Animal Rights and Ecofeminism

By Kylie Campanelli

I often think one of the saddest realities in American society is our use and treatment of the dairy cow. Used beyond their capacity in order to produce milk for us, they are subjected to a life of abuse, which saddens me deeply. It saddens me because as an ecofeminist and animal advocate, I only see the violation of their respect and rights. Thankfully, ecofeminism and animal rights are two ideas that are both very important and becoming more prevalent in today’s society. Ecofeminism explores the way the earth as well as other beings are oppressed and exploited, similarly to how woman are and have been treated in history. Animal rights advocate for the ethical treatment of animals, and explore our relationship with animals. As we oppress animals, see them as inferior objects, and take advantage of their reproductive systems, ecofeminism and animal rights begin to correlate. As an animal lover and feminist, I was highly interested in covering both topics as well as their relationship. Here I have selected articles from multiple sources that I believe contain great insights to different parts of either the topics on their own, or they combine the two.

Article: “On Speciesist Language” by Joan Dunayler, published 2009

I found this article to be not only very beautifully written, but also incredibly interesting and insightful. The author covers how our language, and more specifically our relation to what we define as “nouns”, influences our relationships and how we treat other beings. She examines how the words we choose and our view of animals are apparent in topics of descriptive language, sexism, species breeding, fur production, hunting, meat consumption and pharmaceutical testing. She stresses the point that we often disguise the things we do to animals behind “friendlier” phrases and words, which allow us to disconnect ourselves from the animals suffering. We choose to ignore the fact that animals also have feelings deserving of respect, because it is easier for us to see them as inferior and take advantage of them. I think this article explicitly examines specific examples of how our words alter our actions in numerous different situations, making it so effective at delivering it’s desired message. People are more likely to believe someone’s argument when they present well-explained details and examples, which I believe Dunayler does here. This article ties nicely into our topic project because it covers one aspect of ecofeminism and animal rights, our oppressions language.

Article : “Environmental Destruction” from Vegan Outreach, published May 2008

This article was compiled of facts about how meat production and consumption effects our environment, and was very informative. It completely serves its purpose of informing readers of the environmental advantages of giving up meat, as it provides accurate, and sometimes unnerving, information and predictions composed by scientists. People often do not make the connection between the outside effects eating animal has. This relates to animal rights and ecofeminism, but also expands the previously examined ideas, because it broadens the range of consequence these things cause from what we already considered. Our exploitation of animals and using them for our own benefit is perfectly exemplified by the meat industry, and our indifference to our faults is shown in our detachment to our effect on the environment. This article proves our awareness is extremely vital because we are causing problems of climate change, water insecurity, land degradation, biodiversity preservation and ocean stability.

Video : “Meet your Meat,” from YouTube, posted by PETA, uploaded March 2012

Found on YouTube and titled “Meet Your Meat,” this video was originally advertised and posted by PETA, an organization known for their outlandish advertisement of their beliefs on animals. PETA supports and promotes a completely vegan diet and lifestyle and seeks to expose any companies, organizations or individuals who cause cruelty to animals. This video shows live footage from factory farms and slaughterhouses in America. First, the title is ironic and correlates to the idea I previous discussed, of how our language affects our relationship to animals.  “Meeting” your meat ensues that the animals are sentiment beings, instead of objects, because one cannot meet an object or tool. Next, the footage in the video is as a whole very sobering and hard-hitting, and at some points just downright disturbing. The video covers every different type of meat-harvested animal such as chickens, pigs, and cows, and shows how each is treated in the industries and then slaughtered. I first saw this video when I was making the decision to go vegan about a year ago, and the severity of the footage is what makes it so powerful. Words and speaking about what happens to animals will only do so much, however, when real-life footage is presented in people’s faces, it’s much harder for them to ignore it. The animals in these factories are not treated well what so ever. They are not given respect or regarded as anything more than a never-ending supply of resource, with no value other than what food can be made from them. This ties directly to the idea that we see animals as less than us, and undeserving of proper treatment.

