Ceci n'est pas une pipe

"The vision of sublime nature is tempered to a certain extent because it is a picture, the product of a technological process. The sublime experience has been captured by technology, reproducing a vicarious domesticated sublime" (DeLuca, 247). For the purpose of environmental communication, I think that this quote is important to look at in further detail. I titled this post "ceci n'est pas une pipe" after the Rene Magritte painting, because, like the pipe in the painting, the landscape we observe is not actually a landscape. It is mediately sublime, and what we need to know, for effective environmental communication is whether this is enough. Does a painting, a photograph, a song or film, convey the same awe and weight that observing a scene in real life evokes? Are we as moved to action through media as we are through experience?

My fear is that, in our hyper-voyeuristic culture, these stunning and often unfathomable images will be dismissed as "cool." I fear that they will be printed out by 19-year-olds with limited knowledge and passive interest, and collaged onto their walls with posters of bygone musicians and old vinyl sleeves. And perhaps this trend plants the seed of awareness, so that seven years later these teenagers remember the image they printed and choose to take up arms against it, but more likely is the over-exposure to the repeated image leading the teen to a desensitization of the phenomena the image depicts. DeLuca disagrees; he believes that the process of turning the physical sublime into a representation of it, it adds a second layer of meaning, and consequently, weight. DeLuca calls this the technological sublime, for its unique ability to create a view that no real experience could recreate. The "god's eye view" (248) in lieu of "bird's eye view" refers back to the sublime by tying it to religion and the intangible. It is this component, perhaps, that gives environmental art its place among environmental communication texts: the photograph, the painting, and the song, all have the capacity to present to the audience a perspective or feeling far greater than the one they may have experiencing it on their own. Through this sublime, albeit distanced, experience of the natural and the superimposed destruction, the artwork may in fact elicit stronger reactions from the audience than any other form of environmental communication.

DeLuca, K., & Demo, A. (2000).  Imaging nature: Watkins, Yosemite, and the birth of environmentalism.  Critical Studies in Media Communication, 17(3), 241-260.

There's More Than Carbon In Our Footprint

While we were discussing ecotourism and deforestation in places like Costa Rica, my parents were actually in Costa Rica hiking through and photographing the scenes and phenomena we discussed in class. My dad came home with a camera full of pictures, and as is customary in my family, we all sat down at the computer and scrolled through the hundreds of shots together. Coinidentally, he had taken multiple pictures of the mountains and zoomed way out into the distance to try to capture a phenomenon he didn't understand: acres upon acres of barren terrain. Costa Rica boasts endless green foliage, but as my parents found out, they omit the clear cutting that has occurred to the beautiful forests there for farming, development, and multinationals exploiting the country for its resources. My dad was distraught, and rightly so, because in these pictures, it was obvious that the trees had been cut down many decades ago and yet even more than 50 years later, there had been no regrowth of the foliage. This, like carbon emissions, is something that we have done, and which may be impossible to reverse.

One of the topics we brought up that I couldn't get off my mind was that of palm oil. The image of clear cut rainforests kept surfacing in my thoughts, no thanks to the image of a man biting into an orangutan finger I'm sure. But, although shocking, that was not the image that stayed with me. What affected me most severely was the image of desolate, decaying remnants of forests and the renewed realization that our ecological footprint is much worse than the widely disseminated "carbon footprint" the media is so fond of using. This, like global warming, is an incomplete definition of the changes occurring to our planet, and we must proceed with caution. The Adams article is clear that our fascination with aquariums and the fish within them is altering both the species in the tanks and the environment the tanks are modeled after, by way of people visiting and deteriorating the natural reefs and settings. Oil and pollution are not the only things destroying the planet's natural systems; our collective need to "have the authentic experience" and see animals in their natural habitat is damaging, too. As we saw last week with climate change, the understanding that the earth is not simply warming up has grown, coming to encompass extreme weather as well. This was a small but important distinction to make, and the next one should be the shift from widespread use of "carbon footprint" to "ecological footprint" so that our understanding of the impacts we're having can include all of the disruption we are causing to the planet.

Adams, T. (2013).  A complicated reef: The relationship between the representation and the represented phenomenon.   Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture,7(3),427-433.

Effective Communication

In my opinion, effective communication about contested topics involves a number of components: First, it must be supported by fact or evidence; second, it must be engaging and easy to follow; and finally, it must be delivered in a serious or carefully thought-out manner. To demonstrate this point, I am going to compare two of the videos we were assigned to watch to make up for the missed class on February 5th. The first video I'm going to look at is the Greg Craven video, "The Most Terrifying Video," and the second will be the Trisha Paytas video, "Global Warming is a Hoax."

Greg Craven's video starts with a front-facing view of himself, dressed casually but not distractingly so, and sitting in what appears to be a classroom. He addresses the audience professionally, albeit colloquially, and is not sidetracked or interrupted by things off-camera. With the viewers, he breaks down four realistic, and logical outcomes of climate change, weighing both the possibilities of climate change being real or not, and of us taking action or not. Acknowledging both sides to the argument lends credibility to his stance, and allows the viewers to draw their own (guided) conclusions, which is a principle method in rhetoric used to invoke a stronger alignment of the audience with the conclusion. Greg Crayven adds emotion and relatable examples to further strengthen his argument. So he incorporates all three of my components of effective communication, and appeals to the audience on multiple levels.

