No Farmers, No Food

By Jessica Kaplan

The history of food production goes back over 10,000 years ago with the first farmers. Although our methods have changed drastically through this time something has stayed constant: farmers are a vital part of our existence. During this time of change we’ve seen many food movements come and go, like the slow food movement (the counteraction of fast food) we are currently in. 

Michael Pollan, in his book In Defense of Food, poses a question that I think is crucial to the 21^st century’s food concerns: “What if we were to start thinking about food as less of a thing and more as a relationship?” This may seem like a silly comparison to draw, but if you think about it it’s kind of the central problem with food production today. We produce so that people can buy as much as their personal economic situation will allow even if it’s unnecessary and wasted. This is why we have lost the notion that it’s important to know where your food comes from. Industrialization is one major contributor to this lost notion. Monoculture accounts for a large portion of industrialization and is being done across the globe. A single crop being produced on a huge scale depleting the soil of the same nutrients a thousand times over is leading to soil erosion and other ecological issues. Pollan argues that this is why the American diet has lost so much of its core nutrients. “The fact that at least 30 percent of Americans have a diet deficient in vitamin C, vitamin E, vitamin A, and magnesium surely owes more to eating processed foods full of empty calories than it does to lower levels of nutrients in the whole foods we aren’t eating.” He goes on to explain that the foods even before being processed are of lesser nutritional value already. Pollan’s book is one that appeals to people interested not only in food production, but also literature. He’s a well-known author and commentator on food topics. He explains all the scientific-based explanations thoroughly because he wants the information he’s writing to be accessible to anyone. This is important because every person should know about what they’re consuming. 

Monsanto is the basis for many arguments against GMOs and any biological tampering of really anything. If you take a look at the biotechnology company’s website, you may find yourself confused by all the drama around the company. At first glance it’s a rather cheery website. The company seems pro-farmer and environmentally friendly through tabs labeled “Sustainable Agriculture” and “Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability.” If you watch their short video, "Monsanto at a Glance", you get a false idea of the company as a whole. The video highlights Monsanto employees explaining how they “empower farmers.” However, this is far from the truth. The corporation has taken ownership of seeds, literally. Vandana Shiva explains in her book Stolen Harvest how Monsanto patented the Indian mustard plant. This means that if the country wanted to plant mustard they are forced to go through Monsanto, and use genetically modified varieties of a plant that belongs to India and its people. Contrary to the smiley Monsanto employees, owning every aspect of agriculture production in places like India is not helping farmers. They find themselves forever entwined with the corporation once they purchase seeds once. When the seeds are purchased it’s almost impossible for a farmer to do anything else for the rest of their food producing lives. Indian farmers end up putting themselves in debt trying to pay for all the components of Monsanto’s agriculture production. 

A  2014 New York Times article entitled “After Farmers Commit Suicide, Debts Fall on Families in India” by Ellen Barry, Monsanto isn’t found explicitly named as a key factor in the high rate of farmer suicides in India. However, Barry does not state, “farmers took on new risks, switching to commercial crops and expensive, genetically modified seeds…” Monsanto was one of the companies selling farmers the genetically modified seeds. This article takes on a more unbiased approach than “Monsanto’s Seeds Contributing to Farmer Suicides Every 30 Minutes,” written by Anthony Gucciardi appearing in Nation of Change in 2012, makes Monsanto the core reason for the tragic loss of farmers. It says that some even used the insecticide from Monsanto to end their own lives. Although this article may seem like it is only blaming Monsanto there seems to be truth behind it. The article includes a story from a wife whose husband committed suicide and she says that they had bought the BT cotton seed from Monsanto and it failed twice. The incorporation of this story was to impact the reader in a way that makes them understand that farmers need support and not company’s imposing methods on them. Articles like the two mentioned above make the public, even if they’re thousands of miles away, realize the importance of farmers and the hardships they go through that we don’t always recognize. 

