Issues in Science and Technology

Gabriella Pebbles
1152W
October 19, 2007
Globalized Warming
(X) In this paper I will show that the issues of global warming have been misrepresented by some and cleverly utilized by others, (Y) by giving an overview of global warming as it is portrayed by the media, (Z) so that people will learn to search for scientific information regarding important issues for themselves. (P1) The media’s constant over-coverage of global warming is desensitizing the public to the very real problem of global warming. (P2) In the movies, An Inconvenient Truth and The Day After Tomorrow, global warming was portrayed in two very different ways.
Desensitization and Demoralization
As American citizens, we are bombarded everyday with information about the world. Because global warming is one of the recent hot topics, it too has been incessantly reported on in the news. By being told the same thing about global warming day after day, the media is creating indifference. In fact, this morning as I was getting ready for school I turned on the news channel for the weather, and within two minutes, their lead story reported that the government had cut out portions of a global warning document. The document, which examined the health risks of global warming, had been fourteen pages and was edited to a mere six. If we were told truthfully the findings of scientific climate researchers without deletions and omitted data from outside parties with an agenda, I think that we would be able to create awareness without developing a lack of interest.

God Save the Truth!
Hollywood tries sometimes to incorporate current issues into its films, but usually ends up diminishing the issue by pushing other public-friendly plots to the forefront. In The Day After Tomorrow several sub-plots are combined to make the movie a love story, a family breaking apart, and a badly represented White House controversy. The main basis of the movie, though, is supposed to be global warming, but the writers have added some absolutely incorrect “facts.� Some of the “facts� include the idea that mass global warming would occur in just a few days with almost no warning which is ridiculous (Kolbert 55). I do agree that once triggered, it will have a massive domino effect; it is still unfeasible that eight tornados would form over Los Angeles without anyone knowing beforehand. The Dick Cheney look-alike vice president shows complete disregard for the issue even after being given several warnings, sounds familiar, no? Although Hollywood makes some thoroughly laughable pieces, there are some people who are willing to try to make their movies as factual as possible. Daniel Percival tried to be as accurate as possible in his depiction of dirty bombs in the movie Dirty War (Scholmeyer 261). In The Day After Tomorrow, the director, Mr. Emmerich, is clearly trying to make a political statement, but not sticking strictly to the facts. In The Day After Tomorrow, there are some scenes that make me proud, and others that make me incredulous. In the movie, the destruction caused by climate change, the mass exodus into Mexico is an ironic twist that is very clever. In another scene, the scientists in the movie seemed to all be completely shocked at the occurrences; at the NASA research center, many scientists were just watching the televisions as Los Angeles was ravaged by tornados, which seems very unlikely. The research was done well, however, on the formation of storms. In the movie, a model of how hurricanes function was shown with a description of the causes of their behavior. There are more examples of the movies hits and misses, and altogether it was fun to watch, but as a source of information, the movie fails. The directors’ purpose was to create a movie that entertained, and to show his opinions of the governmental response and global warming itself. While watching, I was entertained, but I thought their message was sluggish, and didn’t have an effect. If they had created a more realistic movie, I would have been impressed with their knowledge, and really felt they were trying to make a worthwhile public statement. Their distortion of the facts made me regard the movie as purely entertaining, the science was a joke; the idea that you could “outrun� ice is absurd (Schollmeyer 263).
Retribution
The Day After Tomorrow portrays the government as inactive, unwilling, and indecisive. This portrayal may represent the powers at the top, but the state and local governments have done their part as shown by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth, with a number of cities conforming to the Kyoto Protocol. Al Gore’s, An Inconvenient Truth, used some factual evidence, statistics, and scientific analysis to show global warming in its true form. It was clear, concise, scientific, and easily understandable, but it too had flaws. For example, the movie was also an auto-biography, a lot of which had nothing to do with global warming, the fact that he lived on a farm one half of the year and a cramped apartment the other half, was that necessary? Recurrent quips and clips referring to his loss to Bush the second, made it seem like he was trying to implicate “had I been president we wouldn’t be where we are now!� He repeatedly made stabs at the Bush administration and kept emphasizing what they had failed to do, but didn’t go into the details of their motives. Throughout the whole movie I saw Gore’s portrayal of himself as a nature-loving free spirit, a protector trying to serve the nation, and on the opposite side of the spectrum was his portrayal of Bush, stupid, overbearing, and stubborn. If he had enlightened his listeners about their side of the issue, it would have increased his credibility, and created knowledge about the topic. There are serious economic concerns with the Kyoto Protocol, which haven’t been brought to light in this movie. The more important of which is inefficiency. Power plants take decades to become useless; cars are on the road an average of a decade, and any progress made would be diminished because of the mass amount of coal production allowed to exist in China. Also, the main production of carbon emissions comes from mass produced farm animals, which was never once discussed in An Inconvenient Truth (Connecting the Dinner Plate to Global Warming).
A Book about the Weather
In the book, Field Notes on a Catastrophe, there is a concise, direct pattern to the authors’ writing which makes it incredibly easy to read with a light overview of global warming. It gives a summary of the current changes that are occurring due to global warming. It is effective in teaching about the issue if you have very little exposure on the subject. However, considering the publicity given to global warming, only schoolchildren needing entry-level insight into the problem would benefit from reading this book. The book portrays climate change as a problem that is slowly but surely ripping our ecosystem apart. The disappearance of the gold toads, the increasing heights mosquitoes are now able to reach, and much more are just a few of the examples listed in her book (Kolbert 73-84). Regarding the Kyoto Protocol she writes about Paula Dobriansky, the Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs, and how the woman avoids the issue by either repeating a sentence that has nothing to do with the question, for example, “Are there any circumstances under which the administration would accede to mandatory caps?� her answer, “Our approach has been predicted on: We act, we learn, we act again� when asked “how urgent the problem of stabilizing emissions was,� she repeated the same mantra (Kolbert 151). This passage gave me the impression the government has no real way of disproving the fact that climate change is impending and dangerous, but that due to economic reasons, they have ignored it and are trying to make others do the same.
My Mission Statement
If the people who try to inform the public about important issues such as Global Warming, include a little of each of the above components I think that we could globalize the issue and make it one that everyone understands. If there were a book, movie, or article that combined these factors, I think a lot of people would try to change, it would allow them to make the choice for themselves whether they will act on the problem or not. Entertainment, clarity, truthfulness, and options on what we could do as individuals are some of the most important things that should be broadcast to the public. The media has failed in its responsibility to educate and serve the public. We should all work harder to make sure the media becomes a more reliable source.

