Brandi Morin: I really started to get educated about what this so-called green transition really is, and I describe it as colonialism 2.0. Our people have already been dealing with this for centuries and being displaced and having their rights violated and experiencing the violence and here we are in an attempt to protect and save, I guess our climate, save ourselves as humanity from these impacts that we’ve created, and we’re going back and doing the same thing. And as one elder described it to me. You we can’t mine our way out of this climate crisis. You can’t destroy. You can’t destroy the Earth to save the Earth, and so it really opened my eyes to the reality and it’s just as bad as ever.

Mike DiGirolamo: Welcome to the Mongabay Newscast. I’m your co-host, Mike DiGirolamo…

Rachel Donald: and I’m your co-host Rachel Donald.

Mike: Bringing you weekly conversations with experts, authors, scientists and activists working on the front lines of conservation, shining a light on some of the most pressing issues facing our planet, and holding people in power to account. This podcast is edited on Gadigal Land today. On the newscast we speak with Brandi Morin, a Cree/Iroquois/French journalist from Treaty 6 Territories in Alberta, Canada. Morin’s work is currently focused on the impacts of mining on ecosystems and Indigenous communities and countries such as Bolivia and Ecuador. She joins the podcast to speak with Rachel Donald about how Canadian mining companies are committing human rights abuses and harming the environment. Donald herself has visited communities in Colombia, also impacted by mining. The two discuss what they have witnessed, how mining justified under the energy transition is not being carried out justly. This conversation challenges the logic of whether mining serves the purpose it purports to, namely helping humanity wean off fossil fuels. Donald and I discuss multiple reports from experts published in places like the journal Nature who say that much of the mining being done risks causing greater harm than climate change itself, if not coupled with extreme demand reduction for minerals and carried out in a just manner. Points that are echoed by the International Rights of Nature Tribunal earlier this year, which presented extensive evidence that found that Canadian mining companies are guilty of violating the rights of nature across South America. The common refrain that scientists, experts, lawyers, and human rights advocates are pointing out is that a livable future isn’t one where rampant exploitation for minerals occurs. One that instead invests in infrastructure for the public good, along with true free prior and informed consent for anyone who lives on or near a mining project and a reduction in the production of things we do not need.

Rachel: Brandi, welcome to Mongabay Newscast. It is a pleasure to have you on the show,

Brandi: Tansay, Rachel, thank you so much for having me.

Rachel: I think before we get into your incredible career and the amazing things that you’ve been reporting on, what have you been reporting on in the last six months?

Brandi: Oh, wow. Yes, so I have been spending a lot of time in Ecuador reporting on the impacts of extractive industries on Indigenous communities. There. They are mostly Canadian owned companies. However, one of them. Recently pulled out of Canada due to scrutiny over Chinese investment and, ended up setting up shop in Switzerland and, keto. I’ve been working with the Schuar in Ecuador as well as some mixed Indigenous rural community farmers in the northern part of Ecuador who are experiencing a lot of violence as a Canadian mining company is invading their territories and using Ecuador’s military, to enforce this invasion. I also just came back from Bolivia a couple of weeks ago where I was visiting some Indigenous communities there that are also dealing with impacts from mining companies. And these are mostly illegal mines. Some of them are legitimate. One of them that I encountered is also Canadian owned. So a lot of my work focuses around Indigenous front lines, communities that are being continuously bombarded with this rush for the green energy transition.

Rachel: I’m so excited to speak to you. It’s one of my favorite things to discuss with people are some of the logical fallacies that surround the green transition and the danger as well of the, let’s say, the liberal climate movement and not waking up to the fact that this is more resource extraction. And unlike fossil fuels, they are incredibly geographically dense where we find our critical minerals and our rare Earth metals that we need for the energy transition, and they often overlap with some of the most biodiverse hotspots in the world.

