October 30, 2015 Post 9

Sustainability has always been a prominent staple of the colleges in my eyes since day one for me at St. John’s/St. Ben’s. Before coming to college I had hardly even heard the word, let alone had much education about it. I just thought of the basics like recycling and turning off the lights when hearing it; you know, the little things. Despite this lack of knowledge I was still determined enough to take environmental studies, and the combination of the intro class and simply being on this campus opened my eyes to a whole new set of ideas about how to live. College is certainly the best place to bring sustainability concepts to light because now, we as students are probably the most open-minded we will be in our lives. In my experience, though more work could always be done, the campuses have done a pretty good job at getting the word about sustainability out there.

            Within the first couple of weeks in my first year, I noticed a variety of sustainability pushes that occurred in everyday life here at school. The first being made known to me in the form of a sticker that labeled The Link, to be fueled by propane. Although I couldn’t help but think how much the buses emit that aren’t propane-fueled when they are running back and forth between campuses, it made an impression on me knowing that the school was trying to diminish this impact. Other times I noticed sustainability as a prominent theme were in the lunchroom and sustainability week. Clearly advertised around Gorecki were the impacts that waste of food has on the environment and I was promptly made conscious of my waste when it was collected during sustainability week. I also remember an ongoing challenge between the first-year’s dorm halls to see who used the least amount of electricity (unfortunately, the festive Christmas lights lining my hall may have dampened our stance in the rankings).

            While I did notice many of these attempts at promoting sustainability and making it more salient in our lives on campus, I couldn’t help but think that this was impacted by my strong interest about the outdoors and my intro environmental studies course. Perhaps these could have gone unnoticed to those uninterested or even slightly educated. I mean after all, I still was oblivious to a number of initiatives such as the eco-reps, and goals for reduction in turf and for being carbon neutral by 2035. I believe that if environmental studies were added to the common curriculum, this could have a huge effect on general awareness of the topic of sustainability. Yes, there will always be those darn climate contrarians that will be stubborn until the end, but maybe, just maybe we could reach out to a few uneducated but open-minded souls and improve our overall “green” status as a campus.

October 23, 2015 Post 8

When it comes to climate change, I am interested in few aspects more than the communication that takes place between parties when discussing it. Now, typically I think of climate communication in regards to the media, politicians, or any other way in which information on the topic is disseminated to the public. Rarely do I think of the communication that must take place between certain groups when constructing climate policy. However, there are a large number of acts of communication that must take place to create policy.

            In an ideal world, or in the “modern” perspective, scientific data would be given to policy makers directly from scientists and this would be the only basis for the world’s climate policy. Honestly, this view is simply too unrealistic. Instead we subscribe to the “post-modern” ways that illustrates many different groups contributing to the creation of climate policy. A massive web made up of the IPCC, research institutions, corporations, governments, NGOs, and much more can be used to show the flow of information that influences policy. One can imagine there is room for contradictions and blocks in communication within that web as so many different perspectives are thrown into the mix.

            Although there could be countless examples of how difficult having many sources influencing climate policy can be, we focused in class on the IPCC more specifically and how errors can occur due to the relaying of information across many different groups. The IPCC consists of three specific work groups, a number of task forces, and finally authors, reviewers, and contributors. Documents and policies must go through stages and pass through many of these groups to get to the final draft. Dr. Jessica O’Reilly noted two specific examples of how errors were made despite this process. The first error being a typo made in regards to Himalayan Glacier ice melt, and the second error referenced was an underestimation of sea level rise. While the second error was actually a conservative ploy by the scientist in charge to disallow any room for doubt, the first was simply an error. Due to a failure in this complex process, certain wording in the IPCC was contradictory to itself; “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.12 below) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps getting warmer at the current rate. The glaciers will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates. Its total area will shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km² by the year 2035.” Despite the complex revision process, this sentence that stated both that the glaciers will disappear and that they will be reduced to 100,000 km² was still allowed to happen. Dr. O’Reilly points to some possible conclusions as to how to correct it such as using more sources that are from organizations other than NGOs, but it would be interesting to look further into how this revision process could be perfected so these wordings that fuel contrarians could be eliminated.

October 16, 2015 Post 7

“The saying ‘old wine in new bottles’ is widespread in Vietnam…” Pamela McElwee writes in her article from Climate Cultures. The topic for the week focuses on the inequality that correlates with development and what development looks like. As mentioned previously, McElwee focuses on Vietnam and the REDD+ policy that was to be put in place there. The wine bottle analogy refers to the policy, as it resembles previous, unsuccessful plans. Despite previous failure, the “new” policy would attempt limit/stop logging and pay governments and households the amount that would have been made from the destructive industry. This policy is not without its flaws. For example, where would the money come from and would the influx be consistent? And how would it be guaranteed that the amount made would equal profits that would have otherwise been made from logging? These along many others may be why doubt is left among the natives in reference to the plan.