Trisha Paytas' video is much different; the camera is angled downwards into her cleavage, giving the audience a clear view of her hair, excessive makeup, plunging neckline, and pigsty of a bedroom. She begins her speech by admitting to audiences that she does not have all of her facts straight, discrediting her almost immediately. She proceeds with her argument, which has clearly been thought through, only to interrupt herself a minute in exclaiming "oh my gosh! I got a text message! *squeal*!" She proceeds to lose her train of thought, and keeps viewers waiting while she works out where she was taking her argument. What Trisha Paytas does very well is present arguments that resonate with viewers in a way that encourages them to feel as strongly as she does. One of her stronger points details how Al Gore - poster child for climate change - owns multiple mansions in locations that he has to fly to, and that his homes do not employ any of the renewable energy sources he preaches about. Trisha aptly states how unfair it is to expect something of society that you are not willing to do yourself. While her delivery is unprofessional and distracting, she does meet two of my three criteria for effective communication: her case is compelling due to the emotion she puts into it, it makes sense to audiences, and she supports her claims with evidence.

At a first glance, many might be compelled to argue that Greg Crayven's video is the more effective communication for climate change. If we compare just the facts, that would be true: Greg's meets 3/3 criteria, whereas Trisha's meets only 2/3. But we must include one final factor, a less tangible or measurable component: impression. I did not find Trisha's delivery academic or professional in any way, but after watching a list of video after video on the same topic, hers was the first to come to mind as having had any impact on my views towards the issue. For this reason, I credit her video as having the most effective climate change communication, because above all else, for change to happen, we need people to be affected, and Trisha Paytas certainly accomplishes that.

Fighting Back

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/britain-flooding_us_5680752fe4b06fa68880627d?utm_hp_ref=extreme-weather

This article opens with a statement that reads as follows: "Hundreds of troops have been called in to help fight the floods as residents evacuate." What is particularly interesting about this sentence is that you could replace "floods" with any war-related noun, and the scene goes from one of climate change to one of war-torn Britain. "Hundreds of troops have been called in to help fight the rebels/enemy/Americans/attacks/battle as residents evacuate." This is not the only example of the military rhetoric employed by the article; it features a plethora of terms such as "protect," "protective systems," "contingency plans," "vulnerable," "fatalities," "threatened," the list goes on. The military rhetoric frames the problem as immediate, serious, and dangerous - all things the battle (appropriately named, considering the language of this article) over climate change only skims over in its focus on a yes/no debate.

A Carbon Brief article referred to by Climate Outreach's piece on whether people relate flooding to climate change states that "the research shows Brits who think climate change is a serious problem focus on the weather getting wetter in recent years, rather than hotter, as is the case in other countries." This is encouraging in the battle over climate change because, not only does it imply that people are starting to take climate change seriously, it tells us that 'climate change' is becoming better understood, and not dismissed in its 'global warming' form when we don't see a rise in temperatures.

"It's not just something I've made up!"

The title of this post is a direct quote from John Coleman during his interview with Megyn Kelly, regarding his position that climate change is a hoax. It occurred to me that this statement is something that Al Gore could have seamlessly slipped into his speech in "An Inconvenient Truth," and something that very well may have rolled off his tongue during his lengthy advocacy for climate change. What is interesting about the present moment is that it has provided a means for each of these directly opposing views to be thoroughly disseminated; John Coleman on television, Al Gore in films, and both of them on the internet! It is much easier now to rally supporters of a given movement than ever before, and perhaps this is why the debate about climate change is still unresolved.

John Coleman, for those who agree that climate change is upon us, comes across as radical. He talks over Megyn Kelly repeatedly, backs his position with "facts" ('scientists' have signed a petition trying to delist CO2 as a greenhouse gas), and ultimately supports a position that - as he himself points out - has become hard for many people to believe in, considering the mass perpetuation of climate change by the media. However, while the objective of having Mr.Coleman on this show may have been to disprove his position, simply acknowledging it and giving it a greater chance to be heard may not accomplish the intended goal. As we discussed previously, the mention of a concept, in any light, activates the framework of that concept rather than inducing critical thought or belief. It is my fear that having Mr.Coleman on this show activated a framework of doubt in some peoples' minds, doing nothing to help the movement to slow climate change.

Despite his radical position, John Coleman raises some convincing arguments against the pro-climate-change view. His target is, of course, American climate change spokesperson, Al Gore! While I have always been wary of Al Gore, due to his increased advocacy of climate change seeming to arise from his loss in the elections, the point John Coleman makes is undeniable even without my prior wariness. He states that "Roger Rivel taught it to [Al Gore]; he got a D, and yet he has made a billion dollars off of climate change." This makes me wonder if Al Gore isn't perpetuating climate change just because he's making a killing from it. Of course I also believe that we need to take far better care of our earth, one way or the other.

So, in my opinion, as long as there are media available for both sides to use to get their messages out, both sides will remain prevalent. However the good news is that as long as long as there are two sides to this story, it will continue to be discussed and hopefully lead to an increased awareness and activity among the citizens of the world.

"Life is good, Ms.Kelly, life is good!" -John Coleman.