Brandi: Yes. I learned about this a few years ago when I was reporting down in the United States and on a project known as Thacker Pass. It’s one of the largest lithium mining projects in the U.S. There are some tribes there that are trying to stop it because it’s a very sacred biodiverse area for them. And I really started to get educated about what this so-called green transition really is. And I describe it as colonialism 2.0. Our people have already been dealing with this for centuries and being displaced and having their rights violated and experiencing, the violence. And here we are in an attempt to protect and save, I guess our, climate, save ourselves as humanity from these impacts that we’ve created. We’re going back and doing the same thing. And as one elder described it to me, we can’t mine our way out of this climate crisis. You can’t destroy, you can’t destroy the Earth to save the Earth. And so it really opened my eyes to the reality and it’s just as bad as ever.

Rachel: Yeah. I had a conversation with a peasant farmer in the south of Colombia near Papa, and he’s of Afro-Colombian descent. He comes from a tradition of Finca farmers and his parents’ generation were displaced from their Finca by the sugar cane industry, essentially. And they call that the ‘green monster.’ And he and some of his peers were talking about the fact we don’t want another green monster. Do not want that to happen again, because now it’s like sugar cane is being proposed as creating ethanol, which can be used in quote unquote sustainable aviation fuel. And they’re like, we’ve already been through this once. We don’t wanna do it again. We just want our land back. We want our land back so we can take care of it and we can feed ourselves and we can have some sense of sovereignty.

Brandi: Yes. I mean that, that’s, that would be, ideal. That’s what’s missing, especially. This, the sovereignty aspect of it, right? The free prior and informed consent that is, implemented in a lot of countries, but sorry, not implemented. It’s recognized, but not actually implemented. And we’re talking about these communities that are like on the precipice of their lands being ripped up, and raped. I just returned from Bolivia and witnessed the worst devastation, aftermath of mining and extraction that I have ever seen and saw firsthand. Even though I’ve reported in other communities where they have impacts of pollution, they can still live. And their territories, even though you know there’s these impacts. I went to these communities where they’re almost 100% displaced and only a few people still live there. you can see the pollution, you can smell the pollution. The rivers are like garbage bins. The animals cannot live and thrive. They are, they’re. De deformed, they die. And the people that are living there are really, working to survive. Like they are absolutely desperate. And in the meantime, they are still facing extreme violence and threats for even existing. And there’s the most heartbreaking thing about it is there’s nothing that they can do. They don’t, have, their rights are not respected in any way. And so the government, turns away and these companies are in there like the wild West taking the land, extracting and dumping, and the communities most likely will not recover their land. If it were to stop now, the extraction in the mining, it would probably take about 200 years or so for the land to recover. And so I’ve been able to see the beginnings and what people are fighting for and witness the aftermath of it.

Rachel: I had a very similar experience in Colombia where I was working with these communities who were in different stages of holding back mining, gold mining. And I remember going to a mining town that is different from the examples that you’re discussing because they actually had a history of artisanal mining. So, their ancestors had been mining this mountain for 500 years and they estimated that they, their progeny could continue mining this mountain for about another 250 years. Then a Canadian mining company moved in. And I have tried so many times to describe what it felt like to be there. To feel the dust in my lungs, to have it settle on my skin. The heat, the incredible unrelenting heat because there is no shade. Nowhere to go to this site of. Exactly as you say, gray sludge for waterways that are then going out and feeding. Yep. The land. And just that sense, that very corporeal sense of this is wrong, this is dangerous. I’m in danger being here. And I’m just here for five hours. Then there’s people living here. I watch children playing in trash with nowhere else to go. I saw this, it was one of the oldest towns in Colombia. It’s 500 years old and this mining company moved it. Because they found gold under where the historic town center had been. And we’ve got this amazing shot of this ancient inner-city wall that’s incredibly old, right next to an open pit mine. Yeah, it’s unbelievable what they’re willing to put people through. And this is all in the name of a sustainable future, allegedly.

Brandi: Oh, no, no, it’s in the name of the same old, it’s in the name of greed. And control. Power. Everything that has driven this behavior before. No, I, it’s actual insanity. Like I described when I was there, I said, this is hell on earth. This is hell on earth. And one of the areas we went to, they had these series of mining companies had constructed a, like a tailings pond area, right? And they had utilized every single water source in the area. So the people that were still there living around, raising their animals that they had nothing left to, to water their animals. So, these mining company, they provided a water source that is directly right next to this tailing spot. A tiny little road separates them. They’re right next to each other and they told them, come and water your animals here. And [thought] that this was okay. And it was insanity. Like it’s very hard to comprehend that this, that this is taking place, but people don’t see it. If you don’t see it, you don’t know it’s there. You don’t understand. But there are people and land and communities that are being sacrificed for what they call this green transition.

