Refined Reflection with Embedded Academic Theory

On January 20, 2025, I participated in a virtual Toastmasters-style public speaking event hosted
by Green/Vert Toastmasters for Sustainability Leaders. The session, structured around
speeches, evaluations, and group discussions, emphasized the intersection of communication
and sustainability. This experience not only refined my public speaking skills but also deepened
my understanding of how advocacy and dialogue drive sustainable change, especially in
addressing the growing challenges of environmental and social responsibility.

The event started with a discussion on the "word of the day": anxiety. Participants shared their
thoughts on different types of anxiety—personal, existential, and systemic—which made me
reflect on my own challenges in speaking up for sustainability. One speaker compared anxiety to
disturbances in nature, explaining that both ecosystems and people need to adapt and find
balance to stay strong (Mihaychuk, 2025). Resilience theory suggests that systems must absorb
disturbances and continue functioning (Folke et al., 2010). In sustainability, resilience is key to
maintaining ecological stability amid climate change and resource depletion. Effective
communication also requires adaptability—pushing too hard can create resistance, while a
balanced approach encourages meaningful dialogue.

Furthermore, a meaningful quote that was discussed from the session is, “One ought to go too
far in order to know how far one can go” (Mihaychuk, 2025). Both sustainability efforts and
public speaking require bold thinking and a willingness to push boundaries. Just as sustainable
solutions challenge economic, policy, and technological norms, effective advocacy often
requires taking risks to capture an audience’s attention. The discussion also touched on tipping
points in sustainability—small shifts in policy, behavior, or public perception can lead to
large-scale changes (Rockström et al., 2009). The key challenge is knowing when to persist and
when to adjust strategies for long-term impact.

Throughout the session, storytelling also emerged as a powerful tool for sustainability advocacy
during the session. One participant shared how reconnecting with painting through their children
deepened their commitment to environmental education. This is an example of intergenerational
knowledge transfer sustains environmental values over time. Sustainability is not just about
policy, but also about the cultural and social aspects of change. This connects with the triple
bottom line framework, which calls for balance between economic, environmental, and social
factors (Elkington, 1997). While policies and economic incentives drive large-scale efforts,
personal actions and traditions are key to fostering long-term environmental responsibility.

Another key moment was the discussion of the quote, “If the dead could speak, there would be
no more war” (Mihaychuk, 2025). During the webinar, we argued that awareness alone doesn’t
drive change; greed and systemic barriers often block progress toward sustainability. There is a
knowledge-action gap, where understanding environmental issues doesn’t always lead to action
(Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). Despite growing awareness of climate change, policies and
individual actions still fall short. The concept of carrying capacity highlights this challenge:
human consumption has outpaced the Earth’s ability to regenerate resources, yet economic and
political systems continue to prioritize short-term gains over long-term sustainability
(Wackernagel & Rees, 1996). Effective advocacy, like environmental policies, must overcome
systemic inertia through strong leadership and accountability.

The later part of the event focused on speech evaluations, where feedback on pacing, tone, and
engagement highlighted the need to refine communication techniques. This parallels
sustainability efforts, where continuous reflection and adaptation are key to progress. Just as
environmental strategies need constant assessment and revision, effective advocacy requires a
willingness to improve based on feedback. The event showed that sustainability and
communication are intertwined, as both rely on clear messaging, public engagement, and the
ability to inspire action.

Moving forward, I plan to integrate these lessons into my approach to advocacy. I want to refine
my speaking skills and seek out more opportunities to discuss sustainability, recognizing that
conversations—whether in formal events or everyday discussions—can influence public
perception and action. Additionally, I aim to highlight the economic and social dimensions of
sustainability more effectively, understanding that addressing environmental issues requires a
multi-faceted approach. This experience reaffirmed that real change happens through dialogue,
persistence, and strategic adaptation.

Final Citations

●​ Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st-century
business. Capstone.
●​ Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J. (2010).
Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability, and transformability.
Ecology and Society, 15(4), 20.
●​ Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act
environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?
Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239-260.
●​ Mihaychuk, J. (2025, January 20). Green/Vert Toastmasters for Sustainability Leaders –
3rd Saturday [Online presentation]. Green/Vert Toastmasters. [Link]
●​ Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., III, Lambin, E. F., ... &
Foley, J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472–475.
●​ Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1996). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact
on the Earth. New Society Publishers.