Climate Change: Are We Trying to Reach Deaf Ears?

Issues of climate change and global warming have been buzzing through different media outlets for several years. Australians, the Japanese and Chinese, as well as other Europeans have witnessed the effects of climate change first hand experiencing severe heat waves. Indians have struggled to make-do after heavy rains caused flooding and Americans residing on the eastern coast of the United States endured the disastrous effects of Super-storm Sandy. Regardless of region, every earthling has witnessed the serious threat climate change and global warming poses. Although climate change still has its skeptics, those who believe it’s a serious threat have been fueled by these natural disasters, scientific evidence, and other studies documented through articles, literature, and film.

Bill McKibben’s 2012 article “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math” tackled the horrific truth about global warming. While first-world citizens watched their AC bills rise and meteorologists recorded the 2012 spring season was the warmest this nation had since seen, our leaders stayed silent. McKibben chalks it up to denial, something I completely need to agree with. Americans are used to comfort. Westerners wait in line for the new iPhone and the newest flat screen TVs when the ones we have at home are working perfectly fine. If it’s cold outside, Americans can make their homes feel like spring and when it’s hot outside, they retreat to their ACs for comfort. Food choices are endless in this highly developed nation and it’s not uncommon for the average person to have more than one automobile to their name. The average American’s impact on our Earth and its climate goes unnoticed.

But the facts of math in McKibben’s article all come down to numbers. At the time, we had already raised the average temperature by 0.8 degrees and the effects have been greatly damaging. But with our officials creating agreements that don’t actually commit the greatest offenders of global carbon emissions (the US and China) to any responsibility, it makes me question are these political powerhouses still in denial or is the abundance of their bank accounts more important than their livelihood of their nations?

Something that I found interesting is that those who experience climate change the most greatly aren’t even the ones having the biggest impact at all. The privileges of citizens of highly developed countries are inflicting suffering on those who already face poverty and shortages of food and clean water.  Reading Mark Schapiro’s book Carbon Shock opened my eyes to that fact. In chapter one he talks about his flight from San Francisco, California to Siberia. He states that his individual contribution due to being a passenger on that flight was fifteen hundred pounds of CO2. Notably, his flight wasn’t the only one in the sky that day. According to Schapiro, “aviation contributes to 3% to 4% of greenhouse gas loads every year.” And while that’s certainly not our largest contribution to global warming as highly developed nations, it’s a contribution nonetheless. Schapiro points out that most Americans and Europeans will fly on an airplane at some point in their life and the majority of the world’s population won’t. Climate change doesn’t play favorites. Regardless of whether we ride on an airplane or not, someone in the world will end up suffering the environmental costs of that flight. Therefore, suggesting our actions will always have consequences… even if we think it won’t be affecting us directly.

Charles C. Mann asks, “How much consideration do I owe the people it (climate change) will affect?” In his article “How to Talk About Climate Change So People Will Listen”, he talks about how Americans are faced with three different graphs concerning climate change. The first, unarguably, shows that carbon dioxide has been increasing throughout the years and the second shows the increase in temperature. However, in records to temperature, it’s easy to argue the different factors that effect different areas. For the third graph, it shows the consequences. But Mann has a valid point when he says the typical citizen find these charts meaningless. In order to spark a change that can positively affect the war on climate change, the average person needs to care in the first place. To make a person care, a way to effectively talk about climate change needs to be found and despite the article’s title, Mann doesn’t quite leave us with an answer. 

A solution for such a generalized question isn’t quite simple. Julia Corbett, the author of Communicating Nature, asked two groups of her students to draw a picture of the environment and the other to draw nature. Both groups perceived the assignment differently. This shows how nature and the environment can be viewed drastically different depending on the person and their personal lives. There are several factors that can play a role such as childhood experiences and career. An example Corbett uses includes placing a hunter, developer, and farmer in a field. Each one will see the field differently because of their own livelihood and how they would utilize it according to profession. Chapter two of Communicating Nature, discusses the various environmental ideologies. Each ideology possesses different characteristics of how people justify their actions in regards to the natural world. While I’ve always been aware of the various ideologies, reading about them in-depth allowed me to reflect on what I would consider myself to be. I’m not quite sure what I would call myself just yet but I know my goal is to be as far from the anthropogenic side as possible.