Mike (note): Hello listeners and thank you for tuning in. As is the case with many conversations we host on the show, this one references a lot of our past discussions, which I encourage you to listen to. For more context, check out our episodes on how to cover transition minerals. Particularly the words of Galina Angarova, and also our recent interview with Carlos Zorilla published just a few weeks ago. If you’re feeling like going the extra mile, you can also check out my conversation with Jessika Richter at Lund University on the circularity of electric vehicles. Don’t forget to subscribe to the show on your favorite podcast platform. And now back to the conversation with Brandi Morin.

Rachel: And I don’t know about you, but it can be quite difficult to challenge the narrative that renewables are just a good thing and we absolutely need them because I think it’s so difficult for climate justice, environmental, any of these sort of movements to get a foothold that people really feel quite panicked when you take a critical lens to the energy transition, for example. Because they feel, “oh God, it’s taken us this long to get here. Please, don’t say that” we need to keep a kind of a solid flank as we move forward. How do you approach situations like that?

Brandi: I just think it comes down to a, just a basic ignorance. Some people call it, greenwashing, right? People don’t understand the reality of what is taking place in order to achieve these, this climate regulation. Yeah, sure. Maybe greenhouse gas emissions, maybe, that’s gonna go down or, there’ll be some other benefits. But honestly, when you’re still destroying our Earth, where we live and breathe and eat and when you are violating human rights still, you’re completely desecrating complete ecosystems in order to achieve this. I don’t know, how people can think that is okay and to get around it. And I don’t necessarily have the answers or the solutions or the alternatives, but I know that they exist. I know that they’re out there. I know that this isn’t right, and I think that if people really knew and understand what’s happening, I think that, that would hopefully start to shift their views on it.

Rachel: Oh, I hope so too. I do feel like we live in a world where there’s not a lot of exit options, which is part of how power and systems of power continue to get away with the same thing. People are just Locked in. I want to add a note to what you’ve just said, that the dangers of mining are so immense and even beyond this loss of sovereignty for Indigenous peoples, loss of stewardship, loss of kinship as well with the more than human world. The UN published a report through a working group, I think towards the end of 2023. Which stated that if we continue to mine the earth, as we will as models predict to meet the demands. Of an energy system that is built using minerals rather than burning fuels. We could trigger a biodiversity crisis that has worse impacts than the climate crisis. Because biodiversity is literally the ecosystem web, which holds everything together, which makes the waters fall and the winds blow and the seas move.

Mike (note): You might be curious to know more about this. Rachel and I discuss it at length in the post show discussion, but in short, what she’s saying here is true. According to sources in the journal Nature, the publication will be linked in the show notes in the abstract, the scientists write the following, “renewable energy production is necessary to halt climate change and reverse associated biodiversity losses.” But they go on to write, “Mining threats to biodiversity will increase as more mines target materials for renewable energy production and without strategic planning, these new threats to biodiversity may surpass those averted by climate change mitigation.”

Rachel: And that’s what we are in danger of tearing apart in the name of, frankly, if I may, seems to me just continuing capitalism no matter what.

Brandi: Yes, exactly. Now, I don’t know if you’re aware, but I know that you were spending some time with some communities that were impacted by specifically Canadian owned mining companies, but Canada is the mining giant of the world.

Rachel: Yeah.

Brandi: Over 70% of the world’s mining companies are headquartered in Canada.

Mike (note): This is a small clarification, but about half of the world’s publicly listed mining companies are headquarters in Canada. Previously news outlets have cited that 75% of all mining companies are based in Canada, but that figure is disputed.

