Jenna Martuscello -- Blog 1: Climate Change

By Jenna Martuscello

The way in which an individual responds to issues such as climate change has to do with their personal environmental ideology and where it stems from. While we like to consider ourselves independent and free-thinking, it is hard to ignore the ways in which our beliefs and values are influence by the world around us. Through the multiple and varied ways in which we communicate nature to ourselves and one-another, society creates dominant conversations and thoughts about our environment.

When thinking about environmental media, it is important to remember that media is a form of mediation, an arbitration of sorts between the creator of the media and you. The goal behind any form of media is not only to entertain, but to put a specific point across- whether it be a story, an emotion, or fact. How we respond to issues of the environment often stems out of what types of environmental media we have experienced, but when we become aware of our ignorance we become able to view critically.

As discussed in Julie Corbett’s Communicating Nature, direct experiences with nature are on the decline. Direct experiences are those considered to be actual physical contact and activity in natural settings, possibly with non-human species, but undirected. Two young friends who go into the woods near their neighborhood to explore and climb trees would be considered as having a direct experience. More often people are having indirect experiences, which are “natural experiences” controlled by humans, like zoos or aquariums. Media, advertising, and entertainment further pull us out of nature, often showing us images of what we think or expect nature to be without ever going there ourselves. And with the increase of technology and screens, the normality of vicarious or symbolic experiences will only become more normal.

If people do not view environmental media critically, they may not stop to question what is actually being said to them at all. The danger in this is that what is often considered a dominant ideology may not always be the one that helps you as an individual. When it comes to the crisis of climate change, many do not realize the personal danger they or their family are in because they listen to dominant ideologies. Being a critical reader of environmental messages does not mean turning completely away from dominant thoughts, but instead evaluating them and pulling what you can find to be true vs. what you know to be untrue.

The New York Times’ article “As Mexico Addresses Climate Change, Critics Point to Shortcomings” by Victoria Burnett is a recent critique on the amount of action and inaction that the country has taken in the fight against climate change. The tone of the article works to keep the reader interested in fighting climate change by showing the position of the people vs. their government. While overall Burnett is mediating the message that change needs to happen in Mexico, she doesn’t seem to be telling the whole story.

As we were informed in class, there is no official regulation on the reporting or collecting of data when it comes to the United Nations agreements on climate change. And while Burnett mentions Mexico’s diligent reporting, she does not tell the reader Mexico shows a greater commitment to these agreements than many of our leading nations. Further she uses Mexico being the 13th largest contributor of Co2 emissions without framing how badly they have transgressed in comparison to other countries. Mexico’s emissions are more than ten times less than the United States 2013 count, and over twenty times less than the world’s current leader in C02, China. In the film Earth 2100 we are given a dim view of our future. One scene in particular shows a mass exodus and eventual rioting of people who need to leave drought and death stricken Mexico and Central America for the U.S. The sad irony of Earth 2100 though was that nowhere was safe from the devastation and destruction that climate change had brought. The U.S itself was almost in complete shambles.

When looking at this article through a different ideology it becomes possible to touch upon nuances that previous did not stand out. The ecofeminist ideology believes that the oppression of women, races, classes, and nature stem from the same system dynamic. When analyzing issues of society an ecofeminist viewpoint also touches on the ways in which our governmental systems work to keep these oppressive systems in place. In the documentary Everything’s Cool, the interconnectedness of our government representatives and private oil and power companies are exposed. The U.S and global neoliberal dichotomy of money over people has given those with power selfish, monetarily-based excuses to not address climate change head on. Kick-backs from oil and coal-fueled power companies keep the upper classes happy and wealthy, and ignorant to the amount of devastation the rest of us are experiencing. While the documentary intended for the viewers to realize that corruption existed, by following all the ways in which the system is corrupted can we see how oppressions of nature, class, race, and gender connect.

In the article Barnett writs that Mexico is still considered a developing nation. This term can be taken as archaic and imperial, especially when taking into consideration that the small amount of countries considered “developed” are majority English speaking, white, or European. And the few which are not (like Japan) are ones that experienced extreme western intervention at one or many parts of their history. When you look at the majority of the countries within the top twenty producers of C02, it is important to recognize how many of those countries became that way due to western influence and imperialization. Taking an Ecofeminist perspective on the matter, the “developed” nations in many ways created the industry or lack of industry in most countries, starting from before colonization. The patriarchal white supremacist way of thinking of these other countries was that their people and resources could be exploited, as long as our westernized countries prospered. As Burnett portrays the people of “underdeveloped” nations critiquing their countries for not doing enough against climate change; she puts the blame on their own people and not the larger systemic causes at hand.