Katherine Lacefield: From Purity to Pragmatism

Way back in the aughts when I first started writing about climate change, I'd sometimes hear from random folks who said they didn't believe in global warming because they didn't want to live in a cave.

And I always thought that was a curious binary.

As if I did want to live in a cave.

While evoking a return to the Neolithic age as a narrative frame is crude, it reflects the ongoing false binary of environmental stewardship versus human well being.

And it isn't the only example of arguably one of humanity's biggest foibles either or thinking us versus Them.

You're either with us or against us.

And what is lost in such thinking is the solution to complex challenges found in the middle.

The struggle between so called climate alarmists and self avowed climate deniers who most decidedly do not want to live in a cave is well worn.

It is one tab of many in the browser of heated debate that makes up much of our current discourse.

If you're hugging a tree, you're not hugging the flag ad nauseam.

It's even among folks seemingly aligned in their values.

People seek purity with a zero sum mindset.

If your cause isn't my cause, if you eat meat or fly in a commercial airliner, you are not pure and are to be shunned.

If you care about animals, you must not care about people.

If you care about people, then how can you call yourself an environmentalist?

Round and round it goes, and what is getting done in our current rhetorical environment?

It will be a long road before we can fully climb out of our silos and embrace the intersectionality and interconnection among all the causes, all of life on a beautiful, fragile, intricately balanced planet.

But we strive toward that goal to our mutual benefit and remain guarded and afraid in our bulwarks to our disillusion.

Kathryn Lacefield, my guest in this first episode of season two and the first under the new name Earthbound, speaks to this human quirk of failing to see the forest for the trees, of seeking simple answers to complex challenges, retreating into the familiar, of casting a binary mindset in a sea of interdependencies.

No single tree makes a forest.

Lace Field is an environmental and animal rights advocate for and philanthropy and fundraising expert.

She is founder of Just Because Consulting and host of the Just because podcast with Just Because Being three words.

Catherine's experience includes academic rigor within the trenches, experience in environmental and animal rights nonprofits, philanthropy and fundraising.

Her broad professional and personal experience helps to inform a holistic perspective of our place in the world as individuals who care, and as a species sharing the planet with others.

She reminds us that none of us is perfect, that while we all have agency, we also have limited bandwidth.

We can't pour our energies into every worthy cause.

We also can't go back to an imagined time when everything was better.

Given this, we can navigate our way forward, contributing our passion, talents and time to the causes that most resonate with us.

Catherine reminds us that we have the wealth, knowledge and resources to meet our present moment.

What is lacking is balance.

Hoarded wealth, ego, suspicion and either or thinking work against us.

Cooperation, sharing, acceptance, patience, vision and integrity offer a path forward.

Join me as I discuss these and many other fascinating topics with Katharine Lacefield.

You've had a long career in nonprofit work.

Why don't we just get started in telling me about your career and just because consulting and what got you.

What was your back many years ago?

What got you into this?

What.

What led you to this place?

Oh, God, that's a good question.

I would say so.

I was part of the international program, so ibo for anyone who knows in high school.

And so from a very young age, we had to do volunteer work.

So that was part of the curriculum.

You got extra credits, but you had to do it every year.

And so I started getting involved in nonprofits and in social movements for quite a young age.

And that kind of got me to just open my eyes to understanding the wider situation of what was happening in our societies.

And they had another aspect where every single project we did, we had to look at it through the lens of these areas of interaction that they called.

And there was one that was all around environment.

So even if it was a math project or a science project, we kind of had to try to see it from an environmental perspective, either from how are we using resources?

Or how does this impact their environment?

So it allowed me to have a higher consciousness, if I could say, or a more developed consciousness about environmental issues.

And that obviously led to when you're a teenager and you're angry at the world and you hate everything, I started looking more into, you know, what could we do on an individual level.

And that's how I got involved in more of the animal rights, animal welfare movement.

Because as many people maybe might not realize, one of the most polluting industries in the world is still the agriculture, like animal farming.

So industrial farming of animals causes huge resource drain and is a huge contributor to climate change into greenhouse gases.

So melded both my passions for the environment and animals into one.

And then I ended up studying environmental development and started just getting more and more involved in it.

And now I support nonprofits, especially in the environmental and animal spaces, to just get them to have more capacity to have more impact in whatever it is they're working on.

So you're in animal rights and environment, and you've just described how the two intersect.

Can you expand upon that a little bit more about animal rights and environmental issues?

Yeah, so for sure, I got burnt out.

I'm going to be straightforward about it from being in the animal rights movement because it's very intense.

And that's why I think that this space of even environmentalism and animal.

Well, for animal rights, it's a very heavy space.

It can be very draining for a lot of people working in it because it's often we're fighting against human interests or what people see as human interests.

