Activism: Resistance or change?

By Robert Hong

Activism in our current standards today is a word used by many in the entertainment and media industry to arouse feelings of lawlessness and perhaps even extremist views. In an opinion piece on Wordpress, Hendrike Dessaules writing under the pseudonym “discipline and anarchy” describes the current stereotypes we have in social media today - namely: “ loud, forceful, assertive, over-reactive”, individuals that come by such actions tend to develop a resistance to the issue that is being presented. Clouded by the same perspective in many movies, it is easy to lose sight that these individuals are fueled by injustices cast upon them and are trying to raise awareness the best way they know how. Of course, in the larger picture, there is a great range and variety of activists that don’t command such visibility. 

In movies like The East (2003), we are led to believe that activism exists in the form of extremist groups that counter large companies with daring, criminal acts of terror and violence. The plot is a quick 2-step where the female protagonist is a spy agent sent to infiltrate such a group, but eventually ends up on the wrong side of the law. While I do enjoy the factor of how emotions can fuel a group to take up arms against corporations, I am concerned at how these types of movies can affect the image of true activists in our society who are committed to non-violent protests. This is in conjunction with the movie branding the activist group as “terrorists” - which in part is true because of the actions they take - but should moviegoers be lead to believe that extreme activists are the equivalent of terrorists? At the film’s conclusion, we are shown that there are two ways of bringing change, the most important being communication. But let’s be real here, what are the chances that whoever wanted to bring change is actually a secret agent with spy equipment and is able to track down other hidden spies and shut down environmentally-unfriendly factories? While the movie is on the right track about the message, the plot is just too dramatic to believe. 

Does activism command change, or could the reverse be the case? In the novel The Year of the Flood, by Margaret Atwood, the main protagonists are victims of a culture of, you an almost say, slavery - as the society takes a worst turn into dystopia. The poor are at the mercy of corporations that control the world, and our characters are rescued by a cult-like organization called “God’s Gardeners” who blend science and religion into their teachings. The basis of their work is that there would be a terrible tragedy and it would change the world for the better - teaching their members how to survive the new world. In this case, these people are reacting in response to the world changing. While not exactly an activist book in my eyes, it does hint at a world that has undergone destruction due to human activities. Of course, this story is purely fictional, but it also shares a glimpse of how individuals can react to potential devastation - a denomination of many of today’s activist demonstrations.

In real life, activism does potentially cross into dangerous territories, especially when companies demand to take land away from natives that live in so called “resource rich zones.” In an article by David Goodman, we are given an inspiring read of how a native tribe of the Amazon suffered from the government’s allowance of oil companies to enter their homeland. Eventually, they take up arms and fight back for their cause - which was to keep their home safe. “We stopped the schools and our own work and dedicated ourselves to the struggle for six months.” The fight that was meant to secure one people’s land and to continue living became a symbol of fighting off oil companies and climate justice. And with continued effort, they were able to change the law.

But change can occur without conflict. Just by taking a stance in a group that contributes to the message of a larger issue can be considered activism. By definition, all the action has to do is attempt to bring about social or political change - and certainly, a demonstration in any group can trigger such effects. The trigger will usually rest upon the media and in the case the action becomes news, then the audience of the minute event would have scaled magnitudes past expectation. This can be seen in the film Bidder 70 (2012). Tim DeChristopher was just a student who wanted to participate in a general protest outside of an auction event when by chance he was admitted into the auction house. Without planning to, he began to bid on parcels of land that the government was illegally selling off, in an attempt to stop oil companies from grabbing the plots and using them for polluting operations. Although his bids were all fraudulent and illegal in itself - by exposing himself, he presented this auction to the media. But that was the spark that the community needed: someone to be a symbol of the environmental movement that opposed the land-grab that the oil companies were committing. Of course, DeChristopher began to participate in large-scale events after that, such as with the group Peaceful Uprising, but it was this impromptu reaction to the auction that inspired the attention and support that his campaign required. 

