September 9, 2015 Post 2

            This week’s reading comes from Jessica Barnes’ and Michael R. Dove’s Climate Cultures: Anthropological Perspectives on Climate Change. The second chapter focuses on four regions – The Arctic, islands, deserts, and mountains – when talking about “How Long-Standing Debates Have Shaped Recent Climate Change Discourses.” Each region is devoted a small portion of text to show the view larger society had in the past and how each view has evolved. Each of the four showed significance; whether it was in regards to culture (desert) or expansion/resources (islands), each has been extremely important to the growth of the world’s nations.

            What struck me to be exceedingly interesting (and equally confusing) was the next section that highlighted the regions’ part in influencing climate discourse. The four regions were granted pages explaining the histories of their influence in the discourse; a large portion of this included the summary of the creation of their various alliances. Last post, I wrote a small portion on environmental injustice and that concept reappeared when talking about these regions, particularly islands. Numerous groups such as AOSIS (Alliance Of Small Island States), SIDS (Small Island Developing States), worked towards gaining further recognition to the particular problem of sea-level rise that is currently in the process of engulfing these island states. This push led to the Global Conference on the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States as well as the dedications of multiple chapters in the IPCC reports to the issue. However, despite all of this action, little influence is inflicted upon climate policy frameworks or institutions.

            As my mind was boggled after reading this, I realized that their lack of economic and political power was the reason for the lack of influence. In class we watched the film, Sun Come Up, in which, there was a scene that hit me very hard and felt very reflective of the points brought up in the chapter. The Carteret people that were forced to abandon their island home had to make desperate appeals to members of a nearby nation in hopes of acquiring land to live. Not only could they do nothing about the original problem, which was the result of wealthier more industrialized nations, they were not taken seriously when describing the severity of their condition. How can one’s heart not hurt after hearing of the real life impacts of relocation, starvation, and loss of culture? Shouldn’t this be persuasive enough in either realm, whether it is at climate conferences or in the relief nations? Let’s hope that they hold a little more power in the upcoming climate conference.

-Jordan Narloch