So when you're talking about animal rights, you're often criticizing or fighting against big industries that are, quote, unquote, from the animal rights perspective, exploiting animals for personal gain or for human gain.

Now I've become a bit more relaxed and starting to understand more the wider picture.

Because we do coexist with animals.

We're not going to be removing that from one day to the next.

We do use animals in many, many perspectives, many, many ways.

I don't think that's going to change from one day to the next.

So we need to start working with people to change that situation.

Now, where does the environment come in?

Well, as we know, any living being consumes resources, so it obviously requires a lot of intake of water, of food, of energy and the animal.

Like factory farming, especially industrial production of animals creates a huge strain on our resources.

It ruins ecosystems by just the manure that is like seeping out of these industrial farms.

There's a lot of environmental impact.

So what I've noticed is that there's more and more of this interconnection between the environmental movement and the animal welfare, animal rights movement of we need to start taking this into consideration when we're talking about how to mitigate climate change in the future.

It seems that the animal rights and environmental movement, you can't really be an environmentalist to not care about animals and how we treat animals.

But do you agree with that or do you think there's a disconnect in some areas between environmentalism and animal rights?

I do.

I do think that there's.

And that's where it becomes very tense and complicated, where there's this extremism of all or nothing.

You have to be perfect in both of these movements that I think can be very toxic to anyone who wants to join.

And it's actually pushing a lot of people away.

But I think it's the perspective of the reasoning why, like, I do believe that from an environmentalist perspective, there is something about the natural beauty.

Like a lot of people are inspired by wanting to keep our world the way we have it now and keep the biodiversity alive.

So in that sense, yes, there is this integration of considering all species, all animals, when we're considering what is the right decision or what we should be doing to protect or preserve.

However, if I look at the animal rights perspective, there's many that it's really just about an ethical question.

It's not so much necessarily seen from an environmental angle.

But I think both movements have decided we get more people on board if we talk about both as being connected, because you're going to be able to tap into people who are more sensitive maybe to the animal rights perspective and not so much aware of what's happening from a climate change perspective and vice versa.

So I think they tend to overlap because they're very intricately connected.

You cannot separate the two.

But I wouldn't necessarily say that both sides are as invested in the other.

It's just they.

They recognize that there is a huge benefit of connecting the two.

And then you start caring more and more for both as you evolve because you see just how connected they are.

We mentioned industrial agriculture.

That would be one area where it is definitely intertwined.

Animal rights, the factory farming, the poultry farming, the waste.

Do you find that there is, say, an environmentalist that eats meat but has a hamburger or something?

There's animosity there.

Yes.

Yes.

So.

And that's where.

That's what kind of turned me off and got me to burn out from the movement.

If I'm being really honest and transparent here, because it's about a lot of the.

Especially in the animal rights movement.

But also I met with a lot of environmentalists where you have to, as an individual, be perfect.

You're not allowed making exceptions to anything that might cause a negative effect on the environment.

And I just believe that that is not a sustainable approach to getting people involved and inspired to continue caring.

And I was one of those, what I call crazy vegans for many years.

I was vegetarian for 12 years.

I was vegan for three.

I was very invested and I would get mad.

And I remember once this story that thinking about it, it really breaks my heart now, where my mom really made an effort.

We were having this family dinner at a chalet or the cabin or something.

And she bought what she considered was what she thought was vegan cheese.

It said veggie cheese on it.

She was super proud of herself for having bought this veggie cheese for me so that I could eat the.

Whatever we were eating burritos or something.

And me being the crazy vegan that I am, read the ingredients, realized it wasn't a vegan cheese, it was a vegetarian cheese, whatever the hell that means.

And then it didn't include, like, I think it was casein or something.

And I said, sorry, I can't eat this.

It's not vegan.

And I just, like, completely.

My mom felt super bad.

She had really made a big effort of trying to include me, and I just pushed her away and said, sorry, you're not good enough.

And I know that's how she felt, and I know it caused huge tensions and it made it so that people are seeing the.

The movement as being annoying or being difficult or.

And then it just doesn't create a connection of trying to understand.

And this is exactly like you were saying.

Where there have been people, there's actually a situation.

If I don't, if I.

If I don't recall, I don't remember his name exactly, but there was an environmental minister or environmental leader in Canada who posted a video of him barbecuing in November or like, in what it should be cold, he was like, this is crazy.

Look at the impacts of climate change.

And he was obviously barbecuing a steak.

So then all of the people were like, how could you be eating steak?

And it's also not just the animal rights perspective, but the environmental impact of beef.

So there's like a lot of tension around these issues.

And I understand where it comes from.

Like, I do, but if we're thinking from an.

What is the most efficient tactics to actually spread our message and get more people involved, which would have the most impact?

I don't think this constant blame and anger and attacking people is the way to go.

I agree with that.

I think you have to kind of eat people where they are.

