My main takeaway from what I have read so far of The Monkey Wrench Gang and the discussions we have had in class was how hard it is to define activism. Everyone seemed to have a different opinion of what activism was, whether it was people protesting Trump’s anti-shark comments by donating money to help save sharks, or vegan “extremists” threatening and harassing a group practicing cooking with meat literally from scratch. At least we could all agree that the latter was a bad form of activism, or not even activism at all, due to its sinister execution and lacking intent.

However, The Monkey Wrench Gang presents a unique situation. Doc, Bonnie, Seldom, and Hayduke are fighting for the environment, for the beautiful nature they treasure. But the means of gaining attention and standing their grounds are highly controversial, including burning down billboards, vandalizing machinery, and utilizing explosives. The group itself justifies its actions, concluding that it would not be able to gain any attention otherwise.

And on one hand, it is true. The Monkey Wrench Gang’s actions does gain attention, which in turn spreads the message of environmental sustainability. They are not harming any humans, only the “greedy” corporations.

On the other hand, although the intention is good, the execution is ultimately bad. The group is committing crimes to further their own cause, which is why I believe we disliked them in class. They can quickly be labeled as villains, even terrorists, which therefore dismisses them of any credibility.

I believe the interesting case of good intent but bad execution that The Monkey Wrench Gang describes is why the book captured the attention of so many environmentalists. We are still trying to find a way to effectively communicate our concern to the people in power, and this book illustrates an extreme but interesting approach. However, as concluded earlier, we must find another way of doing so.

After several years in retirement, David Letterman just came back with a new Netflix show called My Next Guest Needs No Introduction. On his first show, he hosted our 44th President Barack Obama. Early on in the interview, ex-president Obama said something that stuck with me. He said that he and Michelle are only special in that “[they] are exceptionally good at telling stories and relating to people.”

After our discussion of what activism is and isn’t in class on Wednesday, I decided that Obama perfectly encapsulates what I now think of activism. During my initial reading of The Monkey Wrench Gang I found myself continually asking, “how did this book inspire an environmental movement?” To me, Hayduke, Seldom, Doc, and Bonnie do not constitute a well-structured group with environmental activism in mind. To me, they exploit violence too often, and do not have a well-defined goal in mind. Since people usually describe this book as “the book that started the environmental movement”, I was confused after reading the first half of this book.

However, after Dr. Gould told me in class on Friday that some of the stories in this book are non-fiction (deeds performed by Abbey himself, I began to appreciate this book a little more. Then, after framing the story with Obama’s aforementioned quote in mind, I began to understand how this book effected a large-scale environmental movement. Abbey is not telling a story about four crazy people in the southwest wreaking havoc, but a story of four people who came together with a common mindset. He’s not telling a story about sex and violence, but a story about people who will do whatever it takes for justice. Last but not least, he’s not telling a story to brag about his personal accomplishments, but a story intended to relate to people.

Although this is somewhat speculation, I assume that Abbey’s novel did just that – related to people. Readers feel a connection to the gang (albeit maybe not the smoking and drinking), and are inspired to take action, no matter the severity. Abbey’s activism was first pushing tractors and burning machines; then, it was telling stories. In a way, Margaret Atwood’s article “It’s not Climate Change – It’s Everything Change” just tells a story. It tells a story of a bleak future, which causes people to feel strongly and relate to the piece. For me, I have never felt more strongly inclined to act after reading a piece than after reading that piece – which speaks to story-telling as a tool for activism.

After this realization, I don’t think that any form of activism is “too strong” or “too weak” – there is someone, somewhere, who will feel strongly about what an activist does. They, in turn, will act in their own sphere, setting off a chain reaction. Even if just one person relates to a movement, it was worth it in my mind.

For anyone who hasn’t seen it, I highly suggest watching Letterman’s new (lengthy) interview with Obama. It speaks to how he inspired a large movement in 2008, how he did it, and his reflections looking back. It’s a great watch for anyone interested in his style of leadership or his personal mantras.

In our class discussion today on Monkey Wrench Gang by Edward Abbey, one point really called my attention. Someone mentioned how they would have respected the actions of the gang more if they had accepted responsibility for them, or at least hadn’t actively tried to frame others. This made me think about who, in the end, will actually face the consequences of the actions taken by the gang. They are trying to fight the big corporations that are ruining the land for profit, but in the end it is far more likely that the laborers at the sites they are vandalizing will face the worst of consequences. The gang abides by the rule that they kill monsters, not machines, but what does it mean when laborers lose their jobs because of the actions they’ve taken? Obviously they haven’t killed them, but they have significantly harmed the life of someone who had no decision making power in mining the land.

This leads me to the real problem I found myself coming back to with the characters in Monkey Wrench Gang, which was their lack of thoughtfulness. My bar for activism, as we’ve discussed in class, is pretty low. I have refined it a bit since class, but not in content so much as in articulation. Any action taken with purpose. Even with a bar this low, somehow I think the gang has managed to miss it. Part of acting with purpose involved the critical evaluation of those actions, especially when you claim to be doing the same to others. The gang is fighting against actions they view as unjust on the part of the corporations, but they spend very little time considering what unjust consequences will result from their own actions. Will their destruction of machines really hurt the owner and decision maker behind the mining, or will it simply inconvenience them and require them to buy more machines. Will this decision lead to the firing of a minimum wage worker who is working to support themselves and their family? Does littering on a road because you don’t like it hurt the road, and the people who put it there? Or does it just add more litter into the world. Does your choice to pin the blame on Native communities give them the glory you claim to be ascribing to them, or will it bring more anger and blame to an already marginalized community? I feel like these are just some of the questions you need to ask if you are going to be taking actions that will affect people other than yourself. The gang simply appears to have no well-defined purpose. 

Margaret Atwood is a talented writer. And like all talented writers, her words paint vivid pictures that can sometimes feel all too real to readers. In “It’s Not Climate Change — It’s Everything Change” she turns her pen to the question of the future of humanity’s relationship with energy – especially oil. Her juxtaposition of two scenarios, ranging from catastrophic apocalypse to environmentalist utopia, is followed by a rather banal, muted description of what some people would consider more “realistic” based on our current progress.

After seeing the two extreme ends of what may come to pass, our efforts seem both hideously insufficient and terribly underwhelming. Yes, we may avoid a complete societal collapse, but it will hardly be as easy and pleasant as it appears in her “Picture One.” Optimism is good, but are we facing this issue with an appropriate amount of seriousness, realism, and urgency?

As “Picture Two” makes clear, we have little choice but to move beyond our current dependence on oil, coal, and natural gas — if not because of the climate and environmental damage they cause, then because they will someday run out. And the question that Ms. Atwood stops short of addressing in her article is: what will bring about the societal and cultural momentum necessary in order to make these changes — and which changes will (or must) be made?

In his TEDx talk “Forget climate Apocalypse. There’s hope for our warming planet,” journalist Jelmer Mommers attempts to answer at least the first part of this question. In dissecting the way that media – both fictional and factual – depicts climate change, he describes precisely the same approach that Margaret Atwood employed: attempting to frighten people into action by painting an image of catastrophic devastation, coupled with a more soothing and even hopeful picture of what may happen if we manage to achieve the impossible and collectively turn back from the precipice over which the planet currently dangles. But is this the right way to tell this story? Is it the right story in the first place? Mommers says no, on both counts:

The thing about the apocalypse is that you can’t stop it. This story… is so scary, it’s paralyzing. And psychology tells us that when people are scared, they find a way to ignore the issue. It also tells us that scared people are less creative and less prone to action. […] Millions of people are already suffering the consequences of climate change, and their suffering won’t just magically disappear at some point along with the rest of life on earth. So not only is the story of climate change as the apocalypse counterproductive, but it’s also wrong. And we need a better story. One that doesn’t make us feel hopeless and powerless and doomed.

Unfortunately, this tale of destruction and catastrophe often becomes the default way of discussing climate change. If it’s true that the current narrative isn’t working, what needs to change. Mommers claims that a message of fear is counterproductive and actually discourages action; he argues that we do not have to be afraid first in order to feel hope and purpose in the face of a challenge. But is this true? The answer, as one might expect, is unclear. A quick Google search turns up thousands of pop psychology articles about how fear is the best motivator, but real research provides more nuance.

A 2000 meta-analysis by Dr. Kim Witte and Dr. Mike Allen at Michigan State addressed this question with regard to public health campaigns. Ultimately, they found that the messaging that accompanies fear appeals is the largest determinant of whether they will be effective. And while the whole conclusion is worth replicating here, I want to highlight just one part: the more emphasis placed on an individual’s own agency and ability to respond to the threat, the more effective the fear-based approach becomes. In the words of Witte and Allen:  

Strong fear appeals work only when accompanied by equally strong efficacy messages. Efficacy messages must make target populations believe they are able to perform a recommended response (i.e., strong self-efficacy perceptions) and that recommended responses work in averting or minimizing a threat (i.e., strong response efficacy perceptions). To increase perceptions of self-efficacy, practitioners should identify barriers that inhibit one’s perceived ability to perform a recommended action and directly address these in a message (i.e., skills, costs, beliefs, emotions, etc.). […] To increase perceptions of response efficacy, practitioners should clearly outline how, why, and when a recommended response eliminates or decreases the chances of experiencing the health threat.

What does this mean? How do we educate and galvanize people about climate change without making them feel as though there is nothing that they can do about it? How are journalists and creators supposed to convey the urgency and scale of the threats to the environment while also convincing people of the power of small actions — like recycling, changing one’s diet and consumption habits, or use of public transit — taken collectively? Witte and Allen say that people should know the extent to which the problem will affect them personally, with an emphasis on self-efficacy; people should know their role in the greater picture, but also understand that they can do something about the fear that they feel. Jelmer Mommers has another idea: “[The story of climate change] should be accurate; it should be human; and it should be hopeful.” And while Margaret Atwood is certainly a talented author, she may have missed the mark with her article — it is grounded in reality, certainly, but it fails to place accountability — and more importantly, agency, on the shoulders of the reader, leading to hopelessness rather than determination. In the future, we have to hope that climate fiction (or climate realism) fills us with resolve rather than despair. It is no longer enough to see the many, many ways that things are going wrong, and focus on what we can do together to make them better.

I loved Margaret Atwood’s article, It’s Not Climate Change – It’s Everything Change, and our class discussion. I’ve already shared the article with many friends as I think it engages with and educates such a broad audience. Let’s start with the graphics. If I were asked, “What makes an article great?”, graphic design would not have come to mind before I read this article; however, I now consider it extraordinary tool. Atwood’s choice to change the background and text colors as she described our three potential fates greatly transformed the reading experience. The images also made it more interesting.

As for the content, I agreed with much of what Atwood said as well as the ways in which she made her points. Some felt she was too extreme in her images of the future; I disagree. I think that society has accepted this idea that climate change is a problem of the future, and we have plenty of time to mend things before we hit that dangerous dystopia of Atwood’s image #2. I really do not believe that the future she paints in image #2 is too unrealistic (and who’s to say what constitutes “realistic” anyway?) with our current trajectory, and the majority of our country needs this wakeup call. I certainly don’t think that that image #1 would be unrealistic if we were to increase our efforts on environmental technology and innovation; we already are using or researching the types of energy technology she lists and I already own clothing made out of hemp and recycled plastic! Image #3 is the one that we accept to be the most “realistic” as it is most inline with the present, which only feeds into the “global warming is a problem of the future” mentality. Atwood has a quote that sums up my beliefs perfectly: “If we don’t start aiming for Picture One, we’ll end up with some version of Picture Two.“

I’m already reaching the word count, and I only covered the beginning of the article! I’ll conclude by saying that through the article, class conversation, and group research, I learned a lot, both about climate change itself and about how to discuss it effectively. Also, the article gave a shout out to algae, and I’m always happy to see that! 🙂

In Margaret Atwood’s article “Its Not Climate Change- Its Everything Change,” I thought the range of pictures highlighted the different scenarios that the world could be approaching if we do not address climate change. I was struck by the conversation that we had in class about who controlled the story in the media. The words “realistic” and “normal” really stood out to me because they stem from the definition that I have of climate change from the different news outlets. When I looked at the pictures from the first two scenarios, I thought those were unreasonable. In the first scenario, the idea illustrated with the images and the words accompanying them seem like a far-fetched reality where houses are using better materials and the fibers used to make clothing comes from hemp instead of cotton. Scenario two was no more believable with carnage and chaos abound, and the world seemed like it would ultimately be ruined. However, I think that Atwood did this because she wanted the reader to believe scenario three. Scenario three shows a world in which some countries have abandoned oil and find alternative energy sources while others show little to no change.

I think Atwood did an incredible job leading us into scenario three because she talked about events that are happening in the world right now. Germany’s Energiewende has promoted renewable energy that covers 32% of the electrical consumption. However, the United States refuses to change their base load and continues to use coal and natural gas to supply energy.

The other class conversation that resonated with me was when we were talking about what the definition of what climate change is. When the question was posed, I just sat in my seat dumbfounded because I did not have an exact answer. Once we began to break down all that encompasses climate change, I realized why it is such a difficult concept to explain because it is incredibly multifaceted. However, once we started researching the different factors of climate change, it was apparent that there were even more elements that I had never thought of that would be impacted. Species are going extinct at 10,000 times the background rate. More and more species are going extinct, and species are becoming more homogenized. The loss of biodiversity is incredibly concerning because the species that are coming in and filling the niches of extinct organisms are typically invasive. Alien invasive species have contributed to the Cape Town drought, and Cape Town may be the first major city in the world to lose water. This realization made me hesitate a little more when I scoffed at the idea of the worldwide chaos. Atwood may have been a little far-fetched but perhaps this is the beginning of that world and now is the time to end that reality.

Now more than ever, it’s important that every single one of us believes that climate change is real, dangerous, and happening right now. We can either let this situation end poorly, or we can try to save what little we have left. When Margaret Atwood talked about the three “pictures” of our future in her piece “It’s Not Climate Change – It’s Everything Change“, I found the first “picture” intriguing and almost overly upbeat. In the first picture, she talks about a world where people willingly go out of their ways to conserve energy and food – nobody eats protein, everybody wears warm clothes instead of using heaters, etc. As I read through it, I found myself hopeful, but also not convinced that any of it is possible.

I could not believe picture one because, put simply, people do not like to change. Picture two scared me – the thought of a “war of all against all” is particularly unsettling. However, I also didn’t find this 100% believable, because some people really do care. When she finally got to picture three, I finally thought to myself “this could actually happen”. Some countries change, some do not, but people come together to fix what we set in motion.

In class we talked about this notion of “believable”. What makes something believable? Is it the actual statistical likelihood that it will occur? Or does it depend more on our engrained beliefs? Even after discussing in class last Friday, I still do not have a concrete answer to these questions. I guess I found out that I don’t know enough about climate change (and environmental action) to make a decision yet. In her piece, Atwood talks about how now, scientific literacy is more important than ever – we all need to question, study, and confirm statements that we read or hear.

For that reason, I really enjoyed the group activity at the end of class. We all browsed the internet for relevant factoids about our area of study, and had interesting discussions on the validity and trustworthiness of certain sources (interesting factoid – climate change causes rise in aeroallergens, increasing allergic sensitization). Now that I more understand the importance of evaluating climate facts, I will approach all that I see with the same level of scrutiny. It’s important that we all do the same so that we can understand what is truly believable/not believable. I believe that is the foundation from which we will build our action plans.

On a final note, I particularly enjoyed this picture from Atwood’s article, courtesty of gettystation.com:

It speaks so much to how our use of oil harms the ecosystem. I never think about it when I fill up my car, but if I had to fill it up next to this art installation, I would probably hesitate a little more.

The idea by Ian Morris that culture and the kind of energy we consume have an intimate relationship struck me hard. And it makes sense. The basic philosophy behind any form of demand is established by its source of creation, that is, energy. In other words, the force of what makes everything possible, including those which Margaret Atwood mentions in her writing “It’s Not Climate Change, It’s everything change” like wood for fire, slaves, coal, and oil, establishes what we can do. So our lifestyle, art, and culture, which inevitably depend so heavily on what we consume and thus what we value, cannot escape being influenced in someway by the method of how we manage our energy production. And because our culture and art reflect what kind of energy we consume, maybe we can use them to change the way how we consume energy. Maybe Margaret Atwood wanted to demonstrate through her medium. She uses a digitalized platform instead of paper to get her point across–not only is it more ‘environmentally friendly’, saving some trees, or more visual and ‘fun to read’, but it also contains a more universal application and meaning. Anyone who has internet can read what she wrote, regardless of region, religion, ethnic background, or political preference. It seems to me that she is demonstrating the new culture that is emerging due to the transition towards clean, responsible, secure, and efficient energy: a sense of stewardship, as Barry Lord mentions, that is based on not an individual, but global sense of belonging and protection.

She links such idea of stewardship to our future. If no one changes, then comes picture 2, a world with lack of energy, a world of war. Our unsustainable economic development is basically losing the war to protect the quality of lives of those both in the present and in the future despite winning the battle to provide people overflowing amounts of goods for a good life–not to mention that those who never even had access to those goods are also suffering due to others’ practices. We know that picture 2 is more realistic than picture 1, a complete world with sustainable and clean energy powering our system, because people don’t like to change, and thus even deny the idea of climate change. But Atwood knows that we either change our system, or in a foreseeable future be changed by the disasters produced by it.

Margret Atwood’s “It’s Not Climate Change It’s Everything Change” provides insight into three interesting scenarios that could become the consequences and results of climate change. I enjoyed the article and pondering what the future could look like as we adapt, or fail to adapt, to climate change. After our discussion on ‘What is Climate Change?” and looking into the effects of climate change on biodiversity that are already occurring, I wonder what the three scenarios laid out by Atwood would mean for aspects of our world beyond human concern and utility. Atwood’s stories focus on how humans would be impacted by the possible responses to climate change, but she doesn’t fully address how these three scenarios would impact other species. In scenario one, human technology and lifestyle manages to adapt to a more sustainable model before the oil runs out, and Atwood notes that nature would thrive in radiation zones, but I wonder what the cost of getting to this most optimistic, if unrealistic, place is for biodiversity. According to the Harvard School of Public Health, Projections already suggest that 25% of all species will be threatened by 2050, only 32 years into the future. By the time society would adapt to this model of living, what flora and fauna will be left to thrive? While scenarios such as converting to a sustainable system or experiencing the end of oil and downfall of society might provide spaces in which nature can thrive, the problem will be that if current climate change effects obliterate biodiversity on our planet before we can get there, what consequences will that entail?

I was surprised how hard it was to answer the question “what is climate change?”. Mulling over the implications of such a global problem, our verbal paralysis likely stems from the sheer scale of climate change, what it encompasses, and what it has changed. To understand and define climate change broadly we must comprehend complex systems and the interconnections of all life forms with their environment, knowing in the back of our minds that even a scientific understanding does not shield us from doubts and criticisms of those who deny climate change. Such doubts bring back the concept of the “believable.” Believing or not believing in science sounds obscure. As fun as flying sounds, we do not have the choice of believing or not believing in gravity – we are subjected to the laws of nature. Somehow climate change has not made it to that same realm of certainty among the human population.

In Climate Change is Everything Change by Margaret Atwood, the “believable” picture was picture 3, which showed few deviations from current politics and thought; it was believable because we know people tend to resist change.

Perhaps making climate change more believable and spurring change requires a closer look. We find a connection between most things and climate (except dancing). It is hard to comprehend such a vast problem, but looking closer, we find seemingly small examples that bring striking clarity to the implications of climate change: researchers found that warmer temperatures change the social structures of ant colonies, and soil “can play a role in cleaning and storing water, supporting biodiversity and regulating our climate.” Thus, in the ground we walk on each day lies the evidence for climate change and its affects. Like how small actions add up to real change, small examples add up to a clearer picture of climate change. A clearer picture (and definition) of climate change is crucial, because only from a point of understanding can we act.