Works Cited
1.) Kolbert, Elizabeth. Field Notes From a Catastrophe. New York: Bloomsbury, 2006
2.) The Day After Tomorrow. Dir. Roland Emmerich. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, 2004
3.) An Inconvenient Truth. Dir. Davis Guggenheim. Lawrence Bender Productions, 2006
4.) Greene, Brian, Ed. The Best Science and Nature Writing. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2006.
a.) Schollmeyer, Josh. Lights, Camera, Armageddon.

Posted by Gabriella Pebbles at 8:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Gabriella Pebbles
1152W
October 19, 2007
Globalized Warming
(X) In this paper I will show that the issues of global warming have been misrepresented by some and cleverly utilized by others, (Y) by giving an overview of global warming as it is portrayed by the media, (Z) so that people will learn to search for scientific information regarding important issues for themselves. (P1) The media’s constant over-coverage of global warming is desensitizing the public to the very real problem of global warming. (P2) In the movies, An Inconvenient Truth and The Day After Tomorrow, global warming was portrayed in two very different ways.
Desensitization and Demoralization
As American citizens, we are bombarded everyday with information about the world. Because global warming is one of the recent hot topics, it too has been incessantly reported on in the news. By being told the same thing about global warming day after day, the media is creating indifference. In fact, this morning as I was getting ready for school I turned on the news channel for the weather, and within two minutes, their lead story reported that the government had cut out portions of a global warning document. The document, which examined the health risks of global warming, had been fourteen pages and was edited to a mere six. If we were told truthfully the findings of scientific climate researchers without deletions and omitted data from outside parties with an agenda, I think that we would be able to create awareness without developing a lack of interest.