Like an environmental.

Of course it's best if you don't get on an airplane and fly somewhere, but sometimes you have to get on an airplane and fly somewhere.

It's a matter of degrees.

You're going to push them away and then you've lost them.

And animal rights, environmental, especially climate change.

That's my beat.

Finding a narrative that connects with people that are, you know, not preaching to the choir, trying to connect to people, to make them understand.

It's a fraught topic to address, especially here in the United States.

You're Canadian, right?

Is that correct?

I'm a citizen of the world now.

I don't live technically anywhere in particular.

Well, good for you.

Originally Canadian, but to be your Canadian background, I just.

What do you think?

What is your perspective of what's happening here in the United States right now?

I have to ask that question.

Loaded question.

Yeah, yeah, but go for it.

Definitely.

It's definitely a difficult situation.

I think there's a lot of tension right now with just everything.

I feel like everyone is trying to.

The way I'm perceiving it.

Yeah, I'll see this.

I don't have all the facts and I don't.

I try to avoid following everything, but the way I'm seeing it is we're trying to avoid facing what's really happening and pretend like we can.

One second.

Sure.

They never do this.

Usually, of course, it's whenever I do a podcast that they have.

Okay.

So what I'm seeing is that there's a lot of trying to go back to when things were simpler, almost like when we weren't as aware of the impact that we were having on the world.

And we're trying to go back to this time where things were more simple, where we didn't have to think about climate change or about diversity or about equality and equity.

But you can't do that.

You can't reverse history, or at least, you know, in my opinion, you can't go back once people have become aware of these issues.

So this is where I find it's this weird situation where we're avoiding facing the truth.

However, I do understand that when people are faced with.

You have to look at the MASO pyramid of needs.

Right.

So when people are faced with, am I going to be able to feed my children today because I have a job, or am I going to talk about climate change and think about what's going to happen and what they see, as in, even if it's in a near future, it's in a future that is not today.

We have to understand that a lot of people will prioritize their current emergency if people are not well support, if they don't have food on the table, if they don't have a roof over their heads, if they're not being able to take care of their basic needs.

You.

We can't expect them to already be thinking about the impact that climate change will have on them in a couple of years.

It's just human behavior.

Yeah, yeah.

So I think, I think there's a big tension between the two of, from what I'm seeing, people that are maybe more well off or that have been educated or that are in that space that are more aware of those things.

A lot of them tend to have their basic needs met.

Or what we're seeing in Canada is a lot of, let's say, indigenous populations that don't have their basic needs met, but climate change is having a huge impact on them directly, are starting to rise up and becoming like, hey guys, you guys won't be as affected by climate change and the negative effects as we are, so they rise up.

So it's a very complex topic and I think the narrative is very much being jobs, economic well being and human well being or climate change, which may or not be true according to some narratives.

It's a very polarized situation that is pushing people away instead of actually facing the situation which is not individual behavior.

It's, it goes deeper than that.

Yeah, it's fraught.

You, Mitch, you mentioned the indigenous cultures.

What can you say about, in the context of where we're at now with, with environmental issues, what the indigenous cultures and life ways have to offer our modern world today and how we can address these complex issues?

I am going to start by saying I am definitely not an expert.

I have done a university class on this particular topic.

I've studied it lightly, but I am by far not the expert.

I do want to speak for all or indigenous because there's so many.

However, from what I have learned from people that I have talked to, from organizations that I have collaborated with or partnered with.

There is even just the Western versus Eastern perspectives on how we view our role in our, in our position in the world.

And a lot of the more traditional Christian, Western religions and cultures see humans as the center of the world and everything else exists for our happiness.

But there are, and this goes beyond Eastern, this goes beyond indigenous cultures.

There are even like Eastern religions that we are part of a system and we are just one of those components.

And so just shifting that if we look at a lot of indigenous worldviews and perceptions and, and stories of how the world came to be, it's not humans in the center.

There's a lot more around, you know, animal deities or animal leaders, if we could say, or animal spiritual beings and how our role in the bigger system of the planet, of our ecosystems, in our natural world, I think that allows us to understand that if we, if the environment doesn't Go, well, like we're screwed.

That's something that's never.

I never understood that.

Like, I get it, economy is important.

But what happens if you can't feed your population because your environment has been destroyed so much?

Who cares about how much money you're making?

Right.

Like, right.

It's like we're dissociating and excluding the environmental capacity to feed the economy when we're having these discourses, I think is really.

It doesn't make sense.

It's illogical.

Yeah.

I think that is a big problem.

I think the economy is.

We assume that the environment is subsumed by the economy.

It's backwards.

They just got it offside down.

I did an ecological economics class where we had to include environmental factors into our economic models of what they consider.

And it just doesn't make sense.

Like it always ends up failing because we haven't from the beginning been integrating the costs of, let's say industrial farming, which is also super subsidized.