            As Jessica Barnes highlighted in her article dealing with Egypt and their water crisis, climate policy is affected by scale and agency. In the case of the Egyptians, they are less likely to agree with the governmental policies put in place to prevent future climate change because they are being affected by the water shortage now. Why think of the future when you are looking to survive today? The same idea applies to the Vietnamese, in that they need the money and fuel made from logging today. They are not worried about what must happen to save the environment for the future when they are simply looking to make it through each day.

            Developed countries that create these climate policies are often removed from the problem and miss key beliefs held by the developing countries. We have gone through the industrialization that these developing nations hope to go through. We are now concerned with the future that we have damaged by establishing our power as a developed nation and are in turn preventing these other nations from gaining power in the same way. Hopefully this shines a light on why developing nations would be apt to reject these climate policies.

            Instead of focusing on what must be prevented with their implementation, perhaps climate policy could emphasize the benefits of renewable energy sources on the culture. If more of a focus was placed on getting developed nations to help the developing ones skip the fossil fuel stage and go straight to renewable energy sources, the benefits could be huge! The benefits would not only be climate related. Economies would thrive, children wouldn’t have to spend time mining coal and could go to school, and the overall health of the people could increase as well. A change in thinking when creating policy may be what is needed to finally connect with developing countries and change would be able to come about.

October 9, 2015 Post 6

If I were to take away one thing from this week’s lesson on climate futures, it would be that there are more than a couple ways to think about the future of Earth’s climate. At the end of Thursday’s class, Professor O’Reilly posed an interesting question: “How does the way we think about the future influence the future if it does?”

            Oddly enough, all visions of the future do not look like this image as I previously thought. Well maybe that is an exaggeration, but I certainly have a hard time not viewing this apocalyptic vision as our fate if we do not act against climate change. This can quite simply be dangerous. An image such as this could be motivation for action if you are like me and carry my worldview. Or it could put some people in to denial because how does that not look overwhelmingly daunting? Or it could be an acceptable image if you are an Evangelical Christian because it is “what god has planned for us.”

            Understanding others worldviews and knowledge systems are key when talking about climate change. Different worldviews and knowledge systems can lead to different interpretations of projected futures and even produce different projected futures.

            So, to answer the question posed in the beginning, the way that we think about the future can shape the future. As I mentioned before, different interpretations of what the future in the picture means can lead to different actions in regards to climate change. The lack of action due to fear or acceptance could easily bring us to destruction. However, if taken as motivation to act, we can avoid this future. When talking about climate futures, it is all about perception.

October 2, 2015 Post 5

Coming to our classroom in a timely manner after talking of the congressmen who refused to be in session for the Pope’s speech last week due to his environmental beliefs, Merchants of Doubt proved to be an excellent depiction of the climate skepticism in today’s world. The film never failed to drive the point home that climate change denialism is quite ridiculous and not only is the denying absurd, the facts are irrelevant to these people.

            The film began with a nice, analogous segway into climate change with the discussion of smoking. It did a great job of drawing ties between the two topics. Dozens of shots are shown of bigwig tobacco persons denying the harmful effects of the product. A product whose use directly self-harms the user and others around them… hmm, almost too perfect. Kind of reminds us of climate deniers, especially oil company representatives, attempting to convince the public of this fallacy that fossil fuel use isn’t harmful to our planet, doesn’t it? Merchants of Doubt furthered this argument early on when they showed the shift in blame for smoking’s disastrous fiery effects from the cigarette to the furniture that surrounds it. The flame retardant portion perfectly transitions the movie to the topic of climate as it focuses on how deniers are eager to put the blame on other factors. It also gives a great example of how fake “grassroots” front-groups can heavily influence an audience when multiple appeals are made by a man in the film –one who is funded secretly by chemical agencies- claiming to have witnessed children burning to death because of the absence of fire retardants.

            Merchants of Doubt then moves on to profile two men who previously denied anthropogenic climate change but now see the light. This to me is quite a bold tactic, and a seemingly convincing one at that. Unfortunately this is not the case as we see the poor writer of The Skeptic torn apart (with lack of fact) in a lecture, and when we notice Rep. Bob Inglis’ ratings dramatically decrease when he advocates for preventative climate change measures. Then without transition the film switches to lobby groups that are in full denial and Mr. Marc Morano. Here is where the film drives home its point well. After learning all about the science and the lack of convincing others on the issue, we get to see the other side. Quite frankly, the film doesn’t let you leave without feeling enraged first. We see Morano admit to his lack of knowledge and yet we are forced to watch his cringe worthy attacks on the sensible believers. Although it tries to end on a sense of optimism after this, its best point is that as people founded in scientific fact, we should be upset. These “Merchants of Doubt” are prolonging doubt on the subject that should not be in existence. Smoking took fifty years to hold a different outlook in people’s minds, it’s just too bad climate change doesn’t have that long.