In Margret Atwood’s It’s Not Climate Change, It’s Everything Change, Atwood reminds us of the choice we have for our future with the environment. Three options: humans have locked themselves away in an energy-efficient paradise, we destroyed the planet and are living in Dante’s inferno, or we do what is necessary now to preserve life as we know it. Atwood’s choices are not unique or different from what society has been shown time and time again. Mankind is constantly reminded of the destruction we cause to the environment yet, many of us still refuse to change. People deny the facts and ignore the current situation. When will change come? Who will lead change?

Collaborative change must be made now to correct the issues at hand but, current administration is among the non-believers. The United States is one of the largest producers of pollution and the only major country that argues the legitimacy of climate change. Every country beside the U.S. agrees measures must be made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. President Obama’s stance on climate change brought promise to other countries of the United States possible collaboration on the correcting the situation. When China and the U.S. met and discussed climate change, the world thought change may come and the major contributors would help make a difference.

The Paris Agreement designed by the UN Framework of Convention of Climate Change. When designed, the hope was countries would take their own measures to help stop a two degree rise in temperature. By giving countries freedom to choose their reduction measures, the UN hoped countries would then aggressively work further to reduce pollution and not just work towards the two-degree goal. America and 131 countries ratified the Paris Agreement which is enough to cause a significant impact in climate change. The Paris Agreement is predicted to have worked with its goal but, needed more aggressive reduction to significantly help with global warming. By getting countries to start working on reduction efforts, there was hope countries would begin to transition into other environmental issues and work on other pollution factors. The problem with the agreement is in the name. The document is an agreement because, it does not have a way to enforce countries to comply with reduction measures. Current administration is clear they do not set to follow the agreement and congress is ok to follow the lead. The time has come for the people to speak up and make their voice hold.

Surveys show 7 out of 10 voters believe actions should be made to correct climate change. People have made the decision and now must act upon their choice. Being passive in agreement is not going to bring about the change needed. Now, is the time to take action and start acting in a manner to correct the problem.

Sutter, John. The Paris Agreement is Bigger than Trump… Isn’t it?. CNN. 2017.

The science is settled; the consensus among scientists is undeniable. Yet according to Pew Research in 2016, only 48% of Americans believe that global warming is a result of human activity. The poll results go on to show that the campaign of misinformation and mudslinging that has been perpetrated by politicians, oil executives, and other wealthy business interests has permeated the public mind and poisoned perceptions of science and truth.

In class, we discussed whether we thought action would be more effective if it were driven by institutions or the public. However, much of this debate relies on definitions. Institutions can often be restricted to simply the government, or may extend to include large companies, regulatory bodies, even characteristics of the products we buy and the buildings we inhabit. Another meta-problem with the debate was the conflict between what is realistic and what would be ideal, as well as how success ought to be defined.

However, watching Before the Flood brought a new perspective to that discussion by depicting the urgency and importance of finding solutions to temperature increases, ocean acidification, and ice cap melting. We cannot afford to wonder what the best course of action might be in an ideal world, and in acknowledging this fact, the answer to the debate itself becomes clear.

Historically, institutions (be they legal, formal, economic, or even customary) are slow to change and incredibly difficult to alter without the support of the public. The abolition of slavery may have been accomplished by the passing of a law, but the ramifications of Jim Crow laws, segregation, and centuries upon centuries of discrimination and prejudice have left a mark that will take many decades to erase, if not more. Gay marriage was legalized by the Supreme Court in 2015, but this was only accomplished following decades of activism and a growing share of public support for equal rights. Even now, the legal protections of LGBTQ individuals remain shaky at best, and social acceptance remains a lofty goal for many.

In short, the government is not going to do anything about climate change until the cries of the public overwhelm the power of the millions of dollars that are poured into the pockets and SuperPACs of politicians by individuals, lobbyists, and corporations. Citizens will have to be louder than those who would prefer to have the country look the other way so they can continue to profit off of fossil fuels and unsustainable use of natural resources. And even if the institutions decide to listen to the public, change will be slow in coming, and as the documentary depicted in heartbreaking fashion, by that point it may be too late for some people. Individuals must lead the charge to make lifestyle changes on a broad scale because we live in a real and flawed world, not an ideal one. When faced with a challenge as great as the one that exists today, we have to rely on each other to be the change we want to see in the world, not the climate change we must bring ourselves to acknowledge now.

