying to create. That’s a rough draft made on the spot so hopefully people can cocreate better versions like v2.0, v3.0 and everyone can sort of think about what their version of that Earth Day may look like.

Dorsey: 55 years ago Earth Day was an SOS. In a decade it’s going to be about three S’s and it ought to be about three S’s: showcasing sustainability solutions. If we do the math, and we see that solar is doubling every three years, in a decade it’s going to be an order of magnitude more — and very likely more than that. That is really the sweet spot for big breakthroughs of solutions, and I think that’s what we’re going to see in a decade from now. Even if you don’t believe it, the trajectory is already there, so let’s wait for that decade to come.

If you could leave the audience with one challenge or call to action, what would it be?

Dorsey: I would give you two easy ones. Let’s dial out of social media, let’s dial out of that addiction space, that’s really what that is. And the other one: let’s lean into that original Earth Day mandate. Really it was a call to live true to “Deimos,” “Polus,” and “Civicus” — those sort of fundamental terms of engaging as a citizen. Let’s lean into that, not just for being a good citizen, but to really help accelerate those solutions. I would put that charge to folks.

Bradshaw: Mine is: go outside. Go outside today, go outside every day, go outside every time you have an option — just go outside. I think the more time we spend in nature the better everything gets individually, in our communities, on our planet. The more time we are outside, the more connected we are to the natural world, and I think everything flows from that relationship. And we might actually recognize that we are part of nature rather than stewarding it.

Spreitzer: Well, you took mine, but I do think going outside is super important. The second one is to just have those conversations with people that you agree you disagree with. Have conversations with people across the aisle. I think having those conversations, telling your story and sharing why you care about the environment, what really motivates you is what’s really going to spark this momentum.

Palmer: These are all great. I would say — and it’s easy to do here if you’re a student and maybe fairly easy if you are faculty here — continue to build your community. A sense of community is critical to solving any of these problems. Maybe you have multiple spheres of community: your colleagues, your neighborhood community or an affinity group that you belong to. Some of building a community does mean putting that phone down. I don’t have anything against the phones, but committing to some digital minimalism so you don’t have that barrier between you and that other person. They’re good to activate people, but I think spending more time with people in real life is critical to our future. I know that there’s literature about this, but I think that it’s even more pressing than we realize to not only shore up our spirits but also exchange ideas. That’s where innovations and dialogues can come. That’s where you can create a good relationship between a journalist and a scientist. You actually come up with a new idea that didn’t happen before that exchange of knowledge happened. So I would just encourage you to start having conversations with each other. Talk to people randomly on the street if it’s not weird, you never know where it’s going to go, just showing that piece of care. It’s also about caring for us, for our planet, for our communities. It will come to bear in probably the best possible way if done right.