Brandi: And around the world, they’re getting away with atrocities. They aren’t regulated very well to hold them to account, but this is something that I have been reporting on and I’m also making a documentary on. But it’s a free for all out there. But mostly I think people in general have this view that Canada is this human rights champion, utopian country, but it has a lot of dark sides. And in Canada, how it enforced the violence of colonization against our people here and displaced our people. Displaced my ancestors, stole, and raped and got rich off the resources, which it still is doing. It’s doing it around the world, and it’s doing it very violently. Violently in the form of human rights violations, rape, murder, corruption, utilizing state governments and military enforcement to push these projects through. And it’s absolutely appalling. And it’s been a goal of mine to expose this because any democratic country should be exposed and should be held to account for what it’s doing.

Rachel: I think if Canada didn’t, I think if Canada didn’t have the US as its neighbor, maybe we’d all be a little bit more up to date with its own atrocities, but it’s

Brandi: …getting shadow.

Rachel: It’s in a very fortunate position. Yeah. It exists in the shadow of the United States, getting away with the same thing, but the focus isn’t over there and that’s why it’s so important to have on the ground journalists it can exactly do this work. Brandi, I wanna ask. Particularly about Ecuador. I wanna use Ecuador as an example. For Canadian mining abuses, because Ecuador is one of the countries in the world that has enshrined the rights of nature into its constitution. The rights that it has given Indigenous peoples historically, has gone far and beyond what its neighboring countries have done. To the extent that the Achuar who live in Ecuador, and then the Achuar who live on the other side of the border with, is it Peru?

Brandi: Yeah, it’s Peru. Yeah.

Rachel: Yeah. And then the Ecuador that live on the other side of the border in Peru have dramatically different lives because of the differences that the constitutions give them. And I think people assume that if we just reform our policies, or better yet, if we go around and we play about with our law and, write the right words down on paper, then everything will be fine and bad things won’t be allowed to happen. But if Canadian mining companies are abusing even the people of Ecuador and even the forest of Ecuador, even the land of Ecuador, even the Earth of Ecuador, which are some of the strongest protections in the world. Then does that not show that belief is just a little bit gullible?

Brandi: Yeah. Ecuador. Yes, enshrined the rights of nature into their constitution. But you know what it is only applicable when the government wants it to be. This is what I have found out. Especially, lately that the Daniel Noboa government is really pushing the mining industry and opening up its borders, signing a free trade agreement with Canada. It doesn’t really mean much. It’s more of a show on paper now. You know that I see. Because Ecuador is in crisis. It’s in a critical moment. It just acts completely, it’s the environment ministry and folded that underneath into its mining ministry.

Mike (note): This is very true. Mangabeys Max Radwin published a story on this in August of this year. Daniel Noboa announced on the 24th of July that these two ministries would be folded into each other. The International Monetary Fund IMF recommended that Ecuador diversify its economy through mining. The move has been criticized as prioritizing GDP growth over nature.

Brandi: and if that doesn’t tell you what’s happening,  I mean these companies are always given precedent over Indigenous rights over the rights of nature. I have seen this time and time again and there are lawyers or communities that will challenge this in the legal systems. But as always, these processes take a very long time. And in the meantime, these companies are given full access to continue with their projects while the people work to defend their territory and are met with violence. Like even just this week in the Las Novice Territories in Ecuador, there’s a Canadian mining company there that’s moving in and the people don’t want it. And there’s videos going round all on online of the military coming in and enforcing. And when I was in Ecuador, I’ve been going back and forth for almost a year now, but my first time there last November, I met with people who had experienced a lot of trauma. I met with a man, a 40-year-old man who in 2024 was shot in the face and the neck by the military while trying to defend his territory. And he survived. But his face is all mutilated and he can’t work, and he’s got a wife and a daughter. But I was able to see firsthand, how this violence plays out. But on the other hand, there are these threats there. People are getting death threats. They’re afraid for their lives, but they are still so passionate about their homes in their territory that they’re still out there fighting to save them.

Rachel: It’s a beautiful and heartwarming thought. I think that even in the face of utter annihilation, total danger for people that are, for people who in the kind of western way of thinking, have very little. They certainly have enough to fight for what they see to be of the utmost value, which is their relationship with the rest of the world.

Brandi: And like you said before, these people have nowhere else to go. Especially if it’s an Indigenous community that is their place, that is their home and their territory. And I describe it as if a country has another country that’s coming in and inviting them. And they’re not wanted, you are gonna stand and you’re gonna defend your territory. These are sovereign communities, sovereign territories, and they’re protecting and forced to defend themselves and their territory.