In chapter 10 of Communicating Nature, Julia Corbett tells us about how the media has put activism in our perspective. She also explains why it’s so hard for non-violent organized events have such an “uphill battle” against the issues that we face today. She states that this is in part because we as individuals and consumers are opposing very large and powerful corporate entities that have their own agendas and interests. Environmentalism is the least of their concerns when it comes to making profits and losing the least amount of revenue. Because any type of change in this industry will be of disadvantage, there will always be resistance to these ideas, even if it benefits the majority (such as the inhabitants of our world from pollution). Corbett also dissects the organization of massive activist groups, stating that they all start small as grassroots groups with a common ideal or goal. When the groups get large enough, usually they will want to garner the attention of the media so they can use it as a communications tool. To do this, they have to make it on the news - and what better way than to host large protests and act in a disobedient way? Of course, as individuals differ, some would take it to extreme views and take legally ambiguous actions. 

Robert Hong -- News Media Blog

By Robert Hong

Global climate change is not an unheard of term - at least not in the age that we live in. The media constantly trawls over this highly debated topic: with naysayers on one side, extremists on the other, and every other middle ground in between. With every side throwing around stories and news laced with their own versions of science and opinions, it can be hard for the average media consumer to know what to take in and what is actionable information. The basics for this major issue is that while deniers may claim global warming is natural, many top scientists believe that our world is currently in a sped up warming cycle caused by human action - pollution, CO2 emissions, etc. - all byproducts of our industries and technologies. In fact, this trend is already accepted by the majority of the scientific community. The main concern rests on calculations and projections that warn us that continued temperature escalations will lead to widespread global environmental catastrophes: more powerful storms, floods, and droughts. In this post, I will be collecting and analyzing some of the top current events in order to understand how different media outlets handle the issue of climate change today.

With a quick search of “global climate change” in the news section of online search engines, we can see that some of the top stories involve the U.S. and China - with China being the world’s current top polluter and the U.S. coming at a close second. According to Reuters, the next few top polluters include Russia, India, Japan, and then various European nations. Because the world is so interconnected today, the news is littered with stories of these nations striking deals to lower their own emissions - yet can anyone believe that action will be taken through politics? I think if the voice comes from a nation’s top administrators then the government will be transparent enough to feel the need to address the issue. This is what we see in a March 2015 article “Climate Change: China Official Warns of ‘Huge Impact.’” BBC, a London based public service mass media company, is the world’s largest broadcaster by size, and its reach spans multiple regions in multiple languages. In it’s article, we are greeted with a brown-tinted photo of pollutants from smokestacks blocking the sun. The article itself is fairly straightforward - short and informative - but with emphasis on how China’s administrative admission of climate change is rare. This article seems to aim to show us that 1. Westerners are keen on China’s policies and are ready to accept any form of change in its industrial policies, and 2. China is aware of it’s own internal demands for action against climate change. I believe that it is especially important that superpowers and nations developing their industries need to keep their numbers in check, and with articles like these, we can see that active efforts to curb emissions are taking effect in the parts of the world that are causing the most pollution. The idea is that if highly developed nations start controlling their industries, other developing nations may take note and follow in their footsteps. 

Smaller countries that do not have large carbon footprints also participate in discussions, as can be seen by the interaction between France and the Philippines. In this February article by Euronews, we are told by author Tobunko Salako that the two nations are striking an agreement to be proactive which is, according to the Philippine president,  “vital for the planet’s future.” These partnerships between developing countries and larger countries are a common affair in today’s world. The topic of climate change is graced with mention of Hollywood stars in this article, and the picture we get are the two political figures shaking hands. The article gives a sense of action between governments and their policies toward the future of the climate. It portrays a sense of urgency, but overall, it is worded very impartially as it is only stating a development that has occurred.

On the other spectrum, London based conservative news and opinion website, Breitbart, published an article “New Climate Paper Gives Global Warming Alarmists ‘One Helluva Beating.’” From the top of the page, we are given the choice to share this article on various social media outlets - even before the article starts. Instead of smog, we get a picture of an individual wearing a smiling polar bear suit with a sign that reads “Climate Change Devastates Lives.” The feel from this picture is very satirical. The article goes on to describe in detail how the information of one paper defeats the data given by previous climate change models. The tone of the piece is quite casual - as seen when the author, James Delingpole, describes how aerosols contribute to global warming, then finishes with “...often cited by alarmists to excuse the awkward fact that the world has stubbornly failed to warm at the disastrous rate they predicted it would.” Delingpole seems to alienate these alarmists with words like “failed,” “stubborn,” and “awkward.” The writing does indeed cite many scientific sources - but only to reference how the first article is able to defeat their evidence. While I believe we do need thorough and considerate opinions and facts from both spectrums, this article gives me difficulty judging its fairness. Although riddled with verifiable sources, the injection of assertive opinions in between every paragraph creates an air of bias - even if we were to ignore the irony of using an image that is supportive of the very climate change models the author is trying to disprove.  