Pew source: http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/public-views-on-climate-change-and-climate-scientists/

Written imagery as well as visual imagery serve as necessary factors for effective communication in their respective mediums. The interpretation of such communication is often intentionally left open-ended. While some find a less direct form of messaging confusing, I argue that forcing an individual viewer to grapple with multiple possibilities of message is more beneficial in developing a curious and forward-thinking audience.

Take for example, Margaret Atwood’s It’s Not Climate Change, It’s Everything Change. The haunting animations used in the article coupled with the copious un-captioned photographs of times before, present, and yet to come, evoke a strong sense of mystery in the reader. Atwood, as an incredible artist, forces the act of not-knowing on the viewer, while at the same time provides a certain lens for them to view the issue. This avenue of communication is incredibly inspiring. These images of life in the future are just as prominent as the words within the article, and some could argue that they have more impact on the average reader. Business and marketing leader Ekaterina Walter stated, “Two years ago, marketers were spreading the maxim that ‘content is king,’ but now, it seems, ‘a picture really is worth a thousand words.'” If this statement has merit, then the film Before the Flood must have incredible impact on viewers, as I can vouch that it did for me.

In Before the Flood, Leonardo DiCaprio travels the world to give a glimpse of multiple perspectives of people and interviews them in their native environment. I was amazed at the specific sites that DiCaprio travelled, as I had recently been there myself. In Kangerlassuaq, Greenland, I walked atop the Greenland Ice Sheet, in perhaps the exact same spot as DiCaprio, and witnessed scientific evidence of the glacier melt first-hand. On the other side of the world, Leonardo filmed the end of The Revenant in Ushuaia, Argentina, to find snow for the set. Surprisingly, a year prior I had set sail from the same southernmost city in the world, to witness climate change on the magnificent snowy desert of a continent. While visiting these places, going back through my photos, and watching Before the Flood, I have experienced the absolute beauty and majesty of places like the poles and have forced myself to recognize that in as short 20 years, some of these awe-inspiring places will be gone or completely unrecognizable. No amount of facts or statistics could have moved me as monumentally as these images have.

I hope that the inspiring imagery that the film and the article contain show that dismissal of the facts of reality in exchange for the comforting world of deliberate ignorance is not acceptable and that it they will finally influence some to change for the betterment of the world and all those in it.

Evighedsfjord, Greenland

Ilulissat Fjord (also known as Greenland’s Iceberg Factory)

Neko Harbour, Antarctica

Danco Island, Antarctica

Note: Students On Ice is the educational program I travelled with and I strongly advise perusing their website and resources if anyone is even somewhat interested in the polar regions: http://studentsonice.com

Works Cited

Before the Flood (2016) by Fisher Stevens

https://www.fastcompany.com/3000794/rise-visual-social-media

https://medium.com/matter/it-s-not-climate-change-it-s-everything-change-8fd9aa671804#.2u7pftrle

Before the Flood succeeded in demonstrating two main facts about humans and the environment. The first is that humans have inarguably changed the environment around us for the worst. The second, and probably most important fact is we will feel the consequences of climate change a lot quicker than most people expect. For example, as was pointed out in the documentary, the polar ice caps will be completely melted in the summer by 2040. This will have an immense negative effect on ocean currents, weather patterns, sea levels, etc. 2040 is only about 20 years away.

The only to combat climate change is to address human behavior and over consumption. This was highlighted in the documentary. I felt that whenever director Fisher Stevens wanted to make a point about how developed countries over consume, he used America as an example. Although this probably strikes home with most of the documentary’s viewers, the fact that I grew up in Canada made it hard to relate to some of this evidence. So, in this blog post, I decided to research how the Canada consumes and produces energy compared to citizens of other countries in the world.

Canadians consume more energy per capita than Americans, which probably isn’t so shocking for a country that withdrew from the Kyoto agreements. Canada, though, faces similar issues to the United States. For example, most of our energy consumption is a result of the transportation services sector. However, we also face a unique issue, namely the extremely pollutant oil sands.

The oil sands, which were also mentioned in the documentary, are both a blessing and a curse to Canada. Thanks to the oil sands, Canada remains a relevant economic player. People’s lives also depend on the oil sands. According to the Government of Alberta, the oil sands employ 133,000 people. On the other hand, the in order to refine one barrel of oil trapped in the sand, it takes 4.5 barrels of clean water. That is why the oil extraction areas in Alberta consume as much fresh water as the city Calgary. Also, refining oil in this manner is 22% more carbon intensive than normal methods.