If you refer back to the Monsanto website, you’ll find Monsanto’s comments on the increase of farmer suicides in India. They include references to different scientific studies that show how other socio-economic factors played the major role in the increase. One of these being “lack of reliable credit,” but the farmers are most likely in need of loaned money because of failed GMO crops. Many farmers turn to the government in order to provide for their families when crops fail, but then when they need to pay it back they are already so in debt from purchasing the Monsanto seeds and supplies that they can’t come up with the money. They also only refer to the increase in production yield for the BT cotton crop when there are other possible GMO crops affecting the farmers. I can’t help but imagine how Monsanto would have constructed not just this comments page to the situation in India, but the entire website. I can tell that each word was carefully selected to make sure that nothing can be implied except the message they are trying to put out. The wording seems as though they are trying to not say too much. The language isn’t flowery or wordy. If someone who had no former knowledge of Monsanto looked at their website they may not believe that it is the company many people see it as. I think this is what made Monsanto into the power that it is.

So after all of this—where do the farmers stand? Who advocates for farmers? Beyond people like Shiva and Pollan, we owe a lot more than we think to the farmers around the world. Through the media today we hear a lot about GMOs and why or why not they should be labeled, but what about the farmers? People have gotten so caught up in the drama and controversy surrounding genetic modification, to the point where I had no idea about the farmer suicides in India until I heard it from a friend. I was shocked that I never heard about it, but thought I knew a considerable amount about GMOs. Farmers rights are something that is sometimes forgotten about because of our disconnect with food. If you look at farmersrights.org, which is a website designed to provide information about farmers’ rights as they’re referred to in the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, you will see that protecting farmers means protecting diversity of plant genetics. It seems like a rather simple concept, allow farmers to continue to use and save seeds in order to produce food. However, in today’s world this is being attacked by company’s’ desires to “own” seeds. This means that farmers would not be able to do seed saving, which has been a crucial component of food production since farming begun over 10,000 years ago. By farmers being able to have access to diverse plant genetics they’re able to adjust to environmental conditions as well as the changing needs of the global population. If you take this ability away (something that is connected to Monsanto seeds) you leave the farmers unable to utilize different types of crops that may work better one season because of changing environmental conditions. In the media today there isn’t a lot of coverage on the issue of farmers’ rights. It’s something that even in the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture which is a treaty that was created at the 31^st Conference of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in 2001, there is no definition as to what exactly constitutes “farmers’ rights” because each farmer’s needs vary depending on each of their situations. The importance of this treaty, as well as the website that highlights its main points, is to make sure that farmers have access to the genetic resources they need. The website makes reading a lengthy treaty simple. Looking at all of the conditions in the treaty I feel as though more needs to be done to make sure that farmers all over the world feel they have support from an organized body to advocate for them.  

We all see those bumper stickers that say, “If you’ve eaten, today hug a farmer” and we may find it cheesy, but it’s so true. We have lost the connection we once had with our food, and in turn, our farmers as well. We no longer find it important to know where our food came from. We get nutrients through foods processed to have nutrients when we could just eat foods that naturally have them. Farmers around the world are feeling the pressure of the increase in global population. In places like India, they feel like they have no other option than to use genetically modified seeds. Countless farmers are now caught up in the expensive monopolies created by corporations like Monsanto. Moving forward, it’s important to look to the ideologies of people like Michael Pollan and Vandana Shiva. 

Jessica Kaplan -- Blog 5: Animals

By Jessica Kaplan

“There are those who never once have even considered animals’ rights: those who have never been taught that animals actually want to be used and abused by us, as small children ‘love’ to be frightened, or women ‘love’ to be mutilated and raped…” Alice Walker is making a rather strong statement here, but one that I believe is crucial to the “animal world” (which we are so strongly connected to whether we believe it or not). Some people tend to separate themselves from the larger world we are a part of, which includes animals like ourselves.

Alice Walker writes about the story of Blue, a horse living in her closest neighbor’s five-acre meadow. Blue was a rather lonely horse that enjoyed the company of Alice, and especially the apples from the just- barely -out-of-reach apple tree that accompanied her. As you start to picture this white horse—a symbol of freedom—you start to see the closeness we all should feel with not only Blue, but all creatures. Walker comments on the idea that animals, like Blue “are forced to become for us merely ‘images’ of what they once so beautifully expressed.” The view of this white horse from her kitchen window became something taken for granted, something that meant less than the living, breathing animal in sight. Blue is a prime example of everything we are doing wrong. I know that there are so many extreme cases where animals are used and abused, but it’s also important to consider a case like Blue. He wanders around a huge amount of land—which would have fooled any outsider as being a great life for this horse, and anticipates the next human contact he will have. Although Blue’s “needs” (meaning sustenance) were taken care of, he was denied one simple aspect of human life that is widely taken advantage of—contact. As humans, we recognize that we would go mad without the companionship in our everyday lives. We are social creatures—yes, we are indeed creatures just like Blue. We are dependent on other people. We need to know that our solidarity will be broken when we need it, but who’s to say that Blue doesn’t feel the exact same way?