God Save the Truth!
Hollywood tries sometimes to incorporate current issues into its films, but usually ends up diminishing the issue by pushing other public-friendly plots to the forefront. In The Day After Tomorrow several sub-plots are combined to make the movie a love story, a family breaking apart, and a badly represented White House controversy. The main basis of the movie, though, is supposed to be global warming, but the writers have added some absolutely incorrect “facts.� Some of the “facts� include the idea that mass global warming would occur in just a few days with almost no warning which is ridiculous (Kolbert 55). I do agree that once triggered, it will have a massive domino effect; it is still unfeasible that eight tornados would form over Los Angeles without anyone knowing beforehand. The Dick Cheney look-alike vice president shows complete disregard for the issue even after being given several warnings, sounds familiar, no? Although Hollywood makes some thoroughly laughable pieces, there are some people who are willing to try to make their movies as factual as possible. Daniel Percival tried to be as accurate as possible in his depiction of dirty bombs in the movie Dirty War (Scholmeyer 261). In The Day After Tomorrow, the director, Mr. Emmerich, is clearly trying to make a political statement, but not sticking strictly to the facts. In The Day After Tomorrow, there are some scenes that make me proud, and others that make me incredulous. In the movie, the destruction caused by climate change, the mass exodus into Mexico is an ironic twist that is very clever. In another scene, the scientists in the movie seemed to all be completely shocked at the occurrences; at the NASA research center, many scientists were just watching the televisions as Los Angeles was ravaged by tornados, which seems very unlikely. The research was done well, however, on the formation of storms. In the movie, a model of how hurricanes function was shown with a description of the causes of their behavior. There are more examples of the movies hits and misses, and altogether it was fun to watch, but as a source of information, the movie fails. The directors’ purpose was to create a movie that entertained, and to show his opinions of the governmental response and global warming itself. While watching, I was entertained, but I thought their message was sluggish, and didn’t have an effect. If they had created a more realistic movie, I would have been impressed with their knowledge, and really felt they were trying to make a worthwhile public statement. Their distortion of the facts made me regard the movie as purely entertaining, the science was a joke; the idea that you could “outrun� ice is absurd (Schollmeyer 263).
Retribution
The Day After Tomorrow portrays the government as inactive, unwilling, and indecisive. This portrayal may represent the powers at the top, but the state and local governments have done their part as shown by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth, with a number of cities conforming to the Kyoto Protocol. Al Gore’s, An Inconvenient Truth, used some factual evidence, statistics, and scientific analysis to show global warming in its true form. It was clear, concise, scientific, and easily understandable, but it too had flaws. For example, the movie was also an auto-biography, a lot of which had nothing to do with global warming, the fact that he lived on a farm one half of the year and a cramped apartment the other half, was that necessary? Recurrent quips and clips referring to his loss to Bush the second, made it seem like he was trying to implicate “had I been president we wouldn’t be where we are now!� He repeatedly made stabs at the Bush administration and kept emphasizing what they had failed to do, but didn’t go into the details of their motives. Throughout the whole movie I saw Gore’s portrayal of himself as a nature-loving free spirit, a protector trying to serve the nation, and on the opposite side of the spectrum was his portrayal of Bush, stupid, overbearing, and stubborn. If he had enlightened his listeners about their side of the issue, it would have increased his credibility, and created knowledge about the topic. There are serious economic concerns with the Kyoto Protocol, which haven’t been brought to light in this movie. The more important of which is inefficiency. Power plants take decades to become useless; cars are on the road an average of a decade, and any progress made would be diminished because of the mass amount of coal production allowed to exist in China. Also, the main production of carbon emissions comes from mass produced farm animals, which was never once discussed in An Inconvenient Truth (Connecting the Dinner Plate to Global Warming).
A Book about the Weather
In the book, Field Notes on a Catastrophe, there is a concise, direct pattern to the authors’ writing which makes it incredibly easy to read with a light overview of global warming. It gives a summary of the current changes that are occurring due to global warming. It is effective in teaching about the issue if you have very little exposure on the subject. However, considering the publicity given to global warming, only schoolchildren needing entry-level insight into the problem would benefit from reading this book. The book portrays climate change as a problem that is slowly but surely ripping our ecosystem apart. The disappearance of the gold toads, the increasing heights mosquitoes are now able to reach, and much more are just a few of the examples listed in her book (Kolbert 73-84). Regarding the Kyoto Protocol she writes about Paula Dobriansky, the Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs, and how the woman avoids the issue by either repeating a sentence that has nothing to do with the question, for example, “Are there any circumstances under which the administration would accede to mandatory caps?� her answer, “Our approach has been predicted on: We act, we learn, we act again� when asked “how urgent the problem of stabilizing emissions was,� she repeated the same mantra (Kolbert 151). This passage gave me the impression the government has no real way of disproving the fact that climate change is impending and dangerous, but that due to economic reasons, they have ignored it and are trying to make others do the same.
My Mission Statement
If the people who try to inform the public about important issues such as Global Warming, include a little of each of the above components I think that we could globalize the issue and make it one that everyone understands. If there were a book, movie, or article that combined these factors, I think a lot of people would try to change, it would allow them to make the choice for themselves whether they will act on the problem or not. Entertainment, clarity, truthfulness, and options on what we could do as individuals are some of the most important things that should be broadcast to the public. The media has failed in its responsibility to educate and serve the public. We should all work harder to make sure the media becomes a more reliable source.

Works Cited
1.) Kolbert, Elizabeth. Field Notes From a Catastrophe. New York: Bloomsbury, 2006
2.) The Day After Tomorrow. Dir. Roland Emmerich. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, 2004
3.) An Inconvenient Truth. Dir. Davis Guggenheim. Lawrence Bender Productions, 2006
4.) Greene, Brian, Ed. The Best Science and Nature Writing. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2006.
a.) Schollmeyer, Josh. Lights, Camera, Armageddon.

