Lindsay Naylor: Who does “fair trade” really serve and benefit? (ep419)
“For fair trade certification to exist, there has to be someone in poverty. There has to be someone who is at a disadvantage to provide them with an opportunity to meet standards for certification largely set by folks on the consumer end who want to make ethical decisions in the marketplace. ”
Who does “fair trade” as a certification program speaking to conscious consumers really serve? How might it fall short of what it promises—supporting farmers and producers from falling into the deepest pits of poverty while paradoxically also keeping them at a certain level? What does the process of rebuilding power entail for communities who are grappling with local inequalities within a larger global corporate agricultural chain?
In this episode, we converse with Lindsay Naylor, an author and geographer, as she delves into the daily acts of resistance and agricultural practices by the campesinos/as of Chiapas, Mexico, in their pursuit of dignified livelihoods and self-declared autonomous communities. Drawing from her fieldwork, Naylor explores interaction with fair trade markets and state violence within the context of the radical history of coffee production.
About our guest:
Lindsay Naylor (she/her) is Associate Professor in the Department of Geography & Spatial Sciences at the University of Delaware in the United States and is a co-facilitator of the Embodiment Lab. She is the author of the award-winning book Fair Trade Rebels and the forthcoming book All Geographers should be Feminist Geographers.
Artistic credits:
Song feature: Mine to Take by Johanna Warren
Episode-inspired artwork by Sun.
Dive deeper:
Fair Trade Rebels, a book by Lindsay Naylor
Food Fight: GMOs and the Future of the American Diet, a book by McKay Jenkins
A People’s Green New Deal, a book by Max Ajl
Check out the following projects: Philadelphia Orchard Project, and Fallen Fruit
Expand your lenses:
To support our show and tap into our extended and bonus episodes, join us on Patreon today!
transcript
Note: Our episodes are minimally edited. Please view them as open invitations to dive deeper into each resource and topic explored. This transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity.
Lindsay Naylor: One of the things I’m puzzled about is that for fair trade certification to exist, there has to be someone in poverty. There has to be someone who is at a disadvantage to provide them with an opportunity to meet standards for certification that are largely set by folks on the consumer end, who want to live out this conscientious consumerism to make ethical decisions in the marketplace.
And all of that is put on the producer to enact so that they can be paid a price that is still not generous, and that just allows them to stand in place. So yeah, it prevents folks from falling into the deepest pits of poverty, but it does not allow for a standard of living that is perhaps what is being imagined by the people who are buying these goods when they are looking for the label and thinking that they're making these ethical decisions.
Kamea Chayne: Yeah, that's important to note. Your book, Fair Trade Rebels, goes deeper into all of these things and shifts the focus from the abstract concept of fair trade and whether it is, quote-unquote, working to the perspectives of small farmers, particularly in Chiapas, Mexico. I'm aware that you've had to sit with what you had initially perceived as a contradiction of the self-declared autonomous communities in this region, perhaps tethering themselves to the global market through fair trade. So I'd be curious to hear you expand on your initial curiosities and ultimately how you came to see their engagement with fair trade actually as intentional strategies of their resistance.
Lindsay Naylor: Yeah, thank you. The research I ended up doing for this book was how a movement, a social movement that is largely critical of capitalism, of free trade, uses a marketplace that is global to keep, not just the movement itself, but the people who populate the movement afloat.
And I got to Chiapas, Mexico, which is again, it's the southernmost state in Mexico. It has a majority Indigenous population, of Tzotziles and Tzeltales primarily, although multiple Mayan language groups make up the population. However, there are several coffee cooperatives. And there's a longer history that I get into about the support for coffee by the state of Mexico and things of that character.
But what was interesting was talking with folks who are very anti-government, very anti the North American Free Trade Agreement as it's known as NAFTA, that had been passed in the mid-90s, but are very much relying on these global connections to create an opportunity for cash income, to create an opportunity for relationships to be built across state lines and to mobilize storytelling about what is happening in Chiapas State, which would otherwise perhaps not make it to, oh, I don't know, a marketplace or a coffee shop in the United States or Western Europe or Japan.
There are a few events that precipitated this particular group's participation, and I won't talk about them in great depth, but it's important to know that the coffee cooperatives that I worked with and that are largely responsible for connecting these social movements up into these networks that allow their stories to be told were created out of intense struggle and violence.