Common to most animal rights writing is the idea that aspects of animals are so “human-like” (very anthropocentric of us humans for sure) and maybe this is just a way for humans to find common ground with animals, but I think it creates a great divide. After Blue was given a companion for a short time he had a “different look in his eyes” it was “a look of independence, of self-possession, of inalienable horseness.” Is this is the problem with our connection to animals? That we have to be able to see their feelings through their eyes in order to understand their capable of everything we feel too? Why can’t the sheer reality that they too breathe and feel be enough?

Linda Hogan comments on another divide in our understanding of animals. “The leading cause of death for wolves is contact with the human world. Our presence means tragedy to them. They are shot by hunters, trapped, poisoned, and hit by logging trucks as they travel the human roads.” She brings up a very important point about the “human roads.” We create intrusive things like roads that only deepen human miscommunication with animals, including wolves. Hogan writes in a more analytical tone. She analyzes spiritual connections between wolves and comments on her experience working with wolves as well. She believes there’s a deeper connection, “we are walking here to speak with the wolves. That’s what we want. We want to reach out to them, to tell them we are here. We want them to answer, acknowledge us, maybe even to like us. We think they see our souls.” She struggles with the sight of other team members she worked with taking pictures while holding up carcasses of wolves. Hogan understands that there is an underlying importance of wolves to people that used to interact with them and she believes that’s the understanding we need to get back to.

Julia B. Corbett alludes to how we associate animals to places and make them symbolic of different things. She uses the example of how we attach wolves to phrases like, “wolf down your food, cry wolf, and wolf whistle.” Personally, I think this is interesting because I never realized that this can create negative connotations with the animals they refer to. This especially for wolves does not help their current situation. Corbett adds to the arguments of Hogan, but makes more literal comparisons. She identifies the behaviors humans have with animals. An important one being the idea that we tend to connect a person’s animal beliefs to their natural world beliefs. So if you believe that animals and humans are intertwined, then you probably also believe that humans have a huge impact on the environment. It’s interesting that we do this because we are all a part of one entangled ecosystem that depends on each other.

Swans in New York tend to have a very negative connotation. They aren’t seen as the symbol for peace and tranquility like they once did in America. In a New York Times article, “New York States Changes Plan to Reduce Its Swan Populations” you get a sense of the complex New Yorkers have with swans. The article lays out the options that were given to New York to deal with the overpopulation. The few and far apart swan lovers have rallied together to stop the total elimination of the birds, making the state seek alternatives. This fits in with the story of Blue and Corbett’s symbolism. Swans were once seen as a beautiful piece of the natural world, adding happiness to any pond or park. At this point they have become a nuisance to some and so the novelty of the swan has fallen apart.

I am an avid documentary watcher, but some of the most difficult ones to watch are the ones that are about any animals. Before I watched The Cove and How I Became an Elephant I knew they were about animals and I was a little weary. As much as I don’t want to admit this, I tend to stay away from these types of films because I honestly just don’t want to know. Both were equally as heartbreaking and are made to do just that. These films allow the viewer to understand and appreciate the activism done without having to do much themselves. People are definitely affected by the image of dolphins being killed and abused elephants and they may possibly make different choices. Many people have taken stands against things like zoos and circuses because of what they have seen in the media. These films can be a call to action as well. Get people away from their screens and do something about the injustices done to animals all the time.

“Something wild must hold such sway over the imagination that we can’t tear ourselves away from any part of wilderness without in some way touching it.” Hogan writes this in terms of our understanding of the concept of wild and how we feel the need to leave our tracks on every path. Wolves and elephants and dolphins and basically every other “wild” animal needs us humans, equals to advocate for them without exploitation. A concept as old as time displayed in pop culture will forever require the work of poetic writers and fearless adventurers to remind the common city dweller that that squirrel on the city trash can is no less wild than a wolf in Yosemite National Park.

