Why two seemingly unrelated movements cannot survive without each other.

by Michelina Schach

“You have two homes: your body and the planet. Take care of them.” 

The simple sentiment offers words to live by; we should want the best for what exists within us, and what exists around us. Unfortunately, this becomes far more complicated and troublesome in the modern world. 

What if you can’t afford energy-efficient housing? 

What if you have no access to environmental education? 

What if one factor of your life is so expensive, that you have to sacrifice other factors? What if your physical health is so poor that you can’t manage a job? 

What if your mental health is so poor that you can’t manage anything? 

These circumstances are shared by millions, if not billions, of people worldwide; I myself have lived in the last question intensely. 

As a life-long environmentalist, I grew up understanding that my love for nature could not exist without efforts to protect it. 

Since I’ve made that clear, it may surprise you that, for a while, environmentalism meant nothing to me. During this time, I was as indifferent to climate change as I was to the ground under my feet. This mental state had nothing to do with my morals or the planet itself, and everything to do with the fact that I had developed a dangerously all-consuming eating disorder. Because my mental and physical health were deteriorating so rapidly, I could not spare a single ounce of energy for anything beyond daily survival as I battled my own brain. Fortunately, fighting to recover has allowed me to expand my passion for protecting the planet. Even further, it has created a new lens to view these topics from: 

Movements surrounding both mental health and environmentalism cannot succeed without each other, and are futile on their own.

If mental health is to be rejected, entire populations of people battling mental health issues (and likely resulting physical issues as well) will spend far more time fighting their own minds than fighting against climate change. 

If environmentalism is to be ignored, the planet will suffer immensely, leaving very few people with the privileges of mitigating the stress and chaos of climate change. 

By no means are these statements hypothetical; these truths are already hurting communities, the planet, and global economies. These circumstances are well-demonstrated through what I call the “Crappy House Cycle.” 

Imagine a neglected house that is falling apart, energy inefficient, and poorly located (much like the ones in low-income, redlined communities). This house will contribute to climate change by crumbling into scraps, wasting energy, and producing toxic chemicals into the air and water. Climate change will also harm the house, as it won’t survive against extreme weather conditions. In the other direction, the crappy house harms its homeowner. They will be paying more to repair the house than it is worth, facing chronic stress, and constant exposure to toxic substances. As the homeowner suffers mentally and physically, they will be unable to either afford healthcare or maintain a living-wage job, much less fight climate change. This becomes a terribly common cycle; one that costs the world far too much stress, and even more money as a result. Chronic-stress-related issues cost the U.S. about $300 billion dollars annually, and climate change is estimated to cost the U.S. an annual $1.9 trillion dollars (in today’s GDP) by the time Generation Z are grandparents. 

This information is painfully overwhelming, which is precisely why we need to channel these feelings into collective action for the sake of our earth and its inhabitants. Now more than ever, it is necessary to advocate for a future where reforms are implemented to address all of society's “Crappy Houses” (poverty, racial injustice, education disparities, inaccessible healthcare, gender inequality, food distribution, and ableism to name a few), so that all people are given the foundation equitable means to care for their well-being, and that of the planet. 

If we can agree that all people should be enabled to care for their two homes, then we can agree to educate and act so the statement can be universally possible.