I keep up with folks in Chiapas and that violence is ongoing and it has been for years. And when I say years I want folks to understand that there is an intensity of violence that is happening in Chiapas that has been intensified since the mid-90s.
The Chiapas struggle of warfare spanning the past 500 years can be traced back to colonization, conquest, and the systematic erasure, invisibilization, and genocide of Indigenous peoples throughout the Americas.
All of that is threaded through the struggle that exists today that maybe you don't think about when you're drinking coffee, particularly if it's not coming from southern Mexico. But fair trade certification and direct trade or more ethical trade in coffee comes out of solidarity organizing in the Americas between the Americas and Europe or the Americas as a whole.
To go to Chiapas and to talk to folks about why they're participating in these markets isn't to talk about coffee. It isn't to talk about the cash income that they received. It's to talk about how they are building livelihoods that are different and how they can maintain their identity as subsistence producers, as Indigenous people and they're able to resist the efforts of the government to remove them from the land.
A lot is going on there, but the important thing to pull out for me as part of this work was that it wasn't a contradictory thing that was happening. It was a strategy, as you mentioned, where it was just one ingredient in a larger recipe for how to maintain a struggle where the state is trying to take away access to communal land and privatize it, meaning that what was once the farming area of a large group of people to take it and carve it up into pieces and assign title to individual families or, in particular, heads of households and this case, heads of households who were men and to fight that.
It’s an effort to maintain their existence as subsistence farmers. To cultivate corn, to cultivate the milpa, which is the three sisters, which is corn, beans, and squash. And if anybody's interested in why that's a super sustainable way of farming, I'm happy to dig into that a little bit more because it is and it's incredible and it's been in use for thousands of years.
It’s an important part of the identity of these folks is cultivating corn that allows them to not have to buy it in the marketplace, something that's become increasingly more difficult, especially with the introduction of free trade agreements with the United States, which outcompetes Mexico in corn production in terms of economies of scale or the cost of production.
And then just being able to be in solidarity and to uphold these movements that have declared autonomy from the state and to support their communities with their forms of education, with their health clinics, with their agricultural extension, as we would maybe talk about it in the United States context, and to do for themselves what hadn't been being done by the government, which had largely ignored these folks for decades and were trying to make them go away, effectively.
The Indigenous folks in Mexico are considered “a problem” by the state and that's a huge violence. They were under-resourced communities and one of the only reasons why they have access to these marketplaces now — there's a lot of history there I'm trying hard not to dig too deeply into it— but is because of the rebellion that happened in 1994 the government to have access to these communities that did not have direct highways or roads or established connections between towns because they're in the highlands, which happens to be a good place to grow coffee but not a place that the government was particularly interested in investing in with roads or infrastructure or schools or clinics and things of that character. And so digging in and figuring out what the operationalizing of Fair Trade is that it's just another piece of the puzzle. It's not how these people identify.
Kamea Chayne: There's a lot more historical context that is important to dig into, and we appreciate the overview that you've shared with us here. I think that when the concept of sovereignty comes up, whether food sovereignty, indigenous sovereignty, community sovereignty, and so forth, it can come with implications of a place being self-sufficient with self-defined more communally. It also can’t be romanticized.
Especially after engaging with the communities of Chiapas in their active resistance and work to maintain their sovereignty, I'd be interested in having you share more about these visions of sovereignty as well as perhaps the messier practice of reclaiming power and autonomy while still engaging the broader webs of power relations. Because I sense that these are critical questions and challenges for a lot of communities seeking to reclaim power from wherever they are today.
What if a purist exit doesn't exist? What does the work of rebuilding power mean for communities whose lifeways have become so deeply entangled with larger extractive systems that they can't free themselves from? I know there are many running threads here, but I welcome you to take this in whatever direction you feel called to at this moment.
Lindsay Naylor: Oh, I just love this question because I’m a political geographer, I'm interested in how power is distributed over space and place and between people and things of that character. And what is fundamentally important to understand about the situation in Chiapas is that these are not homogenous communities of folks. So it’s not as if you have a town or a community or a village that said, okay, we're going to draw a boundary around ourselves and declare ourselves autonomous from the government. And we're going to try to democratize the food system through things like declaring food sovereignty and trying to isolate and be self-sufficient. That just doesn't exist. And for several reasons.