Living Zero-Waste in an Enviro-market Economy

By Jessica Kaplan

What is it that makes us participate in environmental sustainability? Is it seeing what we're doing to our Earth- even if it's thousands of miles off the shore in the middle of the Pacific? Or does seeing your neighbor get solar panels an incentive to maybe do the same? The reality is that we're surrounded by a community. I would argue that our communities instill a sense of locality- we are a part of a specific area, and that area contains certain things. We live, work, eat, and play in this area. If you know your community is being poisoned what do you do? You take a stand. Many documentaries demonstrate this concept. Whether you're making a huge lifestyle change by living a zero-waste life, or thinking twice before you buy an unnecessary plastic item, you're positively impacting your local environment.

Colin's message in No Impact Man was best conveyed through this documentary. He needed the chance to not only show the public what his project was doing, but also talk it out with the audience. The sort of filming tactic he used was interacting with the camera. As a viewer, it felt as though Colin was explaining to me what was going on. It had a very conversational feel. Colin's wife said how so many people didn't like them because of the project, but one environmental journalist changed her mind once she had the chance to speak to them and understand what they were doing. Many people made their judgments through what they read in articles, and that became a problem because it can look kind of crazy from the outside.

A sense of community holds people accountable. This is part of the advice Colin would give someone who can only do one thing to help the environment. Volunteer- be a part of some environmental group. Activism- as long as you're a part of the bigger picture (even through small actions) you're making a difference for the better. This idea of community and accountability is a common thread among these kinds of documentaries. I think Colin's attempt to reach the public was effective because he did his project in New York City where there is no shortage of audience.

Lauren Singer from “Trash is for Tossers” is somewhat along the same lines as Colin. Many young people, including myself, find her philosophy rather inspiring. Reading the article “23-year-old hasn’t produced any trash for two years”  you learn how she lives her zero-waste lifestyle. She is portrayed as a young, stylish, South Williamsburg local with goals that are attainable by anyone willing to try living zero-waste.  A picture of her small mason jar containing her two years’ worth of trash is just as impressive as the mason jars containing homemade toothpaste and other beauty products.  In Lauren’s personal blog you’ll find a slew of eco-friendly recipes, places to shop, and tips for living zero-waste.  Like Colin, Lauren is targeting people who want to lower their impact on the planet, but don’t necessarily know how to go about it. Both of these bloggers are rather positive and not pushy.  They aren’t writing to make people feel guilty for their choices, but they want to give people success stories to show it is more than possible to live this type of lifestyle.

Here is where we discuss just where that plastic that non-zero-waste people (sadly, myself included) use come from and where they go when they’re no longer wanted by the consumer.  This is an interesting topic because just as many people assume nature is “out there somewhere” same goes for plastic. Many people don’t realize that when they throw something out it’s going somewhere- to slowly decompose into tiny little microscopic pieces. The Story of Stuff is a presentation-based film that utilizes cartoon drawings. The narrator, Annie Leonard,  gives a conversational appeal to this short movie. You are taken through the long process of production and post-consumer life of stuff. Being a short, conversational film allows the viewer to take in the major components. They don’t waste their time including unnecessary or extraneous information.

Synthetic Sea goes even further than the Story of Stuff to show the viewer that even after that post-consumer phase, the wrath of plastic continues. The impact of plastic on the oceans is immense.  In this short video you see those plastic products used for a short amount of time by humans and then turned over to the landfill and finally the ocean. The Great Pacific Gyre is nothing short of “great” in the way of greatly disappointing. Small pieces of post-consumer plastics are imitated as plankton and then eaten by predators of the plankton. The startling images of  a bird’s body decomposing around bottle caps is extremely heart-wrenching, and definitely made me not want to ever use plastic again. “Every piece of plastic ever manufactured still exists” is one of the scariest takeaways of this video. It’s a reality of our current consumer world we live in.

Sometimes it’s about going back to where you’re from. For Morgan Spurlock going home to West Virginia and seeing first-hand what it’s like to work in a coal mine. “30 Days” Working in  a Coal Mine is intended to show the public what is at risk. You get to know Dale, a coal miner of over 30 years, and see how his work to provide is physically making him sick. You get to see the tremendous risks of the mine like when the ventilating fans turned off, but thankfully everyone made it out. We hear about these crazy stories about mines collapsing, but seeing it has more of an impact. I think the goal here is to show the viewer that people just like ourselves put their own lives at risk to provide the material for the coal industry, and is that fair?