Closer to home, American broadcasting company CBS has published a recent article titled “Answers Sought After Reports Of ‘Climate Change’ Ban.” As a reputable news network, we can expect to see that the article does give references to interviews as well as equal footing to each side in question. We are told that certain politicians are covering up global climate change in the media by telling spokespeople of various agencies to not use the words “global climate change” or “global warming.” This leads us to believe that in fact, politicians are very intent on shrouding media coverage of these controversial topics - especially when it refers to plans they plan on proposing. You can expect to see whistleblowers from many of these agencies calling for more transparency because there is clearly a divide in the agency that manages the environment and agencies that manage money. The article puts a face to the name of Gov. Rick Scott, allegedly directing offices to keep quiet with the mentioned volatile words. In the spirit of balance, we hear the governor’s side of the story as well - mentioning how he has spent millions on preserving Florida’s environment and parks. I believe this is a well-written piece of news which gives the consumer the freedom to weigh the facts and make their own opinions of the agencies and people involved. 

Another format that I have explored exists on the Letters page of The Guardian. It’s title states its intention as a simple sentence: “There are ways to tackle climate change: now we must find the will.” This page is a collection of comments in the form of letter replies in response to a recent campaign that the company promoted. In the related campaign, it referenced many sites and articles about how people are working to combat global climate change as well as facts about the issue. However, when you focus on this standalone page, we can see how media actually has affected these individuals - the majority of commenters state gratitude and approval of the company’s initiative. In fact, many people offer their own suggestions on how to continue the campaign and their personal stories of how their lives were changed. I found this letters format extremely important because as a collective, social media is where we input our voices instead of reading a general article and it is how we can change people’s views and actions. It is not to say that there is already a giant platform that exists (such as Facebook, Twitter, etc.), but it seems that this collection is much more professional than microblogging - yet more tolerable than a lengthy journal. Even though it is opinion based, the fact that the site requires registration and names per remark makes the piece at least verifiable overall.  

Meanwhile, in other parts of the world such as Siberia, we hear news of giant craters opening up in the ground. According to another article by The Guardian, Russian scientists have found giant craters in remote icy areas. This is a discovery article where we obtain information about when where and what these craters are. Apparently, as the Siberian ice melts, it releases methane gas. That can cause underground explosions which the land collapses into. This is, of course, still understudied and a speculation. The purpose of this article is to inform readers about potential damage of global climate change. It ties a very real event to the mathematical models and we are able to see some sort of perceptible event. While the article itself is relatively neutral, sometimes we should focus on the comments section of a debated topic such as global climate change. After all, that is where all the interaction between readers will occur. In this particular instance, we see people denying that humans can advance climate change. Then, we see others trying to educate them, but with sarcasm. This is very apparent in our online culture today - as many individuals who have the power of anonymity may turn to ridicule instead of honest explanations. 

Global climate change has an immense reach over worldly news, as many parts of the world are currently headlining the topic. In social media, the topic occasionally trends (having many posts in a short amount of time), but only if a major event occurs. We can see that this is a hugely debated topic - by looking at the comments section of many fair news articles, you will find a heated dispute. The government will not deny global climate change, but we also do not see a lot of media covering their actions on that topic. From what I gathered, politicians will do their best to avoid being seen as biased (or in this case, choosing a side) of the climate change debate. The majority of news organizations do portray global climate change as a real thing, but our scientific community only has models and not real life figures to effectively persuade many deniers - who incidentally actively seek out data that discredits previous climate change models. Overall, our media today does a very good job at forcing people to re-evaluate the news that they consume and through discussion, we can come to terms with very real problems. Unfortunately, it seems that the more people join in, the less the odds of one side giving in and eventually, there will be a stalemate that produces very slow results - which is exactly what is happening in our society these days. Global climate change may remain “tomorrow’s problem,” until the realities hit us today. 