Posted by Gabriella Pebbles at 8:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Download file

Nathan Otto
1152W
10/24/07

Three Portrayals

“You are what you eat.� We’ve all heard the old saying, reminding us that what we take in, we can’t help but manifest. A similar axiom might apply to other things we take in, like information. Granted, “you are what you read, hear, and/or watch� just doesn’t have the same ring to it, but it’s operating along the same lines.
But, in yet another difference between humans and food, (P1) creative artists use a variety of techniques to influence how we take in what they are telling us. By creative artists I mean writers, directors, and performers, and more specifically I refer to those involved in the works The Day After Tomorrow (DAT), An Inconvenient Truth (AIT), and Field Notes from a Catastrophe.
Some go for the most sensational images and the loudest sounds. Others go for the slideshow presentation. Josh Schoolmeyer – in his article “Lights, Camera, Armageddon� notes, “[E]xperts get it right; Hollywood delivers the crowds…[various media portrayals] linger in the collective conscious of the public,� (Schollmeyer p. 259). (P2) Such different techniques demonstrate an intent to pursue different audiences, or at the very least, to pursue different roles in the same audience. For example, a particular series of nightshow jokes on current events may not be meant to serve as people’s primary news source, although it uses politics and news as its substrate, and could very well bring up a story or issue that the viewer was unaware of.
(X) By comparing and contrasting Field Notes, DAT, and AIT
(Y) this paper will evaluate their respective techniques, goals, and intended audiences,
(Z) in order to examine how media sources specifically present the issue of climate change.

The Day After Tomorrow
“You have to get out of there…the temperature is falling at 10 degrees per second!� With that terrible line, The Day After Tomorrow cemented its place in my mind as one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen, and left its protagonists with a mere 30 seconds until absolute zero was reached, rendering any motion, molecular or otherwise, completely impossible.
In the beginning, it is possible that this movie was originally intended to do some good. Though Hollywood reeks of opportunistic capitalism, many of the writers and directors probably had some truly artistic roots and intentions deep inside them somewhere, at some time. But ultimately, any semblance of respectably artistic, persuasive, or credible characteristics were horribly mutated in the name of sensationalism.
The idea for DAT may have been centered on climate change, but the writers quickly tacked on a love story, dad-son issues, crappy science, and man-hunting wolves on top of the instantly-induced ice age plot. As such, the movie sacrificed an originally plausible appeal to environmentalism for people who like a little less talk, a little more action.
The movie was not all bad. One interesting technique was to cast the concept of climate change as inducing colder temperatures. I think that one of the leading reasons that global warming is not being confronted more forcefully is that – seriously - people generally like warm weather. And, in an extra twist of irony, the nations that are contributing the most greenhouse gases to the earth’s atmosphere are generally in cooler climates, where warmth is celebrated and enjoyed. Vladimir Putin has already joked about global warming possibly benefiting Russia (commondreams.com), and much of China, Europe, and the US – the three primary contributors to climate change – probably wouldn’t mind being a little warmer. By recasting climate change as something that would induce snow, wind, and chattering teeth, DAT paints a far more chilling picture of anthropogenic effects.
Another point to notice about the movie is how the relationship between the industrialized nations and other parts of the world is portrayed. Besides some table scrap footage of hail in Tokyo, the movie focuses almost exclusively on America, the UK, and Mexico – three of the only countries people who enjoy movies like this could probably find on a map. The developing world is cast as basically detached from the whole situation. This seems to focus the consequences of climate change more acutely: not just vague reports of flooding in Bangladesh and droughts in Sudan, the problem hits New York and Los Angeles, two of the only cities people who enjoy movies like this could probably find on a map. This is another possibly effective – yet nauseously superficial – technique.
Ultimately, DAT serves a role of action movie meant mostly to entertain.
Environmental activist and Guardian columnist George Monbiot called The Day After Tomorrow "a great movie and lousy science." (film.guardian.co.uk). What is frightening, of course, is that movies like this somehow make their way – either consciously or not – as a substitute to actual discussion, reflection, and research of serious issues for many lay audiences. Of course, movies can serve as a catalyst for getting people interested in an issue, but - since some audiences will undoubtedly come away misinformed - the issue has to be more accurately represented than DAT’s portrayal to do any good.