This all goes to say that the oil sands debate is not cut and dry. Although it is necessary in the long term to cease refining the oil sands, Canada cannot just stop producing oil immediately. The process must be gradual.

Bibliography

Alberta, Government Of. “Facts and Statistics.” Alberta Energy: Facts and Statistics. Energy Alberta, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2017.

“Analysis.” Households and the Environment: Energy Use: Analysis. Statistics Canada, 19 Dec. 2012. Web. 24 Feb. 2017.

“Energy.” Statcan.gc.ca. Statistics Canada, 07 Oct. 2016. Web. 24 Feb. 2017.

Lewis, Barbara (10 May 2012). “Insight: Canada’s oil sand battle with Europe | Reuters”. Uk.reuters.com. Retrieved 2013-08-27.

“Save the Earth.”

I would be lying if I said, that this isn’t a hackneyed phrase in the crusade against climate change.

In this light, Margaret Atwood’s article “Climate Change is Everything Change” is not only thought-provoking, but a necessary and exigent voice in the global climate conversation today. It is simple, yet perspicacious, effectively relaying the gravity of climate change, offering insight into our future alternatives and in this vein, hoping to inspire action.

Economics dictates, that all humans act in rational self interest. So, what possibly could be more important, than saving and conserving the only planet, that we are capable residing on? (until, that is, Elon Musk colonizes Venus)

There is a cataclysm that we ourselves have been brewing, yet we are beginning to understand as global climate change only now. Backed by wealthy corporations and powerful governmental officials, it is embroiled in polarizing, conspiratorial political fights that deny its existence. How can you even begin to solve a problem, whose existence you refuse to acknowledge? And yet it exists nevertheless.

Everything we have, everything we were born into- the life sustaining air we breathe, the rich and varied food we eat, the showers of winsome rain, the colorful and creepy bugs, the gusty winds, the yellow sands. Like the prodigal son we are squandering all that we have inherited. It is true, if the climate changes, everything changes. In chaos theory, this phenomenon is explained by the butterfly effect. This is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions in which a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state. But our changes are no longer small. Our race to accumulate more and more petro-dollars, our rapidly growing economic and technological advances are unparalleled- In history and in terms of the damage they are doing. Changes in weather patters, increase in sea levels, melting polar-caps, increasing diseases and dying species, all are pointing to our reckless and selfish behavior. We are guilty, and we need to act fast. History has repeatedly demonstrated how novel technologies can potentially abrogate established markets, and effectively transmute the way people behave, transport and communicate. It is imperative to keep in mind however, that the key to maximizing these revolutionary innovations is concurrently creating the infrastructure to sustain them. Whether Elon Musk’s gigafactory, or switching to Hydro/solar/wind power- we need to act. What we cannot do is stagnate, and cling to models of the past. The future is now, and we are responsible.

Works Cited

“Butterfly Effect.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 21 Feb. 2017. Web. 24 Feb. 2017.

Effect, Cool. “How Climate Change Will Destroy Our World If We Don’t Act Quickly (Cool Effect).” Mashable. Mashable, 07 Oct. 2016. Web. 24 Feb. 2017.

In her short story, “Time Capsule Found on the Dead Planet,” Margaret Atwood makes an analogy that really struck me. She compares our modern reverence towards money to the way Ancient civilizations revered the gods. Both entities have been carved out of shining metals and provide intangible forms of power “as if by magic” as Atwood explains. Taking this a step further, our contemporary fascination with money is staggering. Our treasury and federal reserve are like temples and its workers are like clergymen who dictate the use and flow of money.

The question has to be raised: how did humanity arrive here? At what point did belief turn into greed? There is likely no single answer; nevertheless, broad speculations may point in the right direction. For instance, by asking why money is revered in today’s society, we can infer the answer is related to value. The value of money is what provides it with the power to turn paper into comfort, excess, and luxury. Similarly, this is what the gods could provide to the Ancient civilizations. Citizens believed the gods provided them with water, warmth, and anything else of value to their lives. For these reasons, Atwood hit this analogy right on the mark.

With value being the common link between the gods and money, we can start to see the origins of the transition from religious society to the modern monetary-based society. Assuming that it is instinctive in human nature to chase value, there must have been a time when the amount of money you had became more valuable than your beliefs. This is a really powerful notion that many people would probably like to think does not apply to them. However, our neoliberalist society, increasing financialization of almost every institution, and commercialization of most resources are all signs that money may already be the dominating force of modern society.