Article: “A Call to Feminists” by Katz and Angel Flinn, published June 2012

This article examined the relationship between feminism and the treatment of the dairy cow. Dairy cow’s are one of the most, if not the most, exploited animals on the planet. Dairy cows are bred to spend their lives being forcefully pregnant continuously until they are spent and withered, and then slaughtered. I think this article is effective for two reasons. First, I believe a lot of people are not aware of how dairy cows are treated in the milk industry. I lived in complete ignorance for many, many years of their sufferings, and I believe most Americans still do. Cows are mammals, that like humans, only produce milk when pregnant and it’s supposed to go to feed their babies. However, we have taken advantage of this natural cycle through the use of artificial insemination and things like “rape racks.” This, which leads me into my second reason, is a perfect example of oppression, exploitation, and violation of feminism and feministic respects.  This article provides a great examination of why what we do is so wrong, and how it relates to the way we as humans view the female reproductive system, which I think is something a lot of people are not aware of and don’t consider. This article stands as an example that we are not always completely aware of what we are doing, and how easy it is for us to turn a blind-eye to actions that are harmful and cruel.

Online News Article: “Novelists applaud Ringling Bro.’s decision to stop using elephants” by Ron Charles, published March 2015

This article and topic is one that is very special to me, because I love elephants with all of my heart. I previously used this article as my outside source for our animal rights blog, but thought it’d be useful again for this project. This article takes a different angle that the previous ones because it focuses solely on elephants and doesn’t directly reference feminism or ecofeminism ideologies directly, but they are still present in underlying messages. Elephants have been targeted for years for both their tusks, and for their participation in circus acts. Here we look at their participation in circuses and Ringling Brothers recent agreement to stop using elephants in their shows in the next few years. The elephants working in the show are lugged, by train or bus, from one city to the next all while being chained up and kept in cages. They are forced to dance and perform, and are beat until they are subservient. Again, we see this idea that animals are below us and are ours to use as we wish. We don’t see them as intelligent, loving, beings that deserve proper treatment, but rather objects that can bring us a prophet.

Article: “Local Versus Non-Local Food: Is The Kind of Food You Eat More Important Than Where it Comes From?” from thinkprogress.org, published December 2011

After discussing with Chad about the other sources I have found for the project, he brought up a great point. He brought up the idea that although we promote ecofeminism and not exploiting animals, are we then exploiting the land when we choose plant-based alternatives? Which is the lesser of the two evils? The answer is perhaps to buy plant-based, but to do so locally and sustainably. That is, I believe, the greatest answer to the problem. This article explores what the most sustainability friendly options in food production in regards to where your food comes from and where you purchase it. When you choose the most sustainable option you are avoiding exploitation as much as you can. This spares animals and thus helps support Eco-feministic ideas as well as animal rights.  This article is informative, and though it does not provide many apparent in-depth ideas, like the article on circus animals, it contains important underlying messages.

TV show:  “30 days: Animal Rights”  aired June, 2008

The episode, which originally aired in 2008, followed a hunter and avid meat-eater as he spent 30 days living with a family of vegan animal activists. The man’s name was George Snedeker and although he went into the 30 days swearing he would come out feeling the same way, he actually came out a changed man. In the beginning of the journey, George felt little to no sympathy towards animals and saw them as ours to use as we wish. However, the more George was exposed to animals and introduced to animal activist ideas, he began to see things in a different light. First he was mandated of three things: to get a job at an animal sanctuary, to participate in animal rights protests, and to eat vegan for the month. He fulfilled each one of these and it seemed even enjoyed them by the end. He even helped rescue a baby cow and began to take care of it everyday and bond with it. I thought this article worked with my project because it showed two completely opposing views on animal rights, and even showed how one could be swayed in a different direction. As I’ve previously stated before, I believe people are so insensitive to the way we treat animals because they remove themselves from the situation and choose to ignore what we know to be true about the way animals are treated. This was the case with George, but once he was shown the way animals were treated first hand, it was impossible for him to continue to ignore it, and thus his mindset changed.

I believe each of these works compares nicely to the others, whether it covers either ecofeminist ideas or animal rights separately, or contains ideas of the both of them. The ideas provide numerous angles of looking at animal rights and ecofeminism and the different forms of media deliver their messages in different ways. I am looking forward to bringing pieces from each source to support my over all argument about the importance of ecofeminism and how it also relates to the way we treat and regard animals.