An Inconvenient Truth…
…is a far more educational, accurate, intriguing, and useful movie on almost every measurable level. The data is examined much more thoroughly; heck, first of all: there is data. Additionally, although Al Gore describes climate change as “a planetary emergency� the movie’s claims and portrayals of disasters are much milder and more believable - there is nowhere near the scale of DAT’s sensationalist apocalypse.
This makes AIT a more credible film almost by default. It seems that the common rhetorical technique of calmly telling people we are on the brink of annihilation is for some reason more persuasive to audiences than shaking them by their shirt collar.
Gore uses a variety of other techniques persuasively in the film. His remarkable intelligence – both in terms of academic material and socially – is evident within the first few minutes of hearing him talk. He begins by acknowledging his elephant-in-the-room status “I used to be the next president of the United States�, but quickly emphasizes moving past that to the greater issue at hand.
To a significant extent Gore’s persuasiveness probably varies proportionally with people’s pre-existing political convictions, but thoughtful audiences will be able to distinguish the more objective material from the more politically-influenced. As an example, Gore at one point notes that should the western Antarctic ice sheet melt completely, sea levels could rise by as much as 15 feet. Here, it is easy for critics to point out that the 15 feet is a highly-contested number, and that in reality, the rise in sea levels could be much lower. Gore uses a high number in order to encourage urgency and - ornery people would say – to inflate his importance and status. This does not, however, detract meaningfully from Gore’s more fundamental points: that humans are responsible for rapid warming, that rapid warming has physically observable consequences, that such rapid and observable consequences will probably have some immediately negative effects, and that further effects are unknown and thus, should be minimized to avoid unpredictable environmental changes. All of this is backed up with generally well-established scientific evidence. The Associated Press contacted climate researchers and questioned them about the film's veracity. All 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie and responded said that Gore conveyed the science correctly (washingtonpost.com)
Gore himself might say that whether his film is successful or not will be answered in the coming years by what measures we take to reduce climate change. But judging success on a smaller scale, I think it is fair to say that it was quite successful. The film won the 2006 Academy Award for Documentary Feature, has grossed over $24 million in the U.S. and over $49 million worldwide as of June 3, 2007 (boxofficemojo.com). On top of that, Gore was just recently awarded a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his exemplary commitment to raising awareness of climate change, largely due to AIT and his traveling presentations.
AIT is intended for a much different audience than DAT. Whereas the latter goes straight for the jugular with sensationalist action scenes, AIT is basically a slideshow presentation with outstanding editing. One remarkable quality to AIT, however, is its accessibility; the material presented is scientifically rigorous, but Gore integrates examples, corollaries, and helpful anecdotes and comparisons. The audience is really anybody interested in world issues who is not so politically biased that they refuse to listen to a person of the opposite party speak.

Field Notes from a Catastrophe
Field Notes from a Catastrophe is roughly divided into three main parts: i) anecdotal and statistical case-studies, ii) a more scientific approach and explanation of the anticipated problems, and iii) how relevant politics and individual actions affect climate change.
Organizing and devoting more time to each of these aspects than either DAT or AIT, Field Notes is in a category unto itself. By printing relevant data, graphs, and figures, Field Notes allows the audience to absorb the information at their leisure, taking as much time as they need to understand the discussion at hand. Such a phenomenon is an inherent strength of printed media. Whereas, a movie whisks you along whether or not you were paying very much attention to the last line, you can go back and re-read if you get to the end of a paragraph and realize you weren’t concentrating.
Additionally, the material is made quite accessible such that reading and/or re-reading is not threatening to the audience. Kolbert does an excellent job of providing easy-to-follow examples with what she is talking about: Never heard of the Keeling Curve? There’s a graph on page 43 illustrating the idea. And Kolbert can delve into a level of detail that neither an oral presentation nor a Hollywood action film would go into. “A kilowatt-hour of electricity delivered from a coal-fired plant will produce slightly more than half a pound of carbon, while if the power is origination from a plant that runs on natural gas, it will produce roughly half that amount.� (Kolbert p. 135)
Such a statement coming from Jake Gylenhall would have production companies choking on their coffee, and Al Gore already has to fight off a perception – albeit dwindling - as a boring speaker.
Overall, Kolbert’s audience probably overlaps with that of AIT substantially. In both cases, readers or viewers are going out of their way to absorb information that is going to be, much to Elvis’ chagrin, a little more talk, a little less action. And they probably like it that way. Kolbert shares a goal with Gore – and arguably much of their audiences - in using their work to raise attention to an issue that they both know is bigger than their careers, and the audience that they are both appealing to is generally aware of that.
Kolbert ends up delivering a very well-rounded book that uses its variety and accessibility to effectively illustrate several important points in the climate change discussion. Again, she would probably argue that the ultimate success of all three of these works will be determined by the actions the world takes in response to this challenge.

Other Pieces of the Puzzle
Ultimately, each of these forms of media presents just a part of the entire picture – in this case of climate change. There is still much of the issue that is not addressed by these three works. Indeed, in her article “Connecting Dinner Plate to Climate Change�, Claudia Deutsch illustrates PETA’s frustration at the lack of attention given to the impact that livestock raised specifically for food have on our atmosphere.
Much has been written about climate change. It is important to recognize the probability that no one source is going to give us all the data, interpretation, and perspective we need to develop our knowledge on a given issue. In some senses an emphasis on one aspect of the situation often comes at the expense of another, e.g. technical detail for emotional appeal. For an issue like climate change, a balance of media is crucial for illustrating both the importance and methodology of this immense challenge to our future.

Works Cited:

An Inconvenient Truth. Dir. Davis Guggenheim. Perf. Al Gore. Paramount Classics
2006

Box Office Mojo. 2007. Box Office Mojo Movie Review. 18 Oct. 2007
http://boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=documentary.htm

Guardian Unlimited. 14 May 2004. The Guardian Newspaper. 19 Oct. 2007
http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,4120,1215824,00.html

Kolbert Elizabeth. Field Notes from a Catastrophe. New York: Bloomsbury, 2006.