So when did money outpace religion? It is likely impossible to say as a number of confounding factors would lead to this drastic movement. Perhaps it is associated with the Industrial Revolution and the subsequent commercialization of goods. Additionally, it could be associated with scientific advancements that offered explanations for how the world works, thus decreasing the value of the gods. Whatever the answer may be, it is important to study because this chase for more value is shaping our perceptions of what is important and leaving environmental degradation as an afterthought.

Works Cited

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/sep/26/margaret-atwood-mini-science-fiction

(adapted from Margaret Atwood’s “It’s Not Climate Change, It’s Everything Change”)

The future without bees! Let’s imagine our best case scenario, and call it Image One.

There we are, sitting in rocking chairs on our back porches, watching the electronic, solar-powered bees pollinate our victory gardens. (Not victory of a war, but the victory of human survival. Scientists postulated that we wouldn’t get this far.) Thanks to the genius of robotics, we have eliminated the need to follow insect pollination patterns, and plants can be pollinated year round. We have just one season now, a perpetual spring. We managed to halt global warming in a temperature sweet spot. Crops grow with fervor unseen before, and every day is a beautiful day to spend the afternoon outside with a good book.

Everyone gave up beef. When we first lost the bees, the cow feed took a hit, and then the cows. Tofu is the new normal, and it’s okay- really- once you get used to it. Kids today won’t even know the difference.

We live in small, community oriented towns. Our homes are low-impact. Wind turbines line the country side, arranged so as not to interrupt avian flight patterns. Solar panels and geothermal wells power the robotics industry. And the robotics industry powers agriculture. Our invincible spring is pleasant and productive.

That’s Image One. It’s nice. It’s more or less plausible. Less, probably.

_________________________________________________________________________

Then there’s Image Two. Suppose that colony collapse disorder was accelerated and the future without bees arrived tomorrow. Suddenly, no bees, anywhere, at all.

You’d notice it slowly. Markets would empty over time. First to go would be the fruits and vegetables. And after the meat industry realized they had nothing more to feed the cattle, the hens, the hams; that too would disappear. The devastation of a bee-less world would demolish whole food chains. Within weeks, panic would set in.

There would be a run on the supermarkets. Anything left on the shelves would be pillaged and hoarded in post-apocalyptic basement bunkers. Some bright minds would rally and suggest solutions, but in the midst of a Food War, their ideas would come too late. “We could clone dead bees!” some would say. But there is no substitute for the natural way of the world.

There would be survivors, after the wars are said and done. And some foods would remain. Not many, but a chosen few. (Bees don’t pollinate everything, after all.) The world population would be drastically reduced. Humanity has expanded to fill the space made possible to it by bees, and without those bees, it would shrink with astounding rapidity.

Image Two is extreme, and also unlikely, but it exposes the truth: our lives depend on bees and without them, we can’t eat much of anything. We ought to be investing a lot of time, effort, and money in ways to protect them.

______________________________________________________________________

In addition to Image One and Two, there’s also Image Three.

In Image Three, we incentivize farmers to establish habitats for honeybee populations. We stop using pesticides because bees aren’t pests after all. We plant flowers. Everywhere. Highways and backyards and front yards and schoolyards and graveyards. We create habitats for the creatures that create our dinner. In doing this, we are preventing collapse or at least preparing to weather the storm.

The death of bees could present a problematic future not unlike Image Two, but the main point is that the problems are not happening in some dim, distant future. They are happening now.

Blog Post 6

The following quote from Before the Flood really struck me: “What the U.S. is doing to the rest of the world is criminal”. For the first time, I considered the idea that there were winners and losers of climate change. After doing some research, I was unsurprised to confirm rather easily that the average American has a carbon footprint much greater than a resident of any other country in the world; yet, a heavier discussion exists that climate change has disproportionate effects on the poor.

How can this be? There is no single answer that sticks out the most. Damage resulting from natural disasters places the greatest burden on those that do not have the resources to protect themselves nor possess the clout to garner political attention. Rises in temperature will target the world’s poorest farmers in the hottest and driest areas, whose land will no longer be suitable for growing crops. Consequently, food prices will rise; the poorest spend the highest portion of income on food.