Rachel: Brandi, I think sadly we have to leave it there, but this has been an extraordinary conversation. I hope you come back on the show soon and please keep us up to date with all of your reporting and thank you for your work.

Brandi: Hi. Hi. Rachel. I would love to. Thank you so much.

Rachel: Thank you.

Mike: So rather than just add a bunch of notes into the audio, I thought this would be a good opportunity to discuss some context. So we talk a lot about Canadian, you and Brandi talk a lot about Canadian mining companies on this episode, which is interesting because there was an International Rights of Nature tribunal earlier this year that occurred in February and specifically found that Canadian mining companies are guilty for the violation of rights of nature across South America and Serbia and I thought it was important to highlight this because there was evidence that was presented at this tribunal including, local and Indigenous peoples from the areas affected by mining. And I found that the talking points in the press release here on the internet, which I’ll link into the show notes, was really informative and very much worth highlighting here on the audio. So if you don’t mind, I’m just gonna speak a couple of things that were stated. Anna Zbona, who is an expert from the Business and Human Rights Resource Center, was talking about the impacts of transition minerals mining in South America, and she said the following, “we don’t have to choose between fighting climate change and protecting human rights. A just transition must mean working towards greater global equity and equality, which means that policy options to reduce demand for new minerals must be considered first.” And I thought that this was very important to highlight because I think that this is something, not that it’s not important to highlight what you know mining companies are doing and all the human rights abuses that are happening. But it’s important to, I think, discuss the fact that there is a way to do a just consultation that is not being done, and this tribunal highlights it. And I also thought it was important to note that a lot of the mining done, or at least some of it, particularly in Chile, according to witnesses there are saying that it isn’t about clean energy, it’s not about the transition, it’s more about minerals for the military industrial complex. Valeria Sepulveda quote said, “this is not about clean energy. This is about the military industrial complex.” We’ve done like a webinar on transition minerals that kind of goes into a lot of these nuanced questions about, is this really a just transition? It’s obviously, it’s not a just transition, but are these minerals actually for renewable energy? And if they, are, how can that be done justly? But the common denominator I’m hearing is that demand side policy has to be implemented, meaning, it’s not about making EVs. That’s, not the suggestion here. And that was also in the literature you sent me. The suggestions include things that we already have, like increasing public transportation, allowing people to work from home, more like investing in and bettering the infrastructure of nations rather than creating new fancy gadgets. And I think that is really important to distinguish here. And I just wanted to lay that on the table so that audiences are aware of what is being discussed about mining and what and how much of it has to do with renewable energy or not.

Rachel: I think absolute demand reduction is the only way that you can even begin to grasp at a just transition because I’m not convinced actually that a just transition is feasible. To be perfectly honest. There is always going to be a sacrificial zone essentially when you, society requires so much infrastructure. Even if we reduce our demands. just the, the fact of, electricity now. And should be rolled out to everyone around the world. It is gonna demand a huge amount of the Earth’s insides, quite frankly, in the Earth’s bodies and a huge amount of energy in order to then deploy that infrastructure. So there’s always gonna be sacrifice zones, and the sacrifice zones are going to be essentially conducted where people and also creatures are most voiceless. what we’re seeing right now, this is the trend. It’s Indigenous people whose rights aren’t protected in Constitution or by law. It’s then all of our kinfolk who are not protected by law, essentially, who are not considered as having a voice at the table and whose habitats are being destroyed and ecosystems are being destroyed and waterways are being destroyed just so that we can keep pulling things outta the earth in order to continue furnishing ourselves, essentially with comfort, but also predominantly with wealth. And so absolute reduction has to, it is the only part of any kind of policy. Proposal that I have seen that even glimpses at just transition, as I said. And I read a paper, I read a paper earlier this month, produced by a check campaigning group and it’s incredibly interesting. And what they pointed out, same thing, we need absolute reduction. Also for everyone who says that this is an impossible, political goal, that it will never get off the ground, that it’ll never be on the table, that it is something just that is completely antithetical to our political and economic imagination. Please remember that in 2023. When European leaders were deciding how to move away from Russian gas, move off of Russian gas because of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, one of the things that they talked about was absolute reduction in demand. So they discussed implementing a three day work week and having people use less energy and all of these other things because they thought the one way that we’re gonna do this best. To stop how much we’re consuming. And so in that context, when it came to punishing a nation that Europe is not allied with, absolute reduction was absolutely on the table. But when it comes to the idea of protecting our biodiversity and our ecosystems and they’ve increasingly fragile web that holds life together, then it’s not on the table. And that’s something I find very difficult to wrap my head around.

