What do You Believe? Climate Edition

By Jessica Kaplan

We are constantly surrounded by media Our opinions change as quickly as a new article or YouTube video comes out. Every person is influenced by pieces that they connect to or are affected by. Some people grasp concepts depicted in a story they can follow or some want to be given information that they can place in their own story. 

Earth 2100 and Everything's Cool are both designed to visually teach an audience about climate change. Everything's Cool is a "toxic comedy" that utilizes personal commentary of climate change experts. Although some are turned off by the film opening with a short tour of southern states asking about opinions on climate change-- it's exactly what the film was trying to accomplish. This comical, light-hearted, but serious approach works for me. I found the information easier to understand in this sort of satirical, sarcastic tone. Unlike Earth 2100, Everything's Cool incorporates political names with some interviews as well. Each has their own type of viewer, and set out to do something different.  Earth 2100 is for people more attracted to media like comic books. It tells a fictional story with scientific backing. As we follow the story of Lucy there's breaks to a commentator like a prime time news show. Although the ultimate story could be seen as an alarmist perspective, it has a scientific foundation that gives the film a shockingly possible edge. 

In a way, both films are confrontational. They force you to see the possible future we're heading towards environmentally. Through Everything's Cool you see the background of environmental politics which is directly confrontational of some political figures. Earth 2100 is story-based and gives the viewer a drawn out situation. 

Watching these climate change films can change your opinion on how you personally see the future of the Earth. It may convince you to change how you think and treat the Earth. Personally, I know that I am always changing and evolving my understanding of the natural environment, especially after reading or watching something that I found relatable. 

In Julia B. Corbett’s Communicating Nature the reader can establish themselves in an environmental theology. Seeing these all mapped out in the beginning chapters of the book helped me find where I belong. Although I have always been on the side of the concept of the Earth comes first-- my interpretations of this have changed. I could tell that I always fit into parts of ecological sensibility, social ecology, and deep ecology because they are all ecocentric as opposed to anthropocentric. Through these three theologies I became more aware of Ecofeminism, Native American and Eastern Traditions theologies. Compassion and empathy are important components of Buddhism that pertain to the relationship a human has with all things. This is important to me and my own environmental theology. This includes understanding that you are a part of something larger and everything is interrelated. I like to think that I take bits and pieces from different theologies to create my own unique identity. It’s comforting to see my beliefs of the natural world in a cohesive unit that can be relatable to others. 

Being able to situate yourself in an environmental theology helps you to understand your place in the scheme of things—environmentally. Bill McKibben’s “Global Warming’s Terrible New Math” hits home with the hard numbers behind our ever-changing climate. The necessity to understand these numbers and concepts is crucial to fitting into your theology. Do you feel comfortable with where we’re at for emissions? Do you think the government is doing what they can to take control of environmental injustices? These are all important questions that we must ask as a society. Answers will vary depending on conservationists/ preservationists/ deep ecologists etc. McKibben raises many concerns that have come out of government conferences like Rio and Berlin. The big topics of these gatherings are centered around three major numbers. 

Two degrees Celsius being the first and possibly the easiest for the human population to understand is the temperature rise expected and accepted by scientists and government officials around the world. However, McKibben raises concerns with this number. We have already increased our global temperature to 0.8 degrees Celsius. The outcome of this surprised the scientific community and proves that going beyond this would be detrimental to our planet’s chemical balance. McKibben most notably calls out the outcome of the Copenhagen Accord which is just one of the many political gatherings that hasn’t held any government accountable for their carbon emissions. China and the US as being major contributors needing legal binding to reduce emissions, still have yet to have strict guidelines with serious repercussions if not met. Of all the numbers that McKibben discusses, the two degree increase in temperature is probably one of the easiest to grasp. Because of this, McKibben takes on the realist approach. He speaks critically, but also realistically. He isn’t turning people away from the truths he tells by being an alarmist or intentionally scaring the reader. When it comes to climate change articles, it’s imperative  that you don’t come across as hopeless because then the reader will mimic that feeling. Bill McKibben writes with hope that knowledge is power and will positively influence the public to make changes. 

Five hundred and 65 gigatons holds some serious weight on scientists today. Being the amount of carbon dioxide that can be added to the atmosphere and still be considered “safe”. McKibben states that at our current rates, our carbon emission increases by three percent every year. If this trajectory were to continue, our temperature increase could go up as high as eleven degrees Fahrenheit. It’s becoming progressively easier for more scientists and government officials to accept these statistics and potentially make new standards to make sure we don’t go down this path. 

The last number—scariest to McKibben—2,795 gigatons, will have economic impacts. As this could be the amount of carbon in our remaining coal and oil reserves estimated to be burned. This would impact companies invested in the fossil fuel industry-- projecting they too will crash and burn. To avoid this situation it would require the coal and oil business to keep a good portion of their reserves underground—meaning a possible economic hit. Making this a reality and having the coal and oil business agree to the conditions would be monumental. Throughout this article, McKibben is urging the reader to be inquisitive about the global situation on climate change. 

Beyond the commitments we need from big businesses to reduce emissions, there’s always the general public that needs to be aware of these sometimes ungraspable concepts. Charles C. Mann gives an overview of all things climate related in “How to Talk About Climate Change So People Will Listen.” Mann touches on many of the misunderstandings between the scientific and non-scientific communities. It’s important for the public to understand what’s going on in environmental activism because it could be something affecting their lives that they don’t know about. This is the purpose of the article, to inform and teach the reader about environmental history. If more people had a more concrete of these events, there would be that many more people with an environmental theology and opinion. 

Someone like Mark Shapiro (who wrote Carbon Shock) decided to annotate his experience during a flight from California to Russia-- commentating on foreign policy on emissions. It is a topic that has many misconceptions because the legislation on air space is extremely complicated and as Shapiro explains it is difficult to assign responsibility to any country. Shapiro had the chance to speak to the pilot during his flight and found that the emissions are reported but it is not any more important than any other figure taken from flight information. 

It is easy, especially in climate change science, to be presented with confusing material. Not only confusing, but also misleading. There are many scientists and companies that set out to stir the pot. Their goal is to tell the public that climate change isn’t happening or isn’t as bad as it is in reality. It can be either extremely obvious or subtle when an article is meant to be misleading. I can spot some from a mile away and know within the first few sentences that the purpose of the entire article is to deceive the reader. An article found in the New York Post, entitled “Global-warming ‘proof’ is evaporating” by Michael Fumento, is one of those confusing articles. 

Fumento takes scientific information that many in 2013 (when the article came out) was generally understood to be fact, and flat out calls it not truth. Now as someone feeling rather comfortable with their position on the side of climate change being a legitimate concern may be able to call Fumento’s bluff, but others may be scratching their heads in confusion. For someone not quite established in the environmentalist thinking can be convinced by this tactic. Referring to climate change believers as “warmists” takes away legitimacy of the argument they hold against people like Fumento. He accuses “warmists” of misleading media to sympathize with them and their claim that storms like Katrina have and will continue to get progressively worse. It’s these kinds of articles that create a gap in understanding between believers and nonbelievers of climate change. The general public uses these articles to decide what position they will take on the subject. 

What will you decide is fact and fiction? As you build up your own library of climate change facts, you’re establishing an identity for yourself. Pick apart the deceivers from the factualists and be a part of the conversation of climate change. Read, watch, speak, act and become an active member of the exciting world of climate media!