But what is the cost that we're doing to the ecosystems to be able to provide us the free resources that we need, like water, like, you know, soil and earth.

We're excluding all of that in the equation.

So our equations are wrong.

Yeah.

Some statistic I heard somewhere and you probably heard the same thing that we're using two and a half earths.

Yeah.

Where's the research?

Something like that.

Yeah.

A post of like we've already used up all the resources that produced this year.

Yeah.

We're over consuming and people blame it on overpopulation.

It's just there's so much factors at play here.

That's why I think it becomes overwhelming for people when it's like, I can't drive my car, I can't do this, I can't eat meat, I can't eat these processed.

But I can't also eat processed foods.

But I also.

No, I'm not supposed to be vegan because it's not good for me or my children.

I'll be considered a bad parent.

Like there's just so much.

Yeah.

All the things that you can't do, you know?

Yeah.

Overpopulation.

There's certainly a lot of people.

There's a lot of people.

But I think it's over consumption by, you know, us here in the west primarily.

And I don't want to just put.

It on the West.

There's over consumption everywhere.

Everywhere.

Like I just.

So as a bad environmentalist, I was just traveling the world.

I'm trying, we're trying to find the Next place where I want to settle down and live.

So I went from Mauritius, tiny island in the middle of nowhere, to Kenya, South Africa, to Greece and Hungary.

And like, you see of course, the differences in different countries about how they view consumption.

But there is over consumption and consumption of plastics and polluting materials in many places in the world.

Of course, there's some places that are managing it differently.

The question is, of course, how many people are over consuming in one place will make a difference.

When I was in Kenya, like, you can best be sure that the majority of people are not over consuming as we are in the States or in Canada.

100%.

No.

Yeah.

But then we have to understand that we also have to consider, what about human rights?

What about their rights to have a good life and to live a good life?

And that is where it becomes very complex of everyone saying, well, it's not fair that the west or more developed countries have benefited from all these advantages and that these countries are not allowed because we screwed up.

Yeah, it's.

I don't know what the right word was.

Be disingenuous for us to say, you can't do that, but it's hypocritical.

I've got to have mine, you know, yeah, my iPhone, my latest iPhone or whatever it is.

So you've spent a career in the nonprofit sector.

What are the.

Well, let's start with some of the biggest challenges that you've seen over the years as a nonprofit professional.

What are the issues that nonprofits face and what is the nonprofit landscape now like?

So I'll, I'll make a focus on what are the challenges for environmental animal nonprofits?

Because it is a different space.

Cause if we look at children that have cancer, health, education, religion, donations are still going strong like that there, there's a huge history of funding those issues.

And I do understand these are the like goalposts, the main pillars of philanthropy, of fundraising.

So animals and especially environmental causes have historically only represented about 3% of giving in both in Canada and the US so they.

It is slowly rising because there are more and more big foundations and family foundations that are starting to fund environmental issues because we're seeing the intersectionality between human well being, which is a priority for most people.

Most people, if you put them in between, like, should this child live a good life or this ecosystem be restored, people will usually focus on the child.

So when we put it through that lens, then we start saying, well, for this child to live a healthy life, we need the ecosystem to do well.

People start shifting their Perspective.

So I think there's a couple factors that have made fundraising, which is always the biggest challenge in the nonprofit space.

Without funds, you don't have the capacity to be doing all the work that you need to get done.

If you're trying to change legislation to protect the environment, you need to have political power.

You need to have funds to fight against the huge lobbyists, which are from corporations that have budgets that we can't even imagine.

So fundraising is always the number one issue.

And there's a couple factors, I believe, that greatly limit, if I could say, environmental and animal nonprofits.

Number one is a definition of philanthropy itself.

Philanthropy literally means love of man.

And a lot of these campaigns are seen as all being against humans.

There's a lot of this negativity around.

Humans are horrible, humans are cruel.

Look how polluting we are.

There's a lot of, like, negation of humans being this bad thing.

How are you supposed to get humans involved in that if you're calling them horrible people?

Right?

So there's this big thing of philanthropist and philanthropy being for people.

When these two causes are seen, it's a perception separate.

So I think that that's a huge thing.

That's different.

Also there is, number two, just historically speaking, a lot of the big foundations, big organizations that have been existing for a very long time, they've had the chance to learn from their mistakes, to build up their foundation, to build up their capacity when maybe the economic situation wasn't as terrible.

So now when nonprofits in the environmental, animal space that maybe have been around for a lesser time, because they historically not the oldest causes in the book, they are coming from way further back.

And in Canada in particular, I'm going to just use this as an example.

Up until 2018, anything that was considered political or you're trying to change legislation was not considered charitable.

So you couldn't get charitable status.

So this limited you from who you could apply to.