What can be done to address this inequality? An obvious answer is to say, “stop climate change”, but certain effects of climate change are already certain. The Red Cross exists, but it only seems to act after disaster has struck. Without money or power, the future seems bleak.  However, it is the people who change institutions. People that band together can create power, and If the poorest in each region unite to share their plight and bring it to the footsteps of their governments, who is to say they will be dismissed?

Works Cited:

Bullard, Gabe. “See What Climate Change Means for the World’s Poor.” National Geographic, National Geographic Society, 23 Feb. 2017, news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/12/151201-datapoints-climate-change-poverty-agriculture/. Accessed 24 Feb. 2017.

Goldenberg, Suzanne. “Climate Change: the Poor Will Suffer Most.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 30 Mar. 2014, www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/31/climate-change-poor-suffer-most-un-report. Accessed 24 Feb. 2017.

I stirs, woken by the oh-so-familiar plop-plop-kerplop, plop-plop-kerplop mantra of water on water. The ceiling is leaking again, and I looks over at the large stove pot which has long since forgotten what it is like to house the comforting aroma of grandmama’s good chicken gumbo. It’s only a little over halfway full. That’s good, though I doubt the buses will still be running today. Rolling over, I check my iPhone – yep, there’s the email: school from home. What a shame. It’s always a hassle to coordinate the class-wide GoogleHangouts call when school is cancelled – there are always a few students “unable” to connect. However, when I confront them about missing class the next day I we meet in person, they always have a convenient excuse – last week, Maddie was complaining that her entire house’s WiFi was out because the rain damaged some part of their wireless technology or something. I actually felt kind of bad when I had to send her to ISS – In School Suspension. She was so earnest, but we all know lying is not a tolerable offense. And there’s no way the WiFi was down – there’s no way a little bit of rain could do that. In fact, President Bell just issued an official statement informing us that our efforts are paying off – Igloo and Glacier, the two last polar bears – just had a cub. As I scroll through Facebook, I see picture after picture of the happy family of bears. It’s been a while since there has been this much news – typically my feed consists of advertisements from different companies trying to sell this face mask that will miraculously remove all of your blackheads or some newly engineered kind of banana that has more protein in it than a chicken breast, peppered with interesting little quizzes claiming to be able to tell your age and weight based on your fashion sense and such. As I scroll through the pictures, I find myself wondering why ten years ago those radicals were making such a big deal about climate change. Life goes on – for us, and even for the polar bears. It’s realizations like this that make me appreciate just how accurate President Bell’s slogan is – it really is just “climate change, NOT everything change.” That being said, I need to at least put on a blouse and brush my hair; class starts in ten minutes, and I have to look presentable from the waist up at least – though my fuzzy purple pajama bottoms are staying on for sure. At least one good thing has come out of all this rain!

Kevin Bhimani

Blog #6 – It’s not Climate Change, It’s Everything Change

2/23/17

The article by Margaret Atwood was intriguing in more than one aspect. Simply the artistic format of the piece gives it incredible effectiveness as it is able to marry the notion of visual depictions with the message she is trying to get across. And the message is where it shines. Painting our future world in different scenarios (pictures as she calls them) and then reminding us that we are in total control of which picture ends up coming to fruition solely based on the actions we take is a very powerful concept to think about. Whether it be picture one with everything working out so that we almost live in a utopian society or picture two in which we run out of oil and something out of the likes of Mad Max is a reality or picture three in which some countries and people adapt to the rapid environmental changes we see whereas others don’t—all have the underlying idea that we are in control of them. It is a sobering thought to ponder as by watching Before the Flood and reading other articles about our future, it is all the more apparent that we cannot be apathetic with our actions. It’s countries like the U.S., like Canada, like Germany, and the other leaders of the world that have to start making changes if they want to see the developing nations follow suit. One of the points that stuck with me from the film was hearing that India and China were moving rapidly to increase their solar, wind, and renewable energy foothold in general whereas the U.S. up to this point has not yet made such strides due to the seemingly trivial aspects of Congressional hold-ups and such. Politics cannot get in the way of something that is so much more important like climate change, yet with our incredibly institutionalized society, it does. Ensuring that our structure of government does not impede the progress of that we need to see happen will be instrumental going forward.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601093/china-is-on-an-epic-solar-power-binge/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Max_(franchise)

Before the Flood (2016) by Fisher Stevens

https://medium.com/matter/it-s-not-climate-change-it-s-everything-change-8fd9aa671804#.2u7pftrle