One, the Indigenous folks who are participating in these movements are not all interested in the autonomy movement. Some are very supportive of the current government, whether it be the state government or the federal government, and they all live in the same place. So, there are ways of identifying who is participating in autonomy, which I won't talk about just for their protection, but it is clear that there are differences within communities and there are power dynamics that are happening at that small scale.
This even comes down to the scale of the household, where there might be members of households who are participating in the struggle and others who have decided that that's not for them. And that scales up to global networks. The idea of self-sufficiency, I also would say, is largely a myth at this point in our contemporary era in the way that power is distributed, the way that resources are distributed, and corporate capitalist interests.
This isn't unique to Chiapas or Mexico and makes it difficult to be entirely self-sufficient. And even the folks that I worked with while I was there in trying to stay out of the market for corn, they were still having to buy corn by the end of the year. And this is something that, colleagues of mine who do work in Mexico, but are in Central America, Christopher Bacon, for example, have talked about as being the lean months. These are the months where after the corn, the corn has been stored, and it can be stored in several ways in terms of how it's processed.
But once that runs out and how decisions are made about spending cash income, especially for folks that are participating in commodity markets, like selling coffee, whether it's certified or not, that might be the only cash income that they bring in for the entire year. And at best, depending on the price of coffee, depending on the size of their plot, it's not much money. Some of the folks that I talked to, who were making the most, were making about a thousand dollars a year. So choices about how to spend that cash income become important in between harvests, especially in terms of not just buying food, but sending kids to school, transportation, and between areas to gain access to resources because there's not necessarily a market or somewhere to buy these food supplies nearby. And then also things like health concerns.
Liek, does someone need glasses? Is there someone who's diabetic in the family? Is there an event in which someone needs medical care? And all of those things cost money. And so there are important negotiations that happen there. And that's why I talk much about how multiple strategies are ongoing. And that's, again, not specific to this place. I think how it's being mobilized in this place is what makes it so fascinating, but peasant strategies worldwide are to be diverse, to have multiple ways of accessing resources, growing food, and gaining access to cash income. But I would say that they're fairly limited in Chiapas and intentionally so, which is again part of that power struggle. There's a strong military presence. There are efforts by the state to continue to destabilize the struggles.
And then not having, again, that homogenous population means that there's not an ability to just say, okay, well, we exist in a bubble now and we support each other through our collective work and we're going to grow corn, we're going to grow beans, we're going to grow squash and we're going to live happily ever after. Yeah, it just doesn't function that way. One other important tidbit to note is that I talked about the fact that there was violence that was created, which required the creation of these cooperatives.
One of those moments is the splitting off of groups that were growing coffee participating in the struggle, leaving a cooperative because other members of that cooperative perpetrated a massacre against their group. So they're living in the same communities. There is not that kind of mobility to leave the land because of the way that communal land structures and the way that title to land or how land is distributed works. And so it's this messy sort of situation.
So there is no purest exit as you asked me to speak of. I mean, I didn't mean to suggest that you think that there was one, but there isn't, for sure. And so I think that one of the more important things for me to think about was how are these people trying to live well.
What strategies are small farmers putting into place so that they are collectively working towards dignified livelihoods while they're still in resistance?
And that is incredibly important.
Kamea Chayne: Yeah, it is messy. It's messy within communities and also every community across the globe defines sovereignty differently and they have different relations and forms of reliance on their broader system. So yeah, this ultimately emphasizes the importance of, as you shared, the ‘why of where’ and centring place-specific dynamics.
There's also been a growing movement of regenerative agriculture alongside fair trade. I'm thinking of various clothing brands, for example, that might work with fair trade farmers and even farmer cooperatives in India to source their cotton, which is grown in ways that regenerate the health of their lands. And that is wonderful. And many of these cooperatives, or so we're told at least, get paid a quote-unquote premium.
But the reason that I question this soil-centred way of defining regenerative is that it doesn't do anything to address the uneven exchange of the global context, which is the reality that one hour's economic worth of labour for someone in the global north might be quote unquote worth 20, 30 or more hours of labour of another person in the global south because of the suppressed wages there. And so with this neo-colonial system in place, consumers, even when they are paying for fair trade or regenerative products produced in the global south, as good as their intentions might be, it still unavoidably upholds that same extractive dynamic of ultimately still sucking resources and products of labour disproportionately out of global south communities.