Communication For Those Without A Voice

By Kylie Campanelli

Animal rights are an issue very near and dear to my heart. I have always been an animal lover, and quite frankly, cannot understand when people say they do not also love animals. It is a great shame that animals are so commonly only valued for their usefulness to humans, because they have so many benefits to the ecosystems and environment around us. As a devout vegan and “cruelty-free” advocate, I am constantly looking for ways to show others the light and positivity in my beliefs, and how practices such as these better the world as a whole. When I talk to people about these sort of things they usually are either completely empathetic or immediately on the defense. I find in their responses that there is either a complete indifference to the way animals are treated, a lot of sympathy and respect for them, or a pompous outlook that all other beings besides humans are inferior.  While I do believe there is some truth to the idea of a “rank of hierarchy” among the species of the world, I further believe that each and every life is sacred and every organism should be treated with respect. I believe it is important for us to co-exist peacefully with all of the live forms around us, meaning a positive regard for animals is key.

There are numerous aspects that contribute to the way we view animals and how we treat them. Our attitudes are compiled from our teachings, our past experiences, and the way the media and outside world portrays them to us. If you look closely at the thousands of advertisements constantly surrounding you, you may be greatly surprised at how often animals are utilized to convey their desired message.  We are constantly being fed ideas and different viewpoints about other species, and we may not even realize, but it effects how we treat them and scale their value. We can find these messages in books, movies, and various other sources of literature and media, and they are each variably effective at delivering different messages.

Growing up, there were always animals in my home. I believe because of this I always had a positive outlook on them, but it wasn’t until I was much older did I become aware of the way many animals are treated in society. In the novel Communicating Nature author Julia B. Corbett argues that the presence of animals around adolescents as they grow up is very influential on their view of them. When I was young, I always wanted to go to the circus because elephants were my favorite, but I didn’t know that by going to the circus I was supporting the people who put them in chains and forced them to perform. It wasn’t clear to me that the elephants were suffering, because the circus ads made it seem like great fun that the elephants were enjoying too. I mean they were standing on their heads and throwing a ball around, that’s totally fun, right? Wrong. This was complete animal abuse. This is an example of the idea Corbett presents of “using nature as a shorthand.” The elephants were being used as a selling tool. The circus company was using the common love for elephants to sell their tickets, and using the animals as their own playthings. People think of elephants as huge, majestic creatures that are found far away in the wild that many would never get the chance to see up close. The circus gives you a chance not only to see them up close, but to watch them do tricks! This was for a very long time a very good marketing strategy for circuses; however, the common view of them is beginning to change.

Recently, animal advocacy has become more popular. In the case of the circus elephant, protests and petitions have lobbied with Ringling Bros., one of the biggest circuses in America, and have convinced them to stop using elephants for performance. In an articled titled Novelists Applaud Ringling Bro.’s Decision to Stop Using Elephants, written by Ron Charles and published in The Washington Post this past Tuesday, Ringling Bros. promised to stop using all elephants currently in their possession by 2018 and to not purchase any more. The elephants already existing within the circus will live out the rest of their lives in a preserve where they will never be forced to perform again. This was a humungous win for animal rights activists and elephants everywhere. It is the direct result of effective positive communication. Had the population of people lobbying for change not existed and shared their message, one can assume elephants for generations to come would be subjected to a circus life of shame and abuse. It is interesting to see how the switch in public opinion occurred from loving elephants in the circus to hating them there, and we can see the power of the people’s voice. Another example being, the movie How I Became an Elephant, produced in 2012, which delivered a similar message about the treatment of elephants. Following a young girls journey to South East Asia in order to team up with The Elephant Lady and learn about saving the elephant population, How I Became an Elephant was moving and sparked change and a huge reaction with it’s hard-hitting and devastating footage. Just like the circus protesting, this movie moved people to make a difference. This has all contributed to the change in public regard for elephants. Every time an article, advertisement, picture, or any other type of media was produced supporting the freeing and ethical treatment of circus elephants, the conversation changed and new action resulted from it.