Robert Hong -- Blog 3: Fracking and Environmental Justice

By Robert Hong

There is a process out there that provides us with necessary resources. It aids our way of life - our hot showers, our ability to cook, our tumble-dried clothes, and more. But this process claims a deadly double-edged dagger. Accidents can happen (and they are not rare). Mishaps would cause poisonous chemicals to contaminate our drinking water, poisonous chemicals to leach into the air, and the production of radioactive wastes that have nowhere to be disposed. Enter hydraulic fracturing (a.k.a. fracking), exploiting our land, with far and widespread consequences. 

If an intruder entered your home and released toxins into your house, causing you to become ill (or even die), surely they would be tried for murderous intent. But what if instead, they blanketed an entire neighborhood with poison (including the water supply) from a distance and claimed ignorance of such an act? Surely, if it was done hundreds of thousands of times, someone would stop them in a court of law? This is where the procedure of fracking becomes a complete muddled area (it’s not even grey), as they actually receive exemptions from agencies that are supposed to protect the environment and our health. 

If you need some visuals of what’s happening here, just watch fracking documentaries such as Gasland. This indie film spurred by Josh Fox’s concern for his environment shows us the terrible truth of the burden that neighborhoods have to endure when an oil company spawns these hellish fracking drills across the land. Have you ever seen a water faucet (that’s still running water) burst into flames? That’s what happens when the water supply becomes contaminated with methane. In the low-quality recordings, there are multiple demonstrations of water sources (streams, rivers, marshes, tap, wells) being lit on fire. Sure, its cool, but don’t forget that the methane being released into the air is 20x more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Oh, you wanted to slow down global climate change? Then why are we running on the fracking express lane? 

In a notable documentary, Dear Governor Cuomo, the group “New Yorkers Against Fracking” host an emotional concert to raise awareness about fracking. The end result: To garner the attention of New York Governor Cuomo, urging him to become a hero for the new generations to come - by banning fracking in the state. With intense lyrics and mesmerizing music, the concert teaches people about the dangers. Readings of personal accounts and experiences serve to bring the reality of individual pain and suffering onto the stage. This documentary surely does an excellent job in combining a beautiful way of bringing a threatening message.

Rachel Carson, an environmental conservation biologist, fought for us. She wrote books,  attended interviews, and pondered about environmental law. She knew that it was important to tell people that our basic rights needed to include the right to clean air and water - something these drilling companies are intruding upon. In an emotional yet straight-to-the-point article, The Fracking of Rachel Carson, Sandra Steingraber opens Carson’s magnificent thought process and applies them to fracking. At this point, you should get an idea of how horrible the repercussions of fracking are. Yet, what happens when “Somewhere between 60,000 and 100,000 wells are planned for Pennsylvania, to be built over the next few decades”? Drilling companies may see that as cheap economic advantages over overseas oil, I see that as mass murder. Not only does it cause illness in humans, but the chemicals that seem into the streams and soil can sicken and kill off multitudes of animals in the area. This is a known fact according to journals such as New Solutions. “In cattle exposed to fracking fluid: stillborn calves, cleft palates, milk contamination, death. In cats and dogs: seizures, stillbirths, fur loss, vomiting. In humans: headaches, rashes, nosebleeds, vomiting.” Is it not alarming that there are companies willing to live with these adverse effects for profit? 

At the same time, Steingraber doesn’t just write poetic justice for other biologists that have left their legacy. In her book Raising Elijah, she combines her personal humor for her ideas (such as an exercise regimen involving pedal grass cutters) with expert scientific research. She speaks to us as a mother, raising her son in this environmental crisis. In here, she makes choices about her life, explains to us why she does so, and lets us know what our own choices could mean for our environment. Sure, we could “switch to an electric mower, and reduce our carbon footprint to zero,” but she is sure to let us know about the toxic batteries we are harboring and gently reminds us that the electricity we run it with has to come from somewhere (an awful pollution bellowing power plant close by). And when she finally delves into the topic of water quality and how the oil wells and drilling operations affect it, she equates it to “plundering”, thereby personifying the oil/drilling companies. If you looked at what’s going on - where people are pressured into payouts and lending their lands to be drilled - there is quite a lot of truth in that phrase. After all, we are left with nothing but an empty cavern below us - surging with poisonous chemicals, ready to migrate up into our ecosystem one day.