Max Ajl was our past guest and he mentioned that people in the US have access to more of the things produced in the whole world than people in the South because of this uneven accumulation going on. And this isn't to place blame or to say that it is on any individual consumer to rewire the global economy, but it does make me question, how can we consider this monodirectional trend as regenerative or as fair in the whole socio-ecological, economic, and cultural sense of the word? And if we are selective about what they define, then it does echo your question of ‘who is a fair trade for?’ and who is regenerative for? So with all of these things in mind, I'm interested in whatever else you want to add to these questions and also having you expand on the nuanced concept of what it means to be in solidarity.
Lindsay Naylor: I mean, yes to all. I teach a whole semester on uneven development and on how colonial imperial relations that many people probably think are passed because independence has been achieved. If you look at the global map of independence, some of that has been during my lifetime, but the power relations still exist and they're extractive and exploitative. One of the things that I often suggest is that we want to be doing better, many of us, and even I think the folks that might be harmed are still thinking that this is a good thing for reasons X, Y or Z.
But regenerative agriculture, sustainable practices, farming practices and recycling all sound good and why wouldn't we want to support them? Especially if we can do it so easily as consumers by just looking for a different stamp on the thing that we're already going to buy. But I am sceptical that there is any way that we are going to buy our way to a better planet, to better human and non-human relations.
And again, this gets back to the point I made earlier that….
For some of these [fair trade] certifications to exist, somebody has to be in poverty. Someone has to be exploited. And [capitalism] is not a way to fix exploitation.
Capitalism is the economic system in which we sort of predominantly put our understanding of how the economy works, and maybe I can word that a little bit differently, but it's kind of the only thing we think about, maybe when we think about the economy. It exists for profit and not for people necessarily. And there's a group of folks that benefit from that more than others. And so this accumulation happens in the global core, which is these former colonizing or settler colonial states where a lot of consumption can happen because of differences in wages, but not exclusively. And this is why I like the concept of scale. Not everybody in the global periphery is doing poorly and not everybody in the global core is doing well.
In the United States, we have a lot of consumer mobility. I am privileged enough that when I want to buy coffee, the only place that coffee is grown in the United States is in Hawaii, which may as well be considered a colony of the United States, but it's in that tropical band where coffee is grown. So we have to largely get our coffee from outside of the United States. I am privileged enough to be able to buy directly from a coffee roaster that sources directly from one of the coffee cooperatives I worked with. But not everybody can do that.
Sometimes in my classes, when my students are talking about these notions of ethical consumption, they want to know what to do. Because we don't want to hear that all of these measures that are supposed to be doing things better, are in fact, just perpetuating these bad systems. And there's a lot of ‘what do I do?’ ‘what should I buy?’
I can't tell my student, well, you should buy from this coffee cooperative that's struggling. Because that's a privilege that I have and, and a choice that I make about how I'm interacting with the marketplace. And so instead, one of the things that I think that as consumers, we need to think about, and that can be on any number of levels, but particularly consumers with more financial mobility. The folks that think that buying an $80 t-shirt because it's made with fair trade certified cotton is doing something phenomenal with their money. It's to find out more about it.
If we have the privilege to spend that kind of money, we have the privilege to make time to understand what's happening in these systems and to think about what these labels mean, what they are, and how they're different from one another. Because they're not all the same, whether they're making similar claims. And do what I call looking behind the label to find out what these practices are because it's common that when we buy something, we don't think about the conditions in which it was produced.
And I talk a lot about this. If we're gonna buy a diamond engagement ring as part of that particular romantic, heterosexual, normative story that's told about getting married in Western culture, we're not maybe thinking about a pit mine in a sub-Saharan African country that may or may not be deploying child labour.
When we put lettuce into a salad, we're not thinking about the valley in California and the labour that was mobilized, possibly at very early hours of the morning and then forced to wait for the dew to break or for the sun to rise and then to get paid per head of lettuce. We're not thinking about what happens in other parts of the commodity chain. We also don't think about where it goes afterwards.
That makes it easy for us to buy into some of this stuff. Who doesn't want to think that they’re purchasing their way to a better world? But it is still based on this premise of moving profit forward, moving extraction forward, and keeping this system going.
I think I make a fairly strong argument in my work that this isn't the only system and that we can participate in others. And there are already existing systems that are doing things differently. And if we start to widen our way of looking at how we participate in economic exchanges maybe we can start to think about what that can look differently.