Elephants are not the only animals that have been subjected to such exploitation or cruel treatment. The Cove, a documentary that is also very meaningful to me, covers an issue of this sort. Centered on the regular dolphin slaughtering’s that happen on account of Japanese hunting practices, The Cove is told from a marine biologist’s point of view. A group of animal activists, including former actor Rick O’Barry who before realizing the mistake in it, originally helped capture the first five dolphins ever in captivity, travel to Japan in hopes of filming the slaughterings and sharing it with the rest of the world. The team certainly finds what they were looking for. Shortly after arriving in Japan they find the place of such slaughtering’s, a cove off the coast of Taiji, Wakayama, Japan. After numerous run-ins with Japanese officials, the team is warned that if they are caught filming what happens in the secret cove they will be arrested. The team then decides to venture into the cove under the fall of night to place secret cameras in the rocks. The cameras capture a typical day’s slaughtering the next day and the team watches it from their computers. The footage is horrifying. Dolphins are herded into the cove by boats, separating mothers, children, and families, and are stabbed by fisherman with tritons until they either die or bleed out too much and can not fight back. They are then rounded up in the boats and taken away to be sold to the rest of the Japanese population to eat. After the killings, the entire cove is a deep red from the blood of the dolphins.

The scene was one of the most tragic things I had ever personally seen. But this is why The Cove was so effective at communicating its message. Yes, it is not hard to convince people that something is bad when it is already very obviously downright horrific, but to present such real, hard-hitting evidence is what makes people pay attention. It sparked emotion within the viewer. It appealed to something other than just logic, which I think is very important when it comes to discussions on animal rights. So often people will look at animals for their numerical value, such as saying well, its okay that these dolphins are dying because the numbers aren’t detrimental. However, when you see the actions that are leading to these dolphins’ deaths, like the red water or the crying of mothers as their babies are harpooned, it changes your view. Bottom line being, if someone had simply published a paper on statistical facts relating to dolphin populations and their importance in the ecosystem, hardly any people would listen and even fewer would act, but if you instead produce a movie like The Cove, things happen.

Romanticizing animals is another strategy I think that makes people feel more sympathetic to their situations. I do not mean just giving animals human characteristics or classifying them by the cultural associations and values, as discussed in Communicating Nature where Corbett explains this is like labeling a car as ‘tough as a ram’, but by showing readers the beauty in these animals and their existence. In “Am I Blue?” author Alice Walker does exactly this. She tells the story of a horse that lived in the pasture near her home.  She bonded with the animal often feeding him and spending time with him. One day Blue’s - the horse’s - owners brought a female horse to live with him, in hopes that he would impregnate her.  This does indeed happen, and then the female horse is taken away. This seems plenty fine to the people only concerned with the female horse giving birth, however, Walker sees how much this has hurt the male horse. He fell in love and was devastated when he was left alone again. Walker talks about the emotion she sees in the horses’ eyes and how she can tell his is experiencing deep emotional pain. She develops her ideas through anthropomorphism, allowing the reader to connect or relate to the animal in a way they would another person. She talks about how people do not consider animal’s feelings enough, which I believe to be very true. The reader is led to feel incredible sympathy for the horse, something that would not happen without Walkers emotional description of him and his feelings. This led me as a reader to once again question our relationship to animals and how we view them, which made this piece very powerful at conveying a message.

As you can see, there are many different ways people go about fighting for animal rights through literature. Numerous different tactics are used in both advertising as well as public outreach to alter the way we view animals and treat them. Whether animals are depicted in a positive or negative way, it all has an effect on our relationship with them, and our relationship with them affects the rest of the world. Since animals cannot speak, it is our job to be their voice, and that is why communication is so important when it comes to these issues.

Our Consumption, Communication, and the Earth

By Kylie Campanelli

This week I was asked to compile a list of all the ways I consumed energy or resources unnecessarily. Though most things on my list were small actions with small impacts individually; forgetting to turn the water off while brushing my teeth, using plastic silverware once a day instead of a reusable metal version, or periodically buying a plastic bottle of water instead of remembering my refillable one, when all the actions of the week were added up it was a lot of consumption. It got me thinking about the way each of us lead our lives and if it directly or indirectly correlates to the way we feel about our impact, and the importance of our impact, on the environment. 

I would like to consider myself an environmentally conscious person. I do not consume meat or dairy products, I do not use soaps or body products with chemicals, I recycle, and do my best to be aware of the amount of water or light I am using on a daily basis. Yet, after looking at what I had failed to do in the last week, it is obvious there is much I can improve on. I would imagine this is also the same for many other people. It seems we are never fully aware of what the consequences of our actions. We are all actively contributing to the degrading state of our earth.

There has been a lot of recent discussion about our individual impact and what causes it as well as ways we can improve on it, and here I’d like to analyze further into the different aspects that contribute to why we consume the way we do, the effects it has and what can be done about it moving forward. 

Consumerism has become a huge part of the American way of life. We have become programed to be constantly on the look out for the next best thing. We always want more. This leads to a steady demand for, and also an excess of, commercially produced items. Every part of our lives is influenced by our need for “things.” In chapter 4 of Communicating Nature by Julia B. Corbett, the correlation between our need for stuff and what we do with our down time is examined. She finds that the media, advertisements, and numerous other forms of communication are constantly telling people, that we need to buy things in order to enjoy our time. Also, the harder we work, the “harder we relax,” so to say. This means, we feel we need toys and objects to pass the time, and those who work harder often feel they must be more productive with their time for leisure. We cannot just simply venture out into nature and enjoy ourselves, we need the right clothes, equipment, tools, and toys. And without all this, it is not as great of a time. This communicates the message that even nature needs to coincide with buying, which is ironic because the more we consume, the poorer our relationship with nature becomes. As we buy new, we use more resources as well as dispose of the old in not always environmentally friendly ways.

Corbett then goes on to discuss in the following chapter, our detachment from our actions and their consequences. She pitches the example of goods we buy from over seas. We buy these products without thinking about the route they must take to get to us. We don’t consider the human and environmental rights and laws that could possibly be violated by our purchase. The same goes for our consumption of energy. 

In 30 Days Working in a Coal Mine, a show aired in 2008 that followed Morgan Spurlock, a man working in a West Virginia coal mine for 30 days, a powerful message was delivered about our consumption for energy and, like the example provided before by Corbett, our regard for the people who this consumption effects. The show is a documentary, with all real-life non-scripted footage. The message is hard-hitting and not easy to ignore. In the episode it tells about the dangerous conditions coal miners work in on a daily basis, also about the environmental destruction caused by coal mining. This all occurs to fuel our ever-increasing need for energy as we consume, consume, consume. 

This past week I attended a lecture given by scientist Dr. Schoonen of Brookhaven National Lab, provided by the Sustainability department at Stony Brook University. According to Dr. Schoonen the answer is a change in human action and the way we deliver as well as perceive messages about our regard for the environment and the effect our consumption has on it. He said the plan that has the greatest chance of change started and ended with us. As a well-credited official in his field, it was interesting that he believed the greatest solution to this grand problem was in the peoples hands. And we have seen in many cases, people have started jumping on this bandwagon and the message they are portraying to the public has slowly gained power.

The greatest example of this, I believe was the film No Impact Man that depicted a project conducted by Colin Beavan in which he and his family lived for an entire year without hurting the environment at all. They did not use carbon-producing transportation, did not use plastic, paper, oil or coal, and did not buy anything new. After documenting and sharing their journey, they became famous for their project. I believe it is because in a world so used to constant consumerism, it was shocking and fascinating that ordinary people were able to live like this for an entire year. It went against almost everything that is the typical American way of living. They appeared on countless news channels and television interviews. It seemed everyone was talking about this family. This lead to increase awareness of how our consuming and energy use was affecting us, and set an example that less consumption was definitely possible. It was an incredibly effective way of changing the conversation and raising the bar for human action in the future, because it showed people they too can help reduce the amount of waste in the world.

The amount of garbage we dispose of as humans is the number one contributor of tons of environmental problems. An article posted in The Washington Post titled, “Americans throw out more food than plastic, paper, metal, and glass” written last year, addressed the amount of food we throw out alone and how it effects the earth. Americans waste almost 50% of the food they obtain and with that goes the plastic wrappings and such that are attached to it. These remnants then end up in our oceans and disturb our peaceful nature. Just like the “No Impact Man” project movie, or “30 Days Working in a Coal Mine” there have been other media outlets trying to bring awareness to the idea that we are the problem, and the solution.

An example of another movie is “Synthetic Sea”, a short movie most recently updated in 2010, that teaches viewers about the amount of plastic in our oceans. The movie is also like a documentary, as it shows real footage of the plastic and synthetic particles floating in our ocean and provides facts and insides from scientific experts. It’s successful at communicating the message ‘This needs to stop!’ as it informs us of statistics such as, in 2008 it was estimated there is 45 pounds of plastic to every pound of krill in the north-east Pacific Gyre. The material either gets digested by fish who then suffer health problems, or it washes up on shore, polluting beaches. The plastic comes from people incorrectly disposing of garbage, and is a completely avoidable problem, if people paid closer attention to messages like “Synthetic Sea”.

Through different advertisements and pieces written by environmental authors, we can see there are many varied ideas regarding the environment and our relationship with it. It has become obvious we need to pay closer attention to our carbon footprints, and positive forms of communication through media and lecture, is the most successful way of spreading this message, and hopefully leading to a change. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/23/americans-throw-out-more-food-than-plastic-paper-metal-or-glass/

The Rising Chatter Around the Rising Global Temperature

By Kylie Campanelli 

There are many ways people speak about the environment, some verbal and others not. Some talk about it like it is their greatest love; something they hold extreme value to and would do anything to protect, while others talk about it like it is only a concept discussed in a political debate. There are those who refer to the environment as something that has no value besides what it can give to the people, and see it as ours for the taking and using, while others speak of the environment as if it is a person, with feelings and human characteristics and rights. Other times it is seen as a faraway land that is ‘out there’, far from human worry or impact. There are companies that are willing to pay millions of dollars to tear down forests and build office buildings in their place, while others would pay millions to preserve the same forests and the species that reside within them. There are advertisements on TV, on the radio, in newspapers, and countless other places constantly communicating to the public the idea of what the environment is, and its value, in different lights.

Communication matters. No matter what light the environment is discussed in, it is fair to say it influences how other people think about it and regard it. When someone who is less educated about what is really happening in the forests of Alaska hears someone exclaim that the deforestation occurring there is devastating, they too might begin to form the opinion that it is indeed, devastating. However, if the same person instead heard someone raving about how the deforestation is a great thing with many benefits, their perception might mimic this instead. The same concept goes for someone who might happened to see an advertisement promoting fracking, or burning fossil fuels, or any other prevalent environmental degradation, versus one that opposed it, and this could have serious consequences. These consequences are especially prevalent and cause for worry when it comes to one frequently analyzed and discussed issue; global warming.

They planet’s temperature is rising each year. There are countless amounts of scientific evidence to support the idea that the global climate is changing, and that human action is indeed the cause. We are burning copious amounts of fossil fuels on a regular basis, which results in the emissions of dangerous and warming gases, like Co2. Our increasing use and burning of fossil fuels, as well as our rapid conversion of woodlands to spaces used for urban development, in the last several decades, has directly correlated with the increasing amount of green house gases in the air. These gases trap heat from leaving our atmosphere and insulate the planet, causing it to warm. The global temperature has risen 3.5 ° C in some parts of the world in the last century and is expected to rise 0.2 ° C every decade for the next several. This temperature change has caused sea level risings and changes to weather patterns. As global ice sheets react to the increased temperature and melt, coastal cities sea levels rise and thus flood over them. For cities far from the coast, there is a concern for drought and desertification, as higher temperatures lead to less regular precipitation. These are all observable physical changes that are beginning to, if not already have, effect people’s daily lives. 

Yet, there is still much doubt surrounding the existence of global warming. It is hard to believe that people would not see these effects and want to immediately take action, though, there is still a large population of people who believe global warming is not a real issue, or if they do believe it is occurring, they do not believe it is human caused. One may wonder why this is. Or one may even wonder how people develop opinions on global warming anyway, whether they believe in it or not. Numerous different types of print and video have entertained the idea of global warming in recent times and each of them delivered their messages and opinions of global warming, and peoples relationship to the environment in general, in many different ways. 