The Day After Tomorrow. Dir. Roland Emmerich. Perf. Dennis Quaid, Jake Gyllenhaal,
Emmy Rossum. 20th Century Fox 2004

Washingtonpost.com. 27 Jun 2006. The Washington Post Newspaper. 18 Oct. 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/06/27/.html

Posted by Nathan Otto at 7:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In comparing and contrasting critical evidence and events as portrayed in An Inconvenient Truth, The Day After Tomorrow, and Field Notes on a Catastrophe, the fact that global warming is, and if unregulated will continue to take a devastating toll on earth in the form of climate change has become alarmingly clear. In this paper I will show (X) global warming is a critical issue requiring immediate attention by (Y) suggesting that we as individual Americans need to actively address this inevitably disastrous cycle (Z) in efforts to provide a sustainable environmental policy for the health of future generations. (Premise 1) In large, global climate change is real and devastating. (Premise 2) Economically, it is advantageous for us as Americans to initiate green technology as we use our role of superpower to set prescient for the rest of the modern world. (Premise 3) Even though the current administration has neglected this issue in the form of comprehensive legislation, addressing global climate change is happening from a grass roots approach and is proving itself as a viable approach.

The Facts of Global Warming
Josh Schollmeyer states it best when he concludes the media bombards us with speculative doomsday scenarios that lack both analysis and context. This statement adequately applies to the film The Day After Tomorrow as this docudrama creates a series of plausible effects resulting from the impact of global warming while neglecting an accurate time frame, as these events would take a minimum of several decades to occur (The Day). In addition to the inaccurate time analysis, the film is simply an element of Hollywood. As Schollmeyer continues, “Those who see Hollywood as a medium for political change will learn that popular culture can only do so much – especially when the government still has not quite worked out the story line� (Schollmeyer, 268-69).
With docudramas aside, factual science can still be derived from the media as Al Gore, in his presentation of An Inconvenient Truth, demonstrates the relationship of carbon dioxide emissions to temperature by showing charts illustrating the close fit of the two lines when graphed chronologically side by side. This comprehensive analysis reveals that we have and are continuing to emit carbon dioxide into our atmosphere. Recent emissions are higher than ever before; correspondingly, the ten hottest years on record have occurred in the last fourteen years. (An Inconvenient).
In Elizabeth Kolbert’s book, Field Notes from a Catastrophe, she highlights the evidence of the current warming patterns. A measure of the temperature of earth’s atmosphere by analysis of frozen atmospheric particles found in glaciers reveals the earth’s current temperature to be equal if not greater than it has ever been in the last 420,000 years (Kolbert, 129). This increase in temperature is closely linked to the increasing amount of greenhouse gas emitted into our atmosphere.
Warming Effects on Climate
With evidence the earth is in fact increasing in temperature, it is important to highlight the climatic implications of this increase. Al Gore continues in his presentation to explain that as the global temperature increases, various effects alter the climate in various locations of the globe. At the poles, global warming causes the rapid melting of glacial ice. This rapid melt results in not only dramatically reduced oceanic coastlines, but also alters the oceanic currents. When the cool, dense glacial water falls to the bottom of the ocean, it likely will disrupt oceanic currents prohibiting earth’s natural mechanism of temperature distribution (An Inconvenient).
Kolbert adds to Gore’s analysis suggesting as the temperature increases on land, either fatal droughts or colossal rainfall result. This analysis is used to assist in explaining the devastating effects of oceanic storms such as Hurricane Katrina; as the temperature increases, wind and moisture also increase. The laws of the foundation of science defend this analysis as a law of physics states that when a molecule increases in temperature it expands, applying to the rising water levels and moisture content in many recent storms (Kolbert, 125).

Present Day Catastrophes
With greenhouse gases emitted in massive amounts over the last 50 years, it is no wonder effects of global warming are visible in nearly every region of our planet today.
One such region, the Netherlands, faces serious threats in the near future as its’ citizens are currently implementing makeshift technology to survive the irregularity of today. She states, “Fully a quarter of the Netherlands lies below sea level…another quarter, while slightly higher, is still low enough that, in the natural course of events, it would regularly be flooded� (Kolbert, 123). Although they have adopted floating houses to cope with the levels of today, it is highly unlikely their system of dikes and floating homes will support the increasingly extreme weather patterns.
Lake Chad, a water source for many Africans, is one of many locations affected by global warming. Al Gore presented a time lapsed image of the lake over the last several years, showing the lack has evaporated to a mere fraction of its original size (An Inconvenient).
From a glacial perspective, Gore continued to show many photographs of the disappearing glaciers from the Arctic to the Andes. His photographs showed stunning images of glacial boundaries of today, in comparison with the previous, extremely larger boundaries of the glaciers from only decades past (An Inconvenient). In addition to increasing temperatures impacting glaciers, India has also suffered severe consequences of global warming as record temperatures of 122oF claimed the lives of over 1,400 people (An Inconvenient).