Mike: Yes, the demand side reductions are being recommended by experts that study this for a living, just as you point out. And that’s absolutely something that’s essential. And it’s been echoed by scientists and yes, it seems like that’s not, like you just said, doesn’t seem to be taken as seriously as it should be here. You sent me two pieces of literature, which I also dived into, and I just wanted to go ahead and highlight a couple of quotes from those because it’s really informative. You earlier brought up the fact that mining is gonna have a detrimental impact on ecosystems that could be even greater than that of climate change itself. And that is true, in the abstract that you sent the scientists that wrote this paper in Nature did say that. However, they also did say renewable energy production is necessary to halt climate change and reverse associated biodiversity losses. However, they very clearly outlined like all the ways that can go wrong and end up becoming worse than the mitigation effects we would have for climate change. So, the second part of that is “mining threats to biodiversity will increase as more mines target minerals for renewable energy production. And without strategic planning, these new threats to biodiversity may surpass those averted by climate change mitigation.” So that is, yeah, definitely stated there. I don’t have the, I don’t have the numbers in front of me or the talking points on how exactly a just transition could be carried out. It’s something we obviously report on a lot here at Mongabay, and so I will link as much information and reports on that as I can in the show notes. But for people that are interested in learning about that, I would direct you to listen to our webinar on covering Transition Minerals. We had Galina Angarova from the SIRGE Coalition join us. And she really talks about this quite well. So that is something that she discusses on what a just transition would mean. And obviously that is heavily context dependent. And so that’s something that I encourage folks to look over. It’s not something I think we can cover in just a few minutes here on the podcast.

Rachel: I think maybe one thing I will say is that, it’s actually really difficult to get consistent information on everything that we’re discussing here. So a UN report that was published in 2024 in February, 2024 said that the biggest threat to biodiversity was actually land management systems and they were targeting agriculture. And that was 90% of our biodiversity threat comes from land management, and actually said that other industries are not really a problem. This is the one that we need to tackle and it, so it’s very difficult to aggregate, I would say, all of the different information that comes from different institutions, different, not different academics, different institutions with different goals as well, in order to get a feel for what is going to happen or what could happen, what the best outcomes could be, what the worst outcomes could be. And so I would just, so I just wanted to reiterate the call to go and listen to the webinar because it’s really important to get your information from a whole bunch of different sources about this.

Mike: I actually think that’s a really, that was a really good point there, Rachel. This is covering science and then also covering human rights, because they intersect with each other. It’s important to stay up to date and new things are constantly being found and reported on. And sometimes things get changed and new information becomes available, and so it’s always important to update, I agree very much. I did just think it was interesting that the commonality, the common thread that I don’t really see changing is that experts are recommending things, and I’m really super paraphrasing here, things like detaching the sense of economic growth from wellbeing. So, GDP raising does not equal Wellbeing raising. And experts are saying we need to detach that. So maybe we don’t use the word decoupling here isn’t, not already, but that was the word someone used…

Rachel: Is that not already detached by virtue of it not having an impact on wellbeing?

Mike: You would think, that would be the case, Rachel, but apparently some people don’t see that as being the case, but it is.

Rachel: Okay.