To first look at books concerning our relationship with the planet, we can look at Communicating Nature by Julia B. Corbett and The End of Nature by Bill McKibben. Each author delivers a similar message about the way we regard nature and the environment but each use different tactics. In the first chapter of Communicating Nature, Corbett discuses the way people think of the environment and the concept of “nature”. They often see it as something “out there”, meaning they disassociate the environment and ideas of what “nature” is from the vegetation they see around them in urban settings on a daily basis. This allows them to preserve the surreal idea that nature is only lush tropical rainforests and thick woodlands filled with animals and an infinite amount of plants, and that these places are located in a far off land that is not affected by the litter they leave on their sidewalk or the pollution that comes from their car. This thinking also relieves them of responsibility of causing adverse effects to the environment, which is one of the greatest arguments in the cause of global warming; humans footprint in the whole thing. Though she does not discuss global warming in detail, one can still see how these ideas and the topic can correlate. Corbett does a fantastic job describing the different portrayals and theoretical ways people relate to nature, and sheds light on a perspective that can further explain why one may not concern them with global warming.

McKibben does something similar to this with his work, but he focuses more so on specific changes that have occurred rather than peoples regard to it. He also describes his feelings on how the woodlands and forests aren’t as unpopulated as people think. He says that each person who abuses the resources of the forest, are now present there even when it is empty and silent. This suggests that people are closer to the outdoors than they think. It, like Corbett’s idea, analyzes people’s involvement in the degradation of nature and the responsibility they take for if, and both clearly communicate their idea, that we all are at fault. 

The films Everything’s Cool, released in 2007 and directed by Daniel Gold, and Earth 2100, released in 2009 and directed by Rudy Bednar, are two other media sources that also center around peoples relationship with the earth, however, they focus more closely on global warming. Both films deliver the same message, that global warming and global climate change are both very real and cause for concern, but they do it in very different ways. Everything’s Cool feels more like a classic documentary, composed of mostly real-life tapings. It includes interviews by numerous scientists, but follows researcher Bill McKibbens throughout the length of the movie. They discuss why Americans should be concerned about global warming and the stigma around it in politics. 

Earth 2100 feels somewhat like a documentary, but much less so then Everything’s Cool. It ultimately feels more like a regular movie. Earth 2100 aired on television, while Everything’s Cool premiered at a Sundance film festival, so it was meant for a different audience. Earth 2100 incorporates interviews from experts in the field, but the majority of the movie is displayed in animated cartoons, almost like those of a comic book. It is also very impacting. It tells a fiction, yet highly possible, story of a regular American that faces many hardships as the global climate changes in the future. It delivers a very important message, but it is almost hard to watch at some times. Earth 2100 actually depicts and acts out a “worst case scenario” situation, while those in Everything’s Cool really only discuss it. The two films, as stated before, definitely appeal to different audiences, but I believe they both are ultimately very successful at delivering their message. 

Finally, to acknowledge an opposing view, we can look at an article found on townhall.com titled “5 Scientific Reasons That Global Warming Isn’t Happening.” In the article John Hawkins, the author, presents five different ideas on why global warming is not happening and why those who are following the trend of the idea, are in the wrong. Though I disagree with the information he presents, it is unavoidable to admit that he is not completely unsuccessful with his delivery of his message. He produces interesting and believable facts to support each claim that could easily appeal to someone lacking in a background of substantial environmental knowledge. I think this post and his writing serve as a prime example that we must be careful when it comes to believing all of the information given to us, especially on public media sites.

Ultimately, we can see that there are numerous different opinions on people’s relationship to the environment, global warming, and human’s part in global warming, available. The majority supports the idea that we are causing the change and that we should act quickly to retard it, however, there are contradicting ideas out there. In conclusion, I believe analyzing the different pieces of literature and ideas of discussion, leaves one to realize that the way topics of nature are communicated are extremely important, and that there are numerous ways one can go about this and be successful. However, if we are looking to save our environment and the world we live in, we may want to start choosing to receive certain messages more prominently than others.