Julia Corbett in Communicating Nature identifies this idea of consumerism. This stems from our idea that nature and work are not one. Very few people work outside now a days. Leisure in nature now requires equipment and a backpack of knowledge and maps. This is one of the saddest realities in my opinion.  When did experiencing nature become a market?

After a conversation with classmates about the popular brands like Patagonia and The North Face I was saddened by the idea that my fellow classmates had mixed thoughts about the popular “outdoors” brand. I found myself conflicted because I realized, “hey, this is a brand aimed towards ‘outdoorsy’ people.” Does this not fall under my term of enviro-marketing- the idea that a company that sets out to target people wanting to get close to nature is rather anti-environmental, on the premise that you needn’t be materialistic to be close to nature. What I found on Grist in an article entitled “An interview with Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard” gave me some important insight. Patagonia is the first major retailer to switch its cotton clothing over to organic (that totally explains the $100 price tag on my favorite pull over) which I may more than happy to pay for. Also, Patagonia launched a Vote the Environment program made to promote “outdoorsy” people to vote people into office who hold the same environmental views. Patagonia retail stores are helping citizens register to vote. Reading through the interview with Chouinard put my mind to ease that Patagonia isn’t just a trendy fad. There is sustenance to the company that promotes things I value. Although my bank account at the moment is not allowing me to buy another quarter zip fleece pullover, I know I’ll be happily purchasing more Patagonia for years to come.

Rachel Carson: Today, Tomorrow, and Forever

By Jessica Kaplan

Sandra Steingraber examines similar issues to Rachel Carson, but adds a ton of personal anecdotes. Her personal struggles with where she lives are brought out in her book  Raising Elijah. “Ultimately the environmental crisis is a parenting crisis. It undermines my ability to carry out two fundamental duties: to protect my children from harm and to plan for their future.” Steingraber is able to intermingle throughout her book on two different fields. First, she informs her readers with scientific knowledge that is the underlying of her humorous and symbolic family stories. She is able to capture a reader through a funny, yet informative anecdote about a bat in the house, and then draw that back to the fact that we have such strict procedure for something like rabid animals, but not for toxins and carcinogens in our neighborhoods. She states, “I began wondering why we don’t bring a rabies approach- with its urgent, multitiered, take-no-chances, can-do lines of attack – to climate change” relating her personal story back to some of her main themes. In “The Fracking of Rachel Carson” Steingraber analyses Carson’s work. As I read the article I felt as though Steingraber is talking to me about a friend, describing Carson’s feelings about being in the limelight after shocking the world with Silent Spring. She includes numerous quotes from Carson to associate her writing with different subjects, such as, human rights and biodiversity. You can tell while reading the article that Carson was influential in Steingraber’s writing and environmental opinions. 

Steingraber approaches the same end result as Rachel Carson- to arm the reader with the knowledge to advocate for themselves and their families against negligence of companies and government. However, Steingraber adds something that Carson never did (perhaps because of societal norms or out of fear of giving her enemies a reason to discredit her) and that is adding the personal touch. Carson delivered powerful messages and information similarly to Steingraber, but Steingraber includes struggles behind her cancer diagnosis to support her arguments. Carson also struggled with cancer, but never in the public eye. Steingraber writes about her children because that’s how she is able to get her point across. She writes about Halloween costumes (while she questions whether or not her son’s polar bear costume will last longer than the polar bear itself), allowances, and those important childhood milestones every parent cherishes, drawing the reader to connect and laugh- something not common in environmental writing. Similarly to Carson, Steingraber is very easy to understand. She has a more conversational tone to her writing than Carson, which probably adds to the personal aspect of her writing as well. 

Dear Governor Cuomo is a film that is the background of Steingraber’s fight against the fracking industry. It incorporates musical performances set up by New Yorkers Against Fracking. Incorporating musical performances grabs the viewer and may even be able to reach more viewers in the first place. Personally, hearing the songs sung by so many activists is impacting because you can hear the emotion more clearly. Expression through art, especially music is a great way to inform people through an alternative to a written document that not everyone is able to connect to.  This film utilized some key people in the anti-fracking movement. Mark Ruffalo, Natalie Merchant, and Sandra Steingraber are some of the bigger names. Steingraber’s demonstrations at Seneca Lake and her confrontation with a New York lawmaker show a different side from her writing. It’s easy to have a soccer mom image of her from her books, but it’s important that the film highlights her powerful words vocalized. Written activism is just as crucial to the anti-fracking movement as getting out in the public eye and blocking trucks with fracking materials, as Steingraber did. You get to see the diversity of Steingraber as an activist. It compliments her writing in an influential and powerful manner. 

In my home state of Connecticut, there are no gas or oil deposits to even set up a fracking site- I’ll take it! However, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t a target for the waste of fracking. Many states struggle with the idea that they’re benefitting from other states drilling, but they aren’t willing to take the waste that comes from it. It is an issue based on morals- is it fair to make states that drill for oil and gas also deal with the associated waste? This should be the question trying to be answered in the article, but simply put-they don’t.  Connecticut has passed a moratorium on the importing of fracking products for treatment. This moratorium will expire July, 1 2017 and the evidence behind the risks of importing the fracking waste will decide whether or not a permanent ban will be put in place. In an article, “Fracking banned in Connecticut the word, not the deed” by Susie Cagle, on grist although now outdated (from 2012), demonstrates the confusion behind the meaning of fracking. It was “banned” from airwaves. It caused uproar because of fear that it will be used in comments to mean something else, instead of the terrifying reality of what it really is, and why the process, not just the word, should be banned. Although this article is no way very scholarly by definition, it’s important to see what material was accessible during different times. Looking at this now after seeing the process of fracking being banned in New York, is humorous, but also slightly embarrassing. 

I look around today at this portion of New York that I call home for most of the year, and sense what natives of this area are unable to feel. Like Steingraber points out, her children look around at her village in Utica, at the juncos on the front porch, or the sidewalks to the library and downtown shopping and are unaware of the shale beneath them. As an outsider I admire many aspects of the land and the people here. This makes me look back my actual hometown and begin to identify what makes it a special place to me. As a non-New Yorker I am inspired by New York’s road to the current ban on fracking, and hope that more follow.

Writers and Fighters of Environmental Movements

By Jessica Kaplan

Wendell Berry and his predecessor, Henry David Thoreau, embody the true spirit of simplicity at its finest. Both lived happy, fulfilling lives among nature in its purest form from Massachusetts to Kentucky. The writing of Thoreau and Berry parallel each other at some points through both style and content. 

Thoreau and Berry felt they needed to return to nature. Thoreau built a small 10 by 15 foot home on Walden Pond and Berry bought a 125 acre farm in Kentucky. This is the basis of both of their writings. They have a love for the land they have deliberately chosen. Here, they participated in what I would call "honest work.” Living a more simple life with less dependence on unnecessary things. 

I find the writing of both Berry and Thoreau very interesting because they are logistical, but sensitive at the same time. Thoreau commonly lists purchases and harvests, including number of each and price if applicable. This incorporation of lists is attractive to some readers aesthetically, but also helps as a visual aid. It really hits home the point of how much he uses (or more so what he isn’t using). You can see quite plainly that his writing of simplicity is reflected in these short lists of items and only necessary amounts of harvest. Berry is also very in touch with what his land is capable of and had a detailed plan in order to not exhaust the land. He lays out in “The Making of a Marginal Farm” just how he used his farm. He writes out (without the use of lists, but still just as informative as Thoreau) why emotionally he chose the land he did stating that he feels that his interest lies in the land of a great-great-great-grandfather. He envisions where he once fished, hunted, and explored. Although Thoreau uses lists and Berry prefers to map out plans through emotions as to why he used the land accordingly, they give a different approach to similar themes.

Similarly to Berry and Thoreau, Rachel Carson had the same graceful organization. Her writing is based on hard numbers and facts, yet she was able to reach so many because of her effortless grace. As Berry and Thoreau both were, Carson was very aware of her surroundings. All three writers broke down barriers through their stylistic writing. Many of their styles I would describe as personal. This is obvious for Berry and Thoreau because they speak directly of their own experiences, but even for Carson she had a way of making our-of-reach concepts such as DDT as something personal to her. You know she means business by the amount of effort that went into compiling the scientific research, but I can also sense her personal attachment. Carson states, “the most alarming of all man's assaults upon the environment is the contamination of air, earth, rivers, and sea with dangerous and even lethal materials” which identifies the problem according to her as negligence by the human race. 