I feel I got pretty far away from regenerative agriculture and clothing and cotton, but I think that the narratives that undergird these things are important. And it's kind of a joke that I made in my family when I first started studying food agriculture systems. Those pop-tarts are organic, but that doesn't mean that they're good for you. It means that the wheat was produced with different systems. And I think that's just important to remember.
Kamea Chayne: Yeah, thank you for all of these threads that you brought in. And definitely, I feel how a lot of people come to see the ways that they are tethered to these stories of injustices might be through consumerism. So it’s understandable that people might begin their journeys by asking questions like, how do I buy better as a consumer? But then as you shared, it's also important for people who have the ability premium to buy better, to also dig deeper to see the limitations of playing within these systems and to dream beyond and know that we can and also need to unwire and rewire the fundamental extractive logics that undergird them altogether.
And I very much align with you in terms of, yeah, just centring power in all of these conversations through the world of environmentalism or social endeavours and beyond. And the final topic I would love to weave into this conversation is the concept of green gentrification where you share about how greening initiatives in urban spaces are starting to have a gentrifying effect.
So how would you begin illustrating this picture in terms of what you've seen play out? And what would you like to share in regards to this mismatch between greening endeavours and the communities that they seek to support?
Lindsay Naylor: Again, this is one of those things where you see something like an urban garden and you cheer. Here's a small-scale food production. Maybe it's being done by folks who didn't have great access to fresh fruits and vegetables before. But the best way I can describe green gentrification does not only come from my research but also, otherwise from a colleague, and friend of mine, Ali Alkon, who's at the University of the Pacific [update: Santa Cruz].
And I remember Dr. Alkon relating in a presentation given at an annual meeting this new million-dollar per condo development or something. I might be getting the number wrong, but it was a high price point for these condos and they were using a cooperative urban farm called, as one of the amenities of this condo without consulting this group. And so using something that started as an urban project to benefit Oakland, which until recently was not necessarily viewed as an up-and-coming place to live - was part of this gentrifying process. Look, there's green things here. Now we'll probably plow it over for something that is going to be a better development project, but we're gonna list it as an amenity because it looks cool and is attractive to young professionals.
And I saw that play out in my own experience, but differently in that, there was a plot of land in Eugene, Oregon, where I did my PhD, that was turned into a garden that was staffed by students at the university. And as soon as that plot of land started to look good, it instantly was purchased and is now a credit union and it's next to a big fancy rebuild of the courthouse that's there. And so there are these sorts of dynamics that happen where we look at a site and we see under-resourced areas. Plots that don't have any buildings on them that are growing weeds, houses that don't have either upkeep or investment by the owners or the tenants.
And people start to use those spaces and they start to use them in creative ways, ways that benefit the folks around them, that create these urban green spaces, which we know are good for combating urban heat island effects. And then as soon as these places become attractive to folks, other sorts of things start to move in to price out people. And so there's this, yes, this thing is good and we should do it but how do we protect it or how do we make it a, for lack of a better word, normal part of this place without having it become overrun by all of these other things that are then unaffordable?
Kamea Chayne: Yeah, that's a powerful consideration. Let's say a community historically has been polluted by, toxic waste or manufacturing facilities that have moved out and people within the communities are taking matters into their own hands and cleaning it up and greening the space. It then makes it a lot more ‘nice’. And then it becomes more attractive for other people to move in there that it is ‘nicer’ and then it might push out the people that made that place what it was, to begin with. Is that sort of the challenge at play here?
Lindsay Naylor: Yeah, it is. And it happens in different ways too, because there are greening initiatives that are happening as part of citywide. After all, I think at the city scale, that's where we're seeing the most movement on climate change adaptation, at least in the United States, I should say, although there are some studies in Europe, I'm not familiar enough with them to name them.
But there's a lot of push from mayors to create these urban green spaces. And it is evidence suggesting that where we are lacking green spaces in cities in the United States is in places of lower income tenancy. And so bringing more green space to these places is a desirable thing. But the way that land development works suggests that it's temporary. And so there are different initiatives across the country to try to counter that and hold green space in reserve for the common good. And there are things like land trusts and there are different edible projects.
I worked with the Philadelphia Orchard Project, which is creating spaces of freely available fruits and nuts through tree planting. There are a lot of initiatives out on the West Coast like there's one in Seattle. There's the Fallen Fruit Project out of LA. Oh, there's the Boston Tree Party up in Massachusetts. Groups are coming together and saying, no, we're going to protect this space. And so, no, you can't plough over these trees. And trees are a much more effective way of laying claim to the land because they're not annual.