Robert Hong -- Blog 2: Environmental Foundations

By Robert Hong

When the environment becomes the focus of a battle, a tug-of-war, people are forced to look at the consequences of each side. What will it take to irreversibly damage the environment? What will it take to protect it? In order to grasp the concepts that media and individuals throw out there, we have to learn the varying scales of attitudes that encompass their ideas. In this post, we focus on what is it that fuels an environmental activist to take action - the foundations upon which policies are created and changed. We need to shine a light on what influences people to take up arms against environmental damage.

Communicating Nature by Julia Corbett is an excellent source of information concerning the foundations of environmental ideas. Chapter 3 analyzes why people behave a certain way and how to predict it. Corbett gives us the context in which how a consumer would become an activist when they learn of a certain policy which they disagree with (such as disagreeing with meat products, or pollution, because of a personal belief). By this, we see how efficient important information sharing and education is toward a successful environmental campaign. The environment definitely needs consideration via discussion, which in return, can generate solutions.

Sometimes, even with the best wishes, people just can’t be bothered to walk away from their luxurious lifestyles. Corbett states that the economy has a very powerful link on our action (or inaction) when it comes to nature. In “The End of Nature”, Bill McKibben tells us that we are in effect killing nature because its survival requires us to give up unacceptable amounts of leisure. We tend to think of nature as this deity, this undestroyable thing which no matter how much we damage, it will never end. It is funny how apocalypse plotlines tell us that nature will take back the world - and some would find this an acceptable excuse to continue destroying it. Question: Who would be here to prove it, that nature does intend to reclaim earth, if we manage to cause our extinction? And still, there is a more abstract way to look at the end of nature: That if we continue on this track of controlling the world, eventually there will no longer be “nature” - that is relics of the natural world - untouched by humans. Think about it, would you consider a park “nature”? That’s pretty close isn't it? But is a strip mall? A factory?

We are in effect, unnatural, or as Wendell Berry puts it. The 20th century professor and writer turned farmer calls us “monsters”, created from our culture, and powerful beyond nature. What he means by power, is the ability to destroy nature - to “cause more damage than floods, storms, volcanoes, and earthquakes.” But even with such an awful imagery about the human race, it is his intent to shock us into becoming thinkers - to imagine a world where we actually cared for the world instead of stepped upon it. Are we in a time period, where we control so much of the world as a species, to be able to give up this “power” in favor of healing the planet? I think that Berry’s views are quite far from reality. However, it is true that he does make his readers much more accepting toward a farming lifestyle. Using beautiful images in the form of poems, he reaches to audiences in an attempt to captivate them with words of praise and direction - telling us that there is a more gentle way to live.

Henry David Thoreau was a writer, a transcendentalist, who implemented his ideas of how our world should work, in his journals. Even in the 1800s, this man created grand ideas of how he saw things being done, and how they would be better if the projects contained more thought for nature and less for human consumption. In his personal notes, one of the things that stood out was about a river in a town. He frowned upon the fact that some towns would have traded anything for a river, and yet this industrialized, wealthy town, took the river and enclosed it - not leaving its beauty, its use, for the townspeople to utilize. I believe that we can connect on his works on such a personal level because they are in the form of, you could even say, a diary. To have such emotional and private thoughts become public, we can empathize with their motives. These writings are the source by which individuals can be inspired by sense, and timeless ideas, and work to create a modern world, which even a 19th century man could envision.

We can start to see people taking action, such as in the documentary A Fierce Green Fire. Every act in the program centers around one major environmental hurdle in each decade, followed by activist solutions and the fights that they had to go through in order to obtain policies which protects the environment. The first part stood out very powerful to me, as an opening, to show us how people in the 60’s were able to mobilize and create so much pressure via ad campaigns that the government was forced to introduce acts to protect the Grand Canyon from being dammed. Had these people not done so, and had the IRS not entered the fight as an opponent, the movement would have had no widespread attention and one of our most famous landmarks might have turned out very different today.

In Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, she lures the audience with a story, telling us about a town which is a wonderful, productive neighborhood in the heartland of our country. With quick precision, she drowns us in information about DDT pesticide use and the way it poisoned the air and causes horrifying consequences - switching into a fictional state which perceives the future had the poisoning continued. This becomes effective to people who do not realise that they are actually part of the problem, and that they will be living in his desolate future if they do not take action and fast. Fear or doubt has always been one of the most powerful tools to counter inaction and rally support for a point of view.

Our society is very absorbed in our economy, our politics, and most people couldn’t give a minute to think about our future generations. How then, do agencies who want to counter global climate change go about getting people’s attentions? I do believe that we will always come back to this account of fear. According to a press release by the NSF, there is adequate data to show that if our global climate continues in this warming trend, we will continue to see growing intensities and frequencies of hurricanes in the American northeast. Targeting this area and causing concern will prove to be an effective one no doubt - as most of the nation’s populations live in high-density cities in this area. With a mix of historical data and trends, perhaps now people will finally take a minute to consider discussions about this dilemma.

Fighting a debate has two very distinct sides. This becomes a key idea because climate change in effect has two sides - the environment, and us humans. However, because we can relate to one side so well, we tend to forget that the other side requires representation. When there is no “real” opponent that can fight back, the debate becomes completely irrelevant. This is where the activists come in. They are able to paint on a visage of humanity upon nature itself, to explain to us how our actions impact our world, and how we can take countermeasures. Some will express their dismay at certain companies that are directly and indirectly responsible for climate change, giving us yet another opponent to levy against. Our current system of environmental change and the widespread desires to “make our world a better place” is because of these people - the ones writing wonderful stories of their past, the ones giving us ideas for the future. They give us the required foundation to support the changes we need, and with the right information and data, we can take steps toward bettering our policies. After those basic hurdles, maybe, then maybe, we can tackle saving the world.

Climate Change, from Consequence to Action

By Robert Hong

In less than a hundred years, the Earth will undergo accelerated climate change. Sea levels rise rapidly, weather patterns fluctuate wildly, insect migration destroy crops, and humans will swarm in the millions to move out of these large bands of desolate territories in seek of a safe haven. Eventually, even the most prepared cities will fall victim to plagues, floods, and disease. In the wreckage of our once great society, the few survivors will be spread thin upon the land which nature repossessed. At least, that’s what “Earth 2100” will have you believing.

As a science fiction documentary, “Earth 2100” does an excellent job in bringing out our inner dismay about our world and makes us think. In this day and age, it should come as no surprise to a majority of us that the Earth is undergoing climate changes. A big part of this is global warming caused by our considerable carbon emissions. Of course, most people have read the occasional news article or watched other documentaries of how this happens, but “Earth 2100” seizes the opportunity to add shock value into the experience. Coupled with expert opinions and factual information, the program adds an intricate fictional storyline illustrated with fantastic comic-style art. The original and captivating plotline only serves to pull at our emotions, and bring this story to a more personal level - one that many of us can relate to, and that we do not want to see happening in our lifetimes.

Unfortunately, what the program does not touch on is the technological aspects as well as any current information on how we are tackling global climate change. It does mention green technologies in the form of cities, but it lacks a more hopeful view. All in all, the program serves as a reminder of the impending apocalypse we can face, letting us know that we’re still in a time where change will make a difference. What the program does do perfectly though, is create a sense of urgency. By giving us a timeline, we can feel these deadlines approaching and establishes a compelling case of why we must act against climate change, and soon.

So what exactly does it take for us to go over the hurdle? What will tilt the balance of this delicate beam that our climate is currently resting upon? According to the RollingStone article “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math” by Bill McKibben, 2 degrees celsius is all it will take to irreversibly tip the scales. And in order to increase the global temperatures by these 2 degrees, it will take 565 gigatons of additional carbon dioxide to be released. These numbers hold such irony in that 2 is such a miniscule number - and this small number is the difference between a stable environment or catastrophe. On the other hand, 565 gigatons seems like an enormous amount, but according to the article, our current reserves has the capacity to release 2795 gigatons of carbon dioxide - roughly 5 times over the amount to propel us to doomsday.

