Author: Sophia Katz (Page 2 of 2)

The story of Tim DeChristopher’s act of civil disobedience and trial as told in Bidder 70 is fashioned around his opponents. We learn at the opening of the film that employees of the Bureau of Land Management refused to interview and appear in the film suggesting the film’s undertone early on. The film does not explicitly explain the exact law he broke and what he did until the trial, so I found myself lacking the totality of information. As I heard stories from Tim’s childhood, entered the confines of his daily life at home, and witnessed his relationship with his mother and his personal mentor Bill McKibbens, the film sensitized me to his case. I could better understand the rationale behind what he did but it was still  unclear to me what exactly happened. I remember opening his Website and Wikipedia page to gain insight. After having a better grasp of the situation, I did not believe that he had committed a prosecutable crime.

Perhaps this was partly due to the nature of Tim’s story as one of a hero wherein there resides a villain. The film shares the value of different types of activism whether it be one person making a banner, protesting with a group, acting bold in the face of a failing government, giving others hope, and most importantly “going to jail for justice.” as Tim says in the film. While it could just be that the film does not show it, Tim never seemed distressed or provocative. His willingness to accept his sentence to defend his cause and leave a positive legacy made me believe in his act of activism. The film promotes this understanding by referencing Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr, other noble heroes that went to jail for civil rights. Comparing the actions of a 27-year-old climate activist to two world renowned leaders is the film’s way of championing him over the villain.

The film does not create a villain but rather exposes the unjust actions of the corporate entities, the fossil fuel industry, and most of all the U.S. legal system. The justice system that discriminated against Tim but not the previous 25 similar bidders. The justice system that barred evidence that the auction was illegal. The same system that prohibited Tim to share his story with the jury. The system that postponed his trial 9 times. And the system that prioritized corporate interests over not just Tim’s but the entire US population’s freedom of speech and right to protection from climate change. This unfair treatment made me further convinced that Tim’s undertakings were a form of true activism. Not just for the environment but for human rights in reminding people of their role in democracy to fight for representation.

Gage, G. & Gage, B. (2012). Bidder 70. United States: Gage & Gage Productions.

This week, we spent a considerable amount of time defining activism. Each individual has a bar, where they determine what classifies as activism. There is also a fine line between positive and negative activism even if it is for a good cause. This is clear from Edward Abbey’s novel The Monkey Wrench Gang.

Joining a movement seems like a form of activism. However, can we consider a gang to be a movement? The title of Abbey’s novel which calls this group a “gang” is where the controversy begins to unravel. Many people join gangs for protection, status, cooperative efforts, or even to commit crimes. When it comes to the Monkey Wrench Gang, a group that defies the law, commits arson, burns down forests for logging, vandalizes machinery, and burns billboards, it becomes hard for me to see a gang as a movement promoting environmental activism.

Though it’s important to contextualize the formation of the gang during a time when environmental issues were not a primary societal concern and even those that cared did not take action. When civil disobedience proved to be a failure, the Monkey Wrench Gang decided they needed to take a strong course of action that would draw attention and make change. As a group, they instilled fear in the polluting industries, the government, and the general public making them a powerful entity. They also demanded instant, large-scale action in a time when people were frustrated that their concerns were not being heard.

This kind of awareness, public attention, and tangible effort made the gang and Abbey’s novel attractive to environmentalist of the time. When peaceful protest failed to make change, using fear and extreme force may have appealed to many people. This kind of forcefulness could have attracted many and made them feel like they were part of a large active effort.

Abbey’s writing style most likely captured the attention of many environmentalists as well. For one, he uses enraging language and cuts his sentences short when describing the different environmental hazards of certain industries. This is juxtaposed with the beautiful and descriptive language employed to capture the pristine state of nature and the characters love for their environment. This makes readers realize how precious their surroundings are and find reason to protect it against those who make economic profit by harming it. Abbey also creates very distinct characters with obvious personalities from different religions, races, and viewpoints to appeal to any kind of person. The characters show care for one another and are held together by a secretive, strong bond making it appealing to join the organization.

While I myself cannot imagine joining this group, it grew quickly and established an important phase in the history of environmental activism.

In class, we were asked to define climate change. But, asking someone to define climate change is setting them up to fail. And that is because there is no one correct answer. Like many controversial topics, the environment is not concrete and what we know and predict holds some level of uncertainty. Any attempt to generalize in the defining process is a slap in the face to someone, something, or somewhere. So we ask what the climate has changed and retrieve an endless list. But first we must consider those that refute the base lying fact that our environment is changing. We call these people climate deniers because they will tell you that it is all a hoax or a societal construct for dealing with inequality. So how do we as a society expect to define a term that some cannot accept. Without accepting this basic phenomenon, we cannot recognize the causes of change. And furthermore, the alterations and impacts of those very changes. The seal will tell you that it is losing its glaciers and the person with seasonal allergies will complain about increased allergens. The fisherman will tell you he has nothing to sell and those just displaced from their home will tell you it’s because of the hurricane. But none of these can be isolated because the same rising atmospheric temperatures melting the seal’s arctic habitat is also the source for the longer growing and pollenating season causing asthma attacks. And the warmer oceans and oxygen depletion killing fish is also causing thermal expansion so ocean levels rise and move further inland, increasing the impacts of natural disasters. So here we have two issues at hand: 1-we cannot collectively agree that the planet is changing and 2-trying to define climate change in one way ignores all the multifaceted implications.

Name: Sophia Katz

Hometown: New York, NY

Major: Environmental Science and Policy, Public Policy

Three issues that intrigue me: Misrepresentation of women in science and business, Access to clean water, Anti- Dam movement

Interesting/exciting bit of news I read today or lately: Trump Overstates Size of Tax Cuts in Speech to Farmers about how Trump framed tax cuts to middle class farmers as a positive