So if you're planting a vegetable garden, most of us are maybe aware that you plant a tomato plant and then it has one season and then you have to plant another one, they don't regenerate in the next year. Generally speaking, they do not. But trees last for years, so those have been, those initiatives have been better I would say at securing urban space, but they still are attractive sites. So it's multiple. And then again, we've talked about things being messy. Nothing that I look into is simple.
So there's more that needs to happen besides that. And the great difficulty is that the people who will benefit the most from this, in general, don't have the capacity or shouldn't be asked to do the work.
So many marginalized people are tasked with doing work that should be done by the people who are not and the people who have the power. Instead is the people who have the power who are pushing those groups out while they're trying to get “the work” done. It is an exhausting process.
And so, again, I don't want to be negative about these things because there's so much good work being done. But there is so much more that could be done to make it so that it's not exhausting and that work needs to be collective.
Kamea Chayne: I mean, just across our various themes today from fair trade to regenerative to greening endeavours, as you named as well, there's this underlying thread of how many well-intentioned initiatives have ended up reinforcing the same extractive dynamics of injustice that they might, at least at the surface, aim to address. This can feel very discouraging, but I also just see this as a realization of our need to keep digging deeper and not take things at face value and instead to centre the gauge of power and to centre the voices of frontline communities. And also as Dr. Bayo Akomolafe suggests, to kind of embrace hopelessness as a way to not be led back on the same highways over and over again.
With all this said, as we close off here, what more would you like to share on anything we discussed today or anything else on your mind or on where you see our cracks and openings and what are your calls to action or a deeper inquiry for our listeners?
Lindsay Naylor: I appreciate the hopeful undertone that is there. I think what is important is that right now we are in an ongoing apocalypse for a lot of groups, but this is a particularly tense moment in where we sit in early 2024, trying to decide what is happening in the world. And so maintaining that hope, that possibility, I think is important.
And being willing to understand that change has to happen at all scales. I have a good friend who was like, should I not be drinking almond milk because there's a drought in California? And I said, do you think that that's gonna solve the problem? But it is a conscious choice.
It's an educated rationale for thinking about, well, what is the plant-based milk that I want to have in my home and why? And that's something that happens at the individual scale. But then some things can happen at the household scale, like decisions to just purchase differently or compost or do a time banking thing based on your availability, maybe you're excellent at sewing and someone's excellent at making shelves and you can trade each other kind of thing.
There are lots of different ways depending on our resources that we can participate on an individual and household level. But there are also things that we need to do at other scales.
This is where the work has to be collective. And then it can't just come from the communities that are being the most negatively impacted. And so how can we create community coalitions? How can we go to our city councils and our state legislatures? And again, I'm largely talking from a US context, but there are these multi-scalar situations elsewhere. But how can we start to level up?
Because ultimately it has to happen at all levels. I don’t think there’s a single solution, a silver bullet or a universal solution that is going to solve the problems that we see and that we want very much to solve. And so it's thinking about what are the multiple ways in which we can engage.
What are the small everyday things we can do? What are the medium-term things that we can work on collectively? And what are the long-term major things that have to be well-resourced to get the work done?
And think about what that means. If we are in a position of power or privilege or are well-resourced, we can not necessarily be a voice or an influence. But we can present at least as an ally or an advocate and then learn from that experience. There's also, I think, a process of unlearning that has to happen.
We exist in a society where I ask my students, what are you going to do when you graduate from college? And they kind of look around the room like I'm asking a stupid question because obviously, the answer is to get a job so that you can pay bills. And I want to kind of throw that out there as a question of: is that the only purpose of existing? And is that the only reason why we come to the table to learn from each other, whether it's in the university setting or elsewhere? There's a lot of different ways to learn. And I think we just have a wonderful opportunity that maybe we're not taking and we could do better with that.
Kama Chayne: Well, Green Dreamer, we are coming to a close here, but we will have more references and resources from this episode linked in our show notes at greendreamer.com. And for now, Lindsay, thank you so much for joining me on the show today. I enjoyed our conversation. And yeah, just grateful for all you've shared with us here. For now, what final words of wisdom do you have for us as Green Dreamers?
Lindsay Naylor: Well, I will just say thank you so much for the invitation to have this conversation. I don't usually get to talk about power this much, but I will say, think about who benefits and then just take care of yourselves.