I’m no freshman to documentaries but Earth 2100 was something unlike anything I’ve seen before. Admittedly, I didn’t particularly enjoy it but the filmmakers portrayed a unique vision. The film portrayed a “worst case scenario” regarding today’s issues with climate change and global warming, as well as the overusing of energy resources. The fictitious storyline of Lucy was the main focus for me. Though I didn’t like how it was animated, this take was something that allows Earth 2100 to stand out against the typical documentary or TV special. Lucy’s storyline is a true wake-up call to the film’s viewers. The natural disasters, diseases, tragedy and loss she faces are fictional but they may very well be what we can expect if we don’t take action against climate change now. A lecture about how harmful human impact is on our environment may not be the most intriguing to the average person. But if that person sees first hand how that impact can negatively affect their personal life and family the message, pun intended, can hit home.

By Isabelle Naimo

Everything’s Cool was truly enjoyable. The film explores the vast contrast between scientists and the general public’s take on global warming. It took on a sarcastic tone that made viewing comedic. The filmmakers interviewed different people regarding their thoughts on global warming, from rednecks to politicians and the responses they received were hilarious. The opinions of the filmmakers were strongly visible throughout the documentary; it wasn’t a “generalized” or “neutral” tone. The particular people they chose to interview demonstrated that. One woman who said she didn’t think humans aren’t to blame for global warming was humorous to listen to and actually borderline pathetic to watch. The fact that Everything’s Cool had a comedic tone makes it more welcoming to all audiences. It wasn’t serious, it wasn’t dull or harsh, it was pretty funny and cheerful, and that makes it less intimidating for a viewer who isn’t particularly sold on the matter of global warming.

Countless environmental journalists, filmmakers, professors, advocates, and enthusiasts put forth their knowledge and creativity to awaken people around the globe about issues of climate change. They work diligently to not have their voices go unheard, all with the common goal to ignite a change. Let’s hope their hard work does not go unnoticed and that, someday, the skeptics will become believers.

Dare I say that climate change might have some positive effects? I came across an article written by Emily Schwing titled “Climate Change Puts Alaska’s Sled Dogs on Thin Ice”. Racing sled dogs has been around for decades but now the competition is threatened. The 1,000-mile trail follows the Yukon River from Canada to Alaska but due to warmer temperatures, there’s less snow and ice. Unfrozen terrain, without a doubt, puts the sled dogs in danger. The article quotes a musher telling the story of how he was resting his team on the ice. If he had not decided to move his dogs and sled moments before, they would’ve ended up right in the water.

The warmer climate not only puts the dogs in dangerous situations but also threatens the dog’s food supply during a race. Most mushers keep pieces of meat for the dogs but without the freezing temperatures, the meat can spoil. It’s dawning on mushers that climate change will inevitably bring these races to a halt. Though I have to admit that I wouldn’t be opposed to that. Sled dog racing has long been an animal cruelty issue due to the exploitation of the animal for human entertainment and profit. It also draws concerns over the welfare and livelihood of the dogs. They’re treated only as good as the value they bring to their musher and if they survive the race, it’s usually not without serious injury. Many animal rights organizations and liberation activists would not shed a tear to see it go.

Schwing’s article was mostly unbiased, focusing solely on portraying how climate change is negatively impacting the sport. She doesn’t bluntly raise the question of animal rights but instead trusts the word of the mushers and doesn’t question the safety or treatment of each sled dog. So while the article might have been meant as a way to raise awareness of how climate change is affecting tradition, it can still very much raise awareness to the positive change of eliminating sled dog racing as a sport. The article, because it is unbiased, allows the readers to form their own opinions over the topic and ask, why does this matter? This is a question that needs to be asked when it comes to the topic of climate change. The answer can positively change the years to come.