Mike: And then the other thing I see repeated time and time again is that demand side measures need to be a part of the solution here. And that includes things like bettering the public infrastructure of the nations that you live in. So, things that aren’t necessarily profit driving schemes. So, like public transportation, which I guess some people could say that’s a profit driving scheme, but in most cases it’s not. It’s public transportation to serve a purpose. This is echoed by experts I interview all the time. What are human needs? And how do we fulfill them? That is basically it in a very simplistic way. And that does not mean, electric vehicle SUVs. Because that’s, a, that is, the material footprint of that is so many times higher, 10, 13 times higher than that of gas cars, and I’m not advocating for gas vehicles but I am saying that…

Rachel: …advocating for no vehicles, it’s important…

Mike: …I personally would prefer to never drive a vehicle for the rest of my life. But I am saying that the experts are saying, and it’s important for us to connect the dots here, that all the stuff that we already have, we just need to be doing more of and do better. Public health, like Medicare for all type systems. Things that actually benefit the average everyday person, are really not just good, but necessary, like necessary to solve this issue.

Rachel: Yeah. I consider this all reproductive work, following the traditional of Ecofeminists. that there is a difference between production and reproduction. And reproduction is not just, Literally birthing the new generation. It’s education. It’s all of the work that is required for a culture and a people to reproduce themselves. It’s weaving baskets, it’s maintaining the soil, growing the food, harvesting the, stable grains. and right now we live in a world that prioritizes production over reproduction, which for me is a nice sort of poetic frame, is to understand why it’s fundamentally unsustainable. You, if you sacrifice your reproduction for your production, then eventually your production will fail as well. And so I think that there’s a huge sort of beckoning possible industry to focus the shifts of our, attention and our innovation and our creativity and our, collaborative efforts towards reproduction, building the infrastructure, building the green spaces, looking after nature. Rewilding huge amounts of land and ocean. Giving people green jobs where they are available. education, stable and sustainable food production. This is all reproduction. and I really enjoy thinking about it as that’s that’s the signpost of where to go next.

Mike: Indeed. Yeah, and I know this sounds overly simplistic, and quite obvious, but it really, it seems to be, and I hear everyone say this, it needs to be a shift from a short-term mindset to a long-term one. Which sounds like the most obvious thing in the world, you would think. But it is quite shocking how the people in power simply do not operate with that mindset. And it is literally mortgaging the health of our future generations for short term economic gain.

Rachel: Yeah, I would caveat that with one thing though, it can’t be too long term because then you’ve got people like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk who think that the goal must be to get off planet Earth at some point, she’s no longer going to be able to sustain us. And so any damage that is done in the interim in order to achieve that goal is worthwhile. And that’s funnily enough, that’s called long-termism as a philosophy.

Mike: Wow, I didn’t even know that. Yeah. That’s a…to me, that’s a real twisted sense of that…that feels rather short term me. Yeah, if you’re planning to just jet off the planet. Long term, in the sense that I used it, is that this planet’s gonna be here effectively for billions more years.

Rachel: Literally forever.

Mike: And so, let’s–until eventually the sun expands and swallows it up–but let’s, long term, treat it like it’s gonna be here for, a long time. Rocketing off the planet is a, is a short-term mindset in my opinion, but if they wanna call it long-termism–

Rachel: –that’s what they do. That’s what they do. The future is trillions of unborn humans just waiting to exist in colonized pockets of space. That’s the future. Mike didn’t you know?

Mike: Wow. I can’t…I can’t say I agree. I think that’s a rather silly outlook. That’s just, maybe that’s just me. I think that was it. I think that’s all I wanted to cover.

Rachel: Great.

Mike: I think we got it.

Rachel: Good coverage.

Mike: Thank you.

If you want to read more of Brandi Morin’s work or listen to the episode’s referenced in this conversation, please see the links in the show notes. As always, if you’re enjoying the Mongabay Newscast or any of our podcast content and you wanna help us out, we encourage you to spread the word about the work we’re doing and tell a friend. Word of mouth is the best way to help expand our reach. You can also support us by becoming a monthly sponsor via our Patreon page at patreon.com/mongabay. We are a nonprofit news outlet, so when you pledge a dollar per month, you’re making a big difference in helping us offset production costs. So if you’re a fan of what we do here, go to patreon.com/mongabay to learn more and support the Mongabay Newscast. You can also read our news and inspiration from Nature’s frontline at mongabay.com, or you can follow us on social media, find Mongabay on LinkedIn at Mongabay News, and on Instagram, Threads, Bluesky, Mastodon, Facebook and TikTok where our handle is @Mongabay or on YouTube @MongabayTV. Thanks as always for listening.