Economic Potential
When reflecting on international issues such as global climate change, it gives the impression of a costly issue so large, it would be impractical for the developed world to consider resolving such an issue. One of the key reasons the United States decided not to sign the Kyoto Protocol, which requests for emission reductions in the developed world, was due to the financial nature of such changes. Kolbert mentions an argument in which an expert suggested if American companies place restrictions on emissions, while China and India do not, American Companies would be at a serious economic disadvantage (Kolbert, 156). Contrary to this belief, the research and implementation of green technology in the United States would actually create jobs, thus increasing wealth, and in-turn furthers the growth of the American Economy. Howie Hawkins, Burlington’s Mayor and green technology supporter, concluded that what America does, China and others in the developing world will soon do. When the United States embraces clean-up technology, the market starts to drive down the price, and thus others will surely benefit (Kolbert, 182).
Green technology is not only needed in arenas of transportation and production, but also needs to be directed toward daily events as simple as food consumption. The article Connecting The Diner Plate to Global Warming advocates that lowering meat consumption would in fact decrease the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. The author of this article mentions that the meat producing industry emits more greenhouse gasses than all forms of transportation combined (Deutsch, 1). Having stated the above conclusion from a United Nation’s Food and Agricultural Organization report, it becomes clear we need to address the issue of global climate change from a variety of approaches.
In all, doing the right thing creates jobs and wealth as it advances us as a whole foreword.

No Federal Policy, No Problem
While the US has contributed more to advancement of climate science, both theoretically and experimentally; Elizabeth Kolbert states we are also the key purveyor of skeptics (Kolbert, 163). As the largest single producer of greenhouse gasses, the United States is responsible for nearly 25% of the global total (Kolbert, 150). It is this alarming rate of production, resulting from economic activity, which creates disturbance at the national level. According to Al Gore, the United States and Australia are the only countries not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol (An Inconvenient). In addition to this federal neglect, in June of 2005 The New York Times revealed Philip Cooney, a White House Official, repeatedly edited government reports on climate change to make the findings less alarming (Kolbert, 166). With dishonest information circling those who reference climate documents when making legislative decisions, it is no wonder the current federal policy is lacking. When criticized on matters dealing with neglect to global climate change, Paula Dobrinski, the current Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs, stated the following, “We see this as a serious issue. We have vigorously and robustly put forth a climate change policy to address these issues…basically and fundamentally we have a common goal (as the Kyoto Protocol), but we are pursuing different approaches� (Kolbert, 152).
With a federal government turning a deaf ear toward the issue, city mayors such as Mr. Hawkins of Burlington, Vermont, decided it was their responsibility to step in. After modeling his city after programs originated in Minneapolis, Hawkins has created a significant impact on the local community. Among several projects, Burlington Electric aids in the cause as it gets nearly half of its energy from renewable sources including a 50-megawatt power plant operating off of wood chips. Even more surprising, over 170 mayors representing over 36 million people pledged to strive to meet the Kyoto Protocol in their communities (Kolbert, 175). With support from the very people who contribute to the emissions, the current path of global warming could be altered.

Conclusion
Global warming causes extreme climate change, so extreme that it in fact proves to be a viable threat to the existence of man. In this article I outline specific facts, effects, and threats global warming places on our planet. It is not only our job, but to our advantage to address this issue. As the key contributor to the problem, it is justly our responsibility to deliver a comprehensive solution. With little federal support on climate policy suggesting a nation of ignorance, it is our power as individual consumers to lead the attack. We have learned in the past that obstacles provide us with the opportunity to improve our current condition. By addressing global warming, we will not only be furthering ourselves economically, but also be doing the right thing. Americans have led the world in the research of this global challenge, and thus should lead the world in its solvency.

Works Cited
An Inconvenient Truth. Dir Davis Guggenheim. Perf Al Gore. Lawrence Bender, 2006.
Deutsch, Claudia H. “Connecting The Dinner Plate To Global Warming� The New York Times. 29 Aug 2007. 1-3.
Kolbert, Elizabeth. “Field Notes From A Catastrophe� New York: Bloomsbury Press,
2006.
Schollmeyer, Josh. “Lights, Camera, Armageddon� The Best American Science and Nature Writing. Ed. Brian Greene. Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006. 259-269.
The Day After Tomorrow. Dir Roland Emmerich. Emmerich & Gordon, 2004.

Argument Analysis Sheet

Posted by David Johnson at 5:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Matt Abens
1152W
10-24-07
Argument Analysis Essay #2