Berry and Carson both have audiences that they're trying to affect whether it be for political attention or raising local awareness. Through Silent Spring, Carson paints pictures of American towns thriving from the bounty of the natural environment, but what you don't see is what Carson is drawing attention to-- the silent poisoning of air, water, and soil. She pulls the reader in to connect with the environment, to feel its pain. She creates this ongoing relation of humans to animals, which has always been somewhat of a strange relationship. There are countless lab animals being forced to endure substances that humans knowingly put into our environment. Carson makes the reader aware that if it's harming animals, it's harming Earth’s other inhabitants- humans. The visuals of Rachel Carson's journey are depicted in Rachel Carson's Silent Spring; a film that helps the viewer put a face to the stylistic writing of an incredible book. 

In the film you’ll also see interviews of some of those closest to Rachel. The viewer is able to see places that were important to Carson, like Maine. This film is effective because they draw on the true essence of Rachel. Through the depictions of her in the video footage you see that she was a well put-together woman, which could have had an impact on the huge quantity of people liked her. She spoke clearly and precisely in interviews. The way she is depicted had a huge impact on how people viewed environmental issues because she became a face for the activism behind banning DDT. She has been accredited for bringing this issue to the media and American citizens. 

In an article found on Forbes by Henry Miller, "Rachel Carson's Deadly Fantasies,” sets out to criticize the work done by Carson. Something that sticks out at me that Carson did not do is that Miller draws on the opinions of many others who are also against Carson's opinion and writing. Miller comments on the legitimacy of Carson, but fails to provide more accurate (according to his opinion) information. This is something that I can draw out of the article that makes it lose credibility. Something I look for when reading an article that attacks a work I agree with is do they give a legitimate alternative? 

In this specific article I only get the point that he doesn't like Carson because she is an "alarmist” he calls her this out of the fact that people responded to her message. I see his argument as alarmist because he is trying to tell the reader that the information is not factual without providing an alternative besides to disregard Carson. After reading this article I have only one question for Henry Miller- if you believe that it is all about the threshold of intake of DDT (meaning small doses is acceptable), why would we want to ingest any substance that has a fine line between "safe" (to your standards) and dangerous? The outlawing of DDT in many countries comes from a consensus that the substance is not necessary and therefor unworthy of usage. 

Moving forward, Bill McKibben takes a modern approach to these same principles from Thoreau, Berry, and Carson. He incorporates the same importance of nature, but now you see words like laws and remote wilderness. These are things that people like Thoreau didn't have to face. Like Carson, he talks about our immediate problems in the environment like carbon dioxide and temperature rise in "The End of Nature.”

In many ways I see McKibben's work resembling that of Wendell Berry in many ways. Both raise awareness to the human races' destruction of the natural world. When I read "Manifesto: The Mad Liberation Front" I can hear the development of McKibben's environmental voice in Berry’s own words and ideas. Berry says "denounce the government and embrace the flag. Hope to live in that free republic for which it stands." This is similar to McKibben when he says we are "ending nature." Both are trying to reach their readers by shocking them and personally I react to this with concern. I think this is the emotion both writers are going for-- concern. They don't necessarily want to scare the reader, but they aren't going to fluff up the truth. Today, both McKibben and Berry are at the forefront of many environmental movements. Their styles echo the intensity of Carson and Thoreau.

Many films have been produced on the environment. A Fierce Green Fire is a film that also incorporates the work of Rachel Carson, as well as the contamination of Love Canal. My favorite part of this is in the use of footage from different environmental groups like Greenpeace fighting for the whales, and the local forces behind justice for Love Canal. I believe it is effective because of its “real time” feel. You can see through the video they use of the events that what we have heard about in environmental movements is real, and not that far behind us. It gave me a desire to learn from these events and become aware of the legitimate risks behind not only substances, but also the movements that occur because of them. I think people watching this film feel emotions through those involved in, for example, Love Canal. It affects the viewer because you see the struggles many went through to fight for justice of the land they called home. 

The works of Thoreau, Berry, Carson, and McKibben have had profound influences on how I read and interpret environmental works, as well as the natural world itself. I will always try to mimic the effortless style that I see in all of their works. 

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!