You couldn't apply to foundations for funds.

You couldn't emit tax receipts.

So in some countries, the limitations of what we put on what is considered charitable have limited the sector a lot.

In the States, it's different.

You don't have the same limitations.

So that's good.

But in other places it has been.

And I think the biggest one, it kind of touches back onto that perception where people.

And I'll give you a very specific example, I used to do fundraising on the streets in Montreal.

You know, those annoying people that go like, hey, do you have two minutes to talk about Greenpeace?

Or talk about Amnesty International or whatever.

I was that person for many, many years.

It was very fun.

And I remember one day we were signing petitions against puppy mills.

Most people like dogs where most people don't like, are against dogs being abused.

That's usually a safe topic.

Yeah.

This man literally stoffed me in the streets, spat on me.

Wow.

And said, how dare you be defending animals when there are children dying in Syria because of the war.

This was back when Syria was the war that people were caring about.

And it made me really realize that people feel like when we're protecting the environment or animals, we're taking money away from protecting or helping people.

There's this sense of competition between causes of like, oh, you're funding them, that means you're not funding this.

And that is a priority.

More so than that, there's like this, this ranking of priorities.

A lot of people have this perception that that's how it works.

Unfortunately, you can't have everyone care about the same causes.

Everyone has different passions, everyone has different things that different turn them on from like an ethical perspective.

Doesn't mean that we don't care about the other things.

I'm completely against child slavery, against trash trafficking, about humanity, but I can't be actively defending and funding every single cause out there.

But people don't seem to consider that as a richness and a wealth that we have different people with different passions to attack all problems.

They see it as we're against each other and we're in competition.

I think that's really failing the sector.

And that goes beyond the environmental and animal welfare movement.

In the sector in general, people are always infighting, which is such a waste of energy.

Yeah.

Is there any progress?

Is there any hope for that?

I do believe so.

I've been studying what are the trends for many, many years.

So I've been involved also in a philanthropy research lab where we're researching the trends.

Trends from a grant making perspective.

And more and more grant makers who do have a huge role to play, are encouraging collaboration between nonprofits and are encouraging nonprofits to work together.

Because if everyone is working in their silo, first of all, super inefficient system, and second of all, we're not understanding the other nonprofits role in the bigger solving of the problem.

So that was my, my whole podcast.

So just because podcast is all about how nonprofits are starting to see the intersectionality of their causes and together and collaborating.

And I am seeing it.

I'm seeing this is nonprofit that I absolutely love in British Columbia they're called Pots for Hope.

And they work with women's shelters and recovery centers and rehabs where people who have pets and are not seeking out the help that they need because they can't find housing or they can't find someone to take care of their pet while they go and seek out the help they need, they will foster the animals, allow this woman to leave and to find shelter, or allow this person to go through rehab and then they'll bring their animal back to them.

So this is finding the.

There's two problems here.

Overpopulation of shelters.

These people would have abandoned their pets potentially, or they would have stayed in these bad situations for themselves.

And so we're protecting both the people and the animals by working together.

So there are more and more of these situations happening.

There's more and more people that are talking about it.

The whole one health movement is really, really getting strong into making people understand that everything is connected.

So, yes, I have faith.

It's, it's a process.

It's long.

We have to understand that people take forever to change behavior as it takes a long time.

Yeah, yeah.

And obviously it's, I think, to bring it back to what's happening in the States and in the world.

Like misinformation, disinformation that we, we don't know what to trust anymore, what to believe or what's the right thing to do.

People, I think, are very confused.

So.

So I think it's about being as empathetic and supportive as possible with people to, like you said earlier, meet them where they are and slowly start getting people to feel invited instead of constantly feeling pushed away.

Yeah, yeah.

The siloing, it's really non productive.

No, not at all.

No.

Yeah.

And it's unfortunately common because people might have this impression.

Oh, in the nonprofit sector, like everyone is like these goody two shoes.

There's a lot of ego.

There's a lot of people that are in it to make a name for themselves.

Like people still have self interest.

What?

I prefer they do it for a good cause than do it for making yet another tech company.

Yeah, probably.

Yeah.

But that doesn't mean that there is an ego at play.

And I made a post once on LinkedIn that it was my most popular post ever.

Really?

And I literally said, if you want to change the world, don't start a nonprofit.

And people, I mean, we don't need another nonprofit.

We need more people to get involved and support and engage with the existing structures that exist because there's so many in the States.

Or something like 1.5 million registered nonprofits or something like.

It's ridiculous.

We don't need more.

It's really ridiculous.

That's 1.5 million.

Yeah, that's.

And they're all.

All constructor and not necessarily all of them.

There's some that might be foundations or might be some that are not actually being active, but all of those structures exist.

People got this idea, hey, I'm going to change the world.

I'm going to start a nonprofit.

It's a lot of work.

Instead, why don't you take all the expertise, that energy, that inspiration, and try to work in a nonprofit and support them or create a funding circle, giving circle, where people, you just.

Do you like fundraising?

Start fundraising within your sector and donate that money to an existing organization that's already doing amazing work.

You all just want their name on the foundation or on the organization.

There was a time a few years ago with my work in climate change, I said, I'm going to start a nonprofit.

And I talked to somebody that's actually an executive director for a nonprofit and she just went, why you don't want to do that?

You know, it's a lot.

It's like starting a business, but where you have to not sell products, pretty much.

There's some great new structures that exist now, like social enterprise, where you can have an enterprise structure which is a lot easier and you're still doing good.

Where the, there's.

You can still have like a nonprofit social enterprise where all the profits are reinvested into making whatever, into improving the structure.

So there are new models that you can take on.

But there's so many that already exist.

Yeah, yeah.

So let's talk about your business.

Just because consulting, how it got started and what your.

What your mission is.

Well, of course I do want to change the world.

So I decided not to start a non profit.

I worked in nonprofits my whole life and I really got to see all of the different aspects of it.

And obviously the number one thing I hear is people hate fundraising.

People hate doing fundraising.

They just, they're not good at it.

They go in, the EDs go in.

They start because they care about the cause.

They don't care about the fundraising.

Like, they don't.

If they could just get money to do their work, they'd be happy.

This is where I come in of.

I like fundraising.

I find it's a fun challenge.

I like inspiring people to invest in a world that they want to see.

So I decided to, instead of get another fundraising job and help one Organization grow because I kick ass in that organization.

I can, as a consultant, help many organizations grow their capacity and teach them everything that I've learned, reignite their fire around fundraising.

And that way I'm helping and having much more impact trying to be efficient here by igniting more of those fundraising fires in more of the nonprofits that I care about so that they then can go on their own and be efficient and actually get their fundraising done in a way that makes them have more impact in their own communities.

So I felt that that was a much more efficient way of using my time and energy and I can have a much bigger impact.

So if there's any nonprofit leaders listening to this podcast, they should get in touch with you if they want to.

Well, of course, supercharge their fundraising.

Exactly like the number one thing people have told me about why they like working with me.

And I'm not just doing this to my own horn.

I'm just, this is what the feedback I'm getting is.

I have a very big enthusiasm and excitement around fundraising and that is the key to success.

If you don't like fundraising, you're not going to succeed in it.

And so getting people to get their project started, create those systems, it's.

I don't want to work with an organization for years.

I want to come in, create the structures, get them ignited, and then they can go on their own because that's the only sustainable solution in the long term.

But yes, if you want to contact me, Katherine Lacefield on LinkedIn, you can definitely reach out.

I'm always happy to connect with more nonprofits.

Excellent, Excellent.

So, looking ahead, if you were to wave a magic wand and change one thing about how society approaches environmental and animal philanthropy, what would it be and why?

One thing or many.

You know what comes to mind?

I think more and more institutional funders and bigger grant making, like people that have the money sitting in investments, I think they have a lot of power to start transferring funds to the nonprofits are supporting so that nonprofits can be sustainable on their own.

And that is a big issue where in our philanthropic sector you have these big foundations that hold all the power, hold all the wealth, and they're just trickling out little sprinkles of funds.

The majority of their funds are sitting in investments.

And I get it, Will, that didn't have a long term impact when we're thinking about the climate emergency.

Now we need those funds now, not in 20, 50 years, because you want to keep your name alive.

We need to start transferring that wealth and that capital to actually allow these organizations to focus just on their work and not on fundraising.

If that were to happen, if we were to start transferring wealth to nonprofits so they have that sustainable income, so they don't have to be writing grants that require three months of reporting and applying, they could actually focus on just the work.

I think we would have a much more efficient sector that would actually be creating change at the time.

Same time that we need to actually have impacts today.

That would be one of the biggest things that I would require that I think would make a big difference.

So would you say the philanthropy in some aspects, in some situations are not quite meeting the moment?

Yes, I think when the philanthropic context is created, this is not the same Canada and the U.S. when the whole idea of foundations existing in perpetuity, of people wanting their legacy to continue forever.

Once again, the ego at play here.

Yeah, and I get it.

There is an argument that those endowments will continuously create funds or the nonprofits in perpetuity.

I think that there's a situation right now, there's always going to be one, but I think that right now there's many urgent situations that that capital is not going to be useful in 50 years.

So we should start using that capital now.

There's actually these movements in some foundations that are.

We call it sunsetting.

So a lot of foundations are deciding to shut down and to distribute all of their funds before a certain date.

There's also a big movement in the tech world where a lot of tech philanthropists are getting involved in a movement called Giving While Living.

And it's like instead of hoarding the funds, they want to distribute all of their wealth before they die.