Global Warming and Climate Change

In this paper I will (X) show how the movies The Day After Tomorrow and An Inconvenient Truth and the book Field Notes on a Catastrophe attempt to create awareness for the global warming problem (Y) by exploring the goals, objectives, and possible solutions of the writers and directors (Z) in order to display the effects of global warming and the small changes that may help our environment. I will first look at how pollution levels, mainly carbon dioxide, affect much of the Earth’s climatic events such as: temperature, weather, and water levels. Next I will describe how each movie and the book portray global warming as the prime factor of Earth’s climate change. I will end the paper by describing possible environmental changes outlined in the movies and book to help contain the rapid alterations of the climate through global warming.
Carbon Dioxide Levels and Temperature
There are no doubts among scientists that Earth’s water levels and average annual temperatures are rising every year. The weather and the strength of storms such as hurricanes and typhoons are also increasing in power each year. The tremendous damage done by hurricane Katrina, one of the strongest storms the country has ever seen, verifies this point. There are communities all over the world that are being evacuated and moved to other locations because of the rising sea levels and the stronger surges caused by ocean storms. The people of Shishmaref, Alaska have lived in their small village for hundreds of years using native techniques to hunt and support their families. The rise in average temperature has caused the sea to freeze later in the fall than it ever used too and thaw earlier in the spring than in the past. These events altered the traditional hunting patterns used by the villagers. It was no longer safe to walk on the ice so they began to use boats to hunt. This made it very difficult to hunt seals on the size of their current hunting grounds (Kolbert 8). Another problem caused by these temperature and sea level changes for the village was with the stronger storms; their houses and buildings were being destroyed. The destruction of the village caused by these storms led the community into making a decision of moving to the mainland in 2001. It is estimated that a full relocation of the village would cost the U.S. Government $180 million (Kolbert 9). This is a steep price considering all the other communities around the world that also need to be relocated.
In the last 25 years worldwide carbon dioxide emissions have continued to increase, from five billion to seven billion metric tons a year, causing the Earth’s temperature to also steadily rise. There is a new record for the highest annual temperature set every year, meaning that Earth is continuing to get hotter year in and year out. The world is now warmer than it has ever been in the last two thousand years, and, if these current trends continue, in the next 100 years it will likely be warmer than at any point in the last two million years (Kolbert 13). Nearly every major glacier and area of permafrost in the world is shrinking because of this added heat. The melted ice has to go somewhere, and that place is the oceans, which cause the increase in water levels. The melting of glaciers and permafrost all over the world also leads to the increase in carbon dioxide levels. There are grass and plants that are stored in the frozen permafrost, causing a storage unit of accumulated carbon. As this permafrost thaws, the storage process is reversed and the organic material that was frozen begins to break down, giving off carbon dioxide, which only adds to the overall problem (Kolbert 21).
During each of the most recent glacier periods, temperature dropped almost precisely in sync with falling carbon dioxide levels and during each warm period, when the ice retreated, temperature rose again with the carbon dioxide levels (Kolbert 33). This once again demonstrates that temperature levels depend heavily on the levels of carbon dioxide. As long as the carbon dioxide levels continue to rise at the current pace, the temperature levels will also match this pace and because of this maybe not in our lifetimes but our children’s lifetimes the climate and environment will be vastly different than what it is today.
Climate Change Caused by Global Warming
The movies An Inconvenient Truth and The Day After Tomorrow and the book Field Notes from a Catastrophe all share the same idea that the change in Earth’s climate is ultimately caused by global warming. They all agree that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases polluting the atmosphere cause and increase in temperature, which is responsible for global warming. Al Gore shows this in his movie when he brings up a large graph with the levels of carbon dioxide increasing and decreasing over the last hundred thousand years during the ice ages. Over the same time period, a graph of temperature also appears and exactly follows the line of carbon dioxide levels. The two lines look as if they should fit together. The evidence of this clip shows that carbon dioxide and temperature levels are related.
The Day After Tomorrow movie tries a different approach to creating awareness for global warming than Al Gore’s movie, whereby the director produces a farfetched plot that is not likely to ever occur. The story of an ice age really beginning in a matter of days is completely unrealistic and unbelievable to the average viewer. The director is trying to get his point across of decreasing pollution by trying to scare the audience into making the right choice. He hopes that if the audience becomes scared that an event such as this might happen, they will start to worry about global warming. The director can only be successful at this if the audience truly takes the movie to heart and attempts to alter their lifestyles to work for a change. If the viewer does not feel the same way about global warming and refuses to sacrifice to help the planet, then the movies did not accomplish anything at all but to entertain the public. This is similar to Josh Schollmeyer’s article “Lights, Camera, Armageddon�, which shows that most hit Hollywood films contain the worst case scenario in order to scare the viewer. Frequently directors will do this in the hope that popular culture they create will somehow encourage a certain policy change they believe in. An example of this is how citizens of the United States are no longer worried most about nuclear war and weapons, instead they are now mainly worried about biological weapons and terrorists (Schollmeyer 267). These events were caused by huge box office movies that have manipulated their plots to contain new doomsday scenarios, because people fear what they now nothing about, and fear sells movies. These two movies have created a large awareness for global warming and have frightened the general public into thinking about the environment and making changes for the better.
A Cure for Global Warming
Although the climate has already been affected by global warming, there are solutions to the problem that can be done to help both on the local and the global levels. Many individuals and communities are taking actions themselves to combat the role that global warming plays in climatic change. Many nations are also joining together to sign such agreements as the Kyoto protocol, which limits countries and industