I thought it was very interesting when in her article  It’s Not Climate Change, It’s Everything Change, Margaret Atwood stated that our beliefs are directly influenced by the energy culture of the time. For example, in the current oil and gas energy culture, there is a culture of consumption and the idea that “I am what I buy”. The entire culture revolves around the desire to make as much money as you can as fast as you can without necessary regard to the consequences. As a result, we have sought to squeeze every little bit of oil and gas out of the earth and create a global market that has become dependent on oil and gas as our primary source of energy. However my question is what came first: the oil and gas energy culture or the culture of consumption? Did the oil and gas culture bring about the culture of consumption or vice versa?

It is these questions that determine the necessary steps required to bring about a more sustainable alternative to the oil and gas culture. If it were the oil and gas culture that initiated the transition to a culture of consumption, then the necessary first steps would be to lobby and bring about an end to the oil and gas industries while alternatively publicizing the importance of sustainability.

But on the other hand, if it was the culture of consumption that brought about rise of the oil and gas culture then a transition would be much more difficult. Now rather working from the top down starting with government, it is necessary to go from the bottom up starting from the populace. We will first need to change the public opinion and culture to one of sustainability in order to initiate the shift to a renewable energy culture. While one way to do so would be through education and outreach, the chances of success are slim and the battle will be difficult.

As stated in class, humans are animals of habit and have a tendency to resist change. We like to follow routine and desire consistency both in our daily habits as well as our thoughts. However, on the bright side, humans are largely heard animals and will follow the herd mentality as long as there is a leader to initiate. While in both cases the outcome is grim, there is ultimately still hope for the future to a more sustainable culture.

I believe Margaret Atwood’s It’s Not Climate Change, It’s Everything Change effectively illustrates the social inequalities related to climate change. In fact, the article depicts the environmental injustice that is taking place today – and may worsen in the future – in a provocative but insightful way, portraying two extreme situations that are complete opposites. The author names the utopian outcome “Picture One”, where humans are able to adapt through reforms in technology and mindset, ultimately solving climate change. On the other hand, “Picture Two” illustrates a somber future, one where chaos and panic ensues as the worst imagined consequences of global warming occur.

Finally, “Picture Three” combines the two previous situations, and creates what seems to be a realistic view of how countries are combatting and will combat global warming. Several western and developed countries have already taken significant measures to reduce their carbon footprint. For instance, my home country Norway, has been a leading example of greener policy. In fact, the government has vowed to cut 30 % of their emissions measured in 1990 by 2020, and become carbon neutral by 2050. However, Norway is also an example of hypocrisy and irony. While the government claims it is doing everything within its power to reduce carbon emissions, Norway is one of the largest exporters of oil in the world.

One of the Norwegian oil rigs. Link: http://www.norwayexports.no/Documents/Articles/norway%27s%20green%20oil%20industry.jpg

Countries like Norway are set up for a picture one scenario, while less developed countries will likely face a version of picture two. The bottom line is that while rich countries prosper and remain seemingly unaffected by climate change, a problem caused by them, poor countries suffer the consequences. As such, we must change our mindset, and think about the people we are affecting. Because that is the goal of environmental justice.

The question “What is Climate Change?” is something that we ended class discussing and I believe something that is worth expanding on. In class, we came to a consensus that climate change is one of the few things on this earth that can affect every aspect of life (besides dance, of course). We agreed that climate change has a negative affect on everything from ecosystem services and functions to the air we breath. However one thing that we did not put enough emphasis on is its unfair and uneven affect it will have on the people less fortunate than most. The fact of the matter is that those who do not have the money and resources to adapt to the effects of climate change will be affected much more than those who do. Yes, in the next 50 years every single person on this earth will be affected one way or another. However, the extent of who is affected will be unevenly distributed amongst the poor. For example, when the sea continues to rise, cities across the US will begin to flood like Miami and even New York. At the same time, cities across third world countries like Thailand, Indonesia, and Cuba will go under water. The difference between these cities and the ones in the US? Money. Residents of Miami and New York will have access to media and will have the resources to be able to pick up their belongings and move to higher altitude and continue to live their lives. In those third world countries, there will be no one where to go. They will  not have the luxury of just grabbing their things and leaving. Similar to those dystopian pictures in the article It’s Not Climate Change, It’s Everything Change, streets will be flooding, diseases will spread, and yes, people will inevitably die. If there’s one main thing that will change and that we, as privileged college students, should focus on is the state of inequality in an already unequal world.

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.

One of the most powerful aspects of It’s Not Climate Change, It’s Everything Change, by Margaret Atwood, is the inclusion of visual images throughout the article. Although we discussed this briefly in class, there was one aspect to the images that I feel like we did not spend enough time discussing. Margaret mentioned how, in the first section of the article, the visuals changed from Picture One to Picture Two to Picture Three. She mentioned how in Picture One the visuals appear futuristic and fantastical, taken from movies or of models posing for ‘future’ pictures. We also talked about how Picture Two features dystopian pictures, and how Picture Three feels more ‘realistic’ because they are pictures we are confronted with on a daily basis. One thing that struck me about this discussion, that we did not get a chance to discuss in class, is what it means that Picture Two, while appearing dystopian, also pictures real people’s lives. They simply appear dystopian because we are not confronted with them as often as Picture Three.  I have included the image that I found most powerful from this section as a reference. We talked about how Pictures One and Two seemed less ‘believable,’ and how that was supported by the choice of visuals, but what does it mean when Picture Two doesn’t seem ‘believable’ to us, when it clearly depicts a real world in which real people are living? There are people on earth right now who have experienced that ‘dystopian future’ that we cannot believe. Their images are used here in an attempt to paint a picture of the end of times, with no mention of who they are or what, exactly, is happening in these photos. While I recognize the work they did in helping to paint Atwood’s version of a dystopian future, I am left to wonder how the people in those pictures would feel about their lives being used as a picture of the worst possible future.

Name: Matthew Sima

Hometown: Fort Collins, CO

Major: Environmental Science and Policy, Biology

Three topics that intrigue me: Global warming and how it contributes to the spread of diseases, religion, photography

Interesting news I read lately: Organisms living in high-stress urban medians possess adaptions to disturbance, making them more resilient to the effects of extreme weather events than organisms living in relatively low stress areas.

Name: Kendall Jefferys

Hometown: Keller, TX

Major: Environmental Science and Policy

Three topics that intrigue me: Coral reefs and ocean acidification, environmental literature, painting

Interesting news I read lately: The decline in whale and seabird populations has decreased the flow of nutrients such as phosphorus from ocean to land.

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

Name: Jake Voorhees

Hometown: Sacramento, CA

Major: Political Science and Environmental Science

Three topics that interest me:  Western states water rights laws, megafauna conservation, and demarginalization of indigenous groups from protected areas.

Interesting exciting bit of news I read today:  I was just in Cape Town so reading about how the city has approximately until April 22 until the city shuts off water and is the first major city to lose all water.