In his novel “Carbon Shock”, Mark Schapiro reiterated his experiences on flights, warning us against the immense amounts of carbon dioxide that planes spew out per flight. Since planes carry far less individuals statistically, we tend to overlook this important factor. According to Schapiro, every ton of fuel we burn releases 3 tons of carbon dioxide. The only way that we can possibly stop that from happening is to work together internationally and create plans to reduce emissions via agreements between countries. Unfortunately, since air travel is linked to the economy, we can wave goodbye to something like that even remotely happening. When has our government ever taken the side of our climate over the wealth of society?

What does the future have in store for us? Well, according to McKibben, it may be already too late as we attempt to analyze these numbers without taking action. With the data that is coming in, we are forecasted to have many more summer droughts and destructive forest fires. With little evidence that we will slow down emissions - especially as our economies are so dependent on our carbon fuel sources - even if one country scales down their usage, other countries may not be inclined to agree with the plan. Back at home, a large part of politics is the fossil fuel industry, which unsurprisingly is heavily relied upon by everyday consumers. Somehow, after reading this article, I am inclined to believe that we as a general population, are not ready to make this transition yet. At the end, all we really have are numbers.

There is hope, and that exists in the technologies that we can one day turn to when the climate does fail us. But will the human nature impede taking the necessary actions when the time comes? In “How to Talk About Climate Change So People Will Listen”, an article in The Atlantic Magazine, Charles C. Mann describes the effect of climate data on people. He accurately describes how most people would turn the other way, as we individuals rarely think we can affect the collective. “How can we worry about such distant, hypothetical beings?” When we look at our lives right now, nothing seems out of the ordinary.

When scientists provide us with estimates, they range from centuries to millennia. Who could possibly tell when this devastation will occur? Who would find the time out of our fast paced society, which demands our utmost attention, to care about something that may or may not happen? When the majority begins to think this way, nothing gets done. All we get are still yet more numbers, and because of “important” factors such as economics, politics, and status, the government will never cease its internal struggle amongst its various agencies.

One thing that sticks out to me in this article is the mention of geo-engineering. That is, engineering our climate after the damage is done. The author seems to disagree with this way of going about global climate change, and I must wholeheartedly agree. In what way does anyone think is it plausible to spray toxic mists of chemicals into the atmosphere in order to cool down the Earth? If someone lets us know that the actions we are taking now is going to cause damage to the climate system, do we let it happen, and then devise plans which will further damage our health and livelihood? That is absurd, not to mention completely dense for anyone who imagines that is actually a logical solution.

To understand why we are stuck in this loop of inaction, one program that reasonably interprets this is the documentary “Everything’s Cool”. It is a sarcastic, somewhat humorous collection of interviews of various people. These people range from government officials to snow-makers. We listen to their stories, supplemented by recorded news broadcasts, and articles, and we are able to generate a picture as to why it is so difficult in our society to plan an action against climate change. Immediately, they let us know about the gap in which government agencies which supply climate change data become censored by ones that control budgets. Because of this doubt, there is a split in views and the general public become embroiled in a debate which results in stagnation and inaction. Can you believe that we are allowing the future of our Earth, of our generations, to lie in the hands of politics? How many more superstorms will we have to weather in order for the majority of agencies to realise that their current “budgets” will be tiny compared to the amount that will be needed to rebuild if our major cities become destroyed?

Currently, our in-air carbon dioxide is at 399.60 parts per million. According to nasa.gov, the temperature has risen 1.4 degrees since 1880. That is almost 75% to the 2 degree estimate, and we show no signs of slowing down our emissions. We lose 258 billion tons of land ice per year due to the higher temperatures. Of course, with more carbon dioxide in the air, it should be healthy for all the trees, no? Even though that may be true, we are cutting down 1.5 million square kilometers of forest a year. Without the tree coverage, we lose valuable carbon converters in the process.


People tend to view climate change as a bad thing. They talk about it as if lives depended on it. We say that if we don’t do something about it now, (and not just individual, but large sanctioned events) then we will ultimately destroy our current society. Some go as far as to say we would destroy our civilization itself. But even with these terrifying projections, we are largely unmoved. The world continues to emit pollution, and we continue to live luxuriously under the control of carbon power. In all of honesty, I believe that it will take some degree of devastation that we’ve never seen before to wake up the people who have the influence and power to do something. We may have to wait for consequences to cause actions after all.