So I do think that there are.

There's starting to be a movement in resurrection.

And I understand that people don't necessarily want to get rid of it all.

But once again, another solution is to transfer a chart of that wealth, let's say a portion, to a nonprofit that's having a huge impact.

And then they can have the returns without having to apply for grants, but having to do reporting.

They can just have the sustainability for themselves.

And so there's also from a power dynamic that shifts the power away from these usually rich, wealthy philanthropists towards the organizations that are doing the work so that they can be self sustaining.

That's one of the many solutions.

There are many of them out there, but that is one that I think that can have a huge impact on allowing nonprofits the space and capacity to actually invest in themselves and grow.

Yeah, it sounds like the Money is there.

It just needs to be distributed.

We don't want to.

We don't have a resource problem in the world.

We have a distribution problem in the world.

Yeah, okay.

We could feed everyone on this planet.

That's not the question here.

The question is how do we distribute it in a way that people don't want to give money, give food for free.

And there's some places in the world that aren't true.

Struggling to create enough wealth for themselves.

But that comes a lot from historical systems that have stopped them from growing.

So anyways, it's a very complex issue.

It's a very complex.

It just popped in my head that you have some people that have a wealth of what is Musk, $400 billion or whatever.

This is crazy.

More rich than countries.

They have more power than many countries.

And I think it'd be very difficult for any one individual, let alone Elon Musk, to have that sort of wealth and be normal.

Be.

You're not the same.

You're not on the same level as a human.

You're.

You're a different species.

Like, at that point the life.

Like.

So I was in Kenya.

I just went to see a client.

Actually, I was in there.

I was in Nairobi just for half a day, and I decided to go visit a client while I was there.

And I was just.

We were driving through Nairobi and I was with her team, and we were talking about the different social issues, corruption amongst others.

And I saw one of those slums, and they were explaining to me how these people are actually renting their space in the slums.

And I was.

Excuse me.

What?

I thought this was just like a squatters type situation where people take advantage of these free spaces and they built their house so they don't have to pay rent.

No, these people are paying.

And then I look at the other side of the coin with people with private jets, traveling wherever they want with houses in many different countries.

And I get it.

We believe that everyone has the freedom to do whatever they want.

But when I look at that discrepancy, it's just we're not talking up the same.

Like, this is different species at this.

Like, the lies that these people are living are so different.

They're on different planets.

They can't understand each other.

Yeah, yeah.

And it's a difficult question.

People can do whatever they want, but to the extent that it's not harming other people, and then it gets really.

I mean, even somebody.

How do you measure that?

And, yeah, but.

Yeah, where do you find a limit Obviously you can't say no, you can't be rich.

But.

I mean, it's everyone.

Like, I just, I just traveled the world.

I took 26 flights this year.

Yeah.

Like, from an environmentalist perspective, I'm a horrible human being, but I don't own a house, I don't own a vehicle.

I don't.

You know what I mean?

Like, there's many things that I don't do.

Yeah, I walk a lot of.

Take public transport wherever I go.

We.

You know what I mean?

Like, yeah, there, there's.

It balances out.

I don't know how much I haven't done my, my footprint.

I know that planes are the worst, but at the same time, would I if someone told me, like, you're not flying anymore, like, oof.

But then again, that's the whole thing of, okay, but then that would save the world.

How do we make those decisions?

It's very difficult.

As someone who.

The only reason I make money is to travel.

It's the only reason that I want to make money is because I want to see the world.

I want to.

And I.

It has also opened up my eyes to so much of the reality and.

Which is what pushes me and drives me to do the work I do.

Yeah, obviously, this was an exceptional year.

I don't do that all time.

I traveled for work, for conferences.

And of course, we're trying to figure out where we want to live.

And then once we settle down, then we're not going to be flying everywhere anymore because with the dogs, it's very difficult.

So.

Great.

But yeah, it's not an easy.

It's very difficult.

And we're talking about controlling what people can or cannot do.

Yeah.

And when you talk about your travel, you see the world, you know how people are.

I think it expands your.

Your perception.

And I see a lot of folks that I hear about here in the US that are probably not gone more than 20 miles from where they live.

They have this totally skewed that plus the misinformation that they're getting about how the world is out there.

Yes.

How do you calculate the impact that traveling might have on their future behaviors towards the world versus not taking a plane, but then never being able to connect with the reality of people elsewhere?

I was doing an environmental philosophy class with Peter Singer where you have to measure, you have to make this measurement of what causes the least amount of harm from an environmental and ecosystemic systemic perspective.

You cannot make those calculations or it's going to take you so long.

Try to consider all of those factors that you'll never.

It's not a realistic solution.

So there's another perspective which is all the holistic holism perspective where you have to figure out how does this system work?

And then again, we live in such a complex world.

How do you.

Yeah, how do you calculate that?

I read this book recently by Timothy Reader, it's called Catastrophe Ethics.

And he goes into how in this complex world, how you what we're just talking about how you measure your impact.

And his approach is basically it's a value based thing.

For instance, you value the work that you're doing and the work that you're doing requires some travel.

So you have value around it, but.

You don't own a car.

Instead of like a duty based approach to ethics, like you should do this, you should do that is what do you value?

And you can't solve the world's problems on your own.

You just have to take it one step at a time and do the best you can based on your values.

I think that's basically what the gist of the book was.

I think that, and I think that's a great approach and I think people need to start thinking about that also.

The intention is also really important, your intentions when you do something.

My, my intention is obviously I try to limit and I'm aware, being aware of your impact is a huge one and then allows you to make better decisions.

Is this worth, is this flight worth my time?

For example, that little flight I took to Kenya because my other flight wasn't available, I was like, might as well make the best of it.

And I ended up really building a great connection with the client in Nairobi and understanding something that maybe I wouldn't have been able to had I not been.

And then what's that possible impact that I could have future?

So taking.

Appreciating the gratitude I think is really important.

I think that is something that we don't have a lot of anymore.

People just take everything for granted.

And I think that's also a really big poisoning or toxic that we have in our society and to bring it back to climate change.

Like if you're going to do.

My husband always tells me this, like, if you're going to do something, appreciate the hell out of it because you're the impact.

Everything has an impact.

Every single thing we do has an impact.

At least appreciate it and take that happiness and that enjoyment and then transfer into something that's doing something positive.

And I think that's a really important lesson that we could all learn.

I Agree.

The gratitude.

From my perspective, sitting here in the United States, it just seems like there's just no gratitude.

Complain about everything.

Yeah.

And we're the richest country in the world and there's no reason, you know, certainly there's people that are struggling here in the U.S. yes.

But compared to other places.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I don't understand it.

Why is everybody so angry and.

Well, I can.

We can go into that, but we don't need to.

We could have a whole conversation on that and.

Yeah.

Anyways, that's a.

Like you said, that's another conversation, but it's definitely one that plays a role.

Actually, just.

I just published my last episode, which was all around the root issues of climate change that are in capitalism, that are in the way we even ourselves manage our time and see ourselves as these infinite resources and we never take time to rest.

And so there's a lot of connections there that go so much deeper than if you're driving your car to work or not.

Yeah, yeah.

I've always thought of climate change is just a symptom of.

In a lot of ways are, you know, disconnection with nature and way disconnection with ourselves.

And it's all very complex.

And that's the other issue is people want simple answers.

It's easier to say, don't use straws.

Okay, I could do that.

You know.

Yeah.

People want to feel like they are making a difference, and I think we need to encourage that.

If you can have.

But at the same time, we have to see that there's a much larger issue at hand.

And.

But getting people to start changing their little behaviors is a step in the right direction.

We shouldn't shame people for that.

But it's about how do we get industries involved and governments involved.

It has to go higher up as well.

We all need to get me part or it won't work.

Yeah.

We could talk about capitalism, but I don't want to.

Is there anything else that you'd like to let my listeners know about your work?

And just because consulting or honestly, the.

One thing is, if you are interested in understanding, if you are a nonprofit leader or if you are involved and you want to better understand the intersectionality or the interconnection between causes, I highly recommend checking out my podcast Just Because Podcast, because every episode we talk about that and sprinkle in some fundraising advice if you're struggling.

But a lot of these stories talk about interconnection between environment and human health, environment and education, environment and animal welfare.

Like, I think it really can help us better understand, have more empathy for other causes and start working together more.

So that would be my last.

Okay.

Yeah.

I encourage everybody to listen to the your Just because podcast.

And Katherine, thanks for your time.

I appreciate it.

It's been a good, good conversation.

My pleasure.

It's like we could have talked for a very long time.

I know we could have.

We could gone but I'm going to take it.

Yeah.

Came up the good work.

Thank you.

Have a good one.

You too.

Bye.

There is no shame in trying.

It may seem like a pointless platitude, but every little step in the right direction is a step forward.

It may feel like one person can make a difference, that what little a single individual can do is little more than a drop in the ocean.

But as Kathryn Lacefield says, no matter how small the action, there is no shame in authentic effort.

From a single person to the largest corporation or government, we all have a role to play in meeting the challenges of our times.

Please check out Kathryn's Just because podcast for more insight into how nonprofit leaders and concerned citizens alike can be the change they want to see in the world world.

You can find links and information in the show notes.

If you like what we're doing, please like and subscribe to the podcast.

And if you can spare a dollar.

Or two, feel free to leave us.

A tip to help keep us going.

We always appreciate that.

Thanks for listening.

We'll see you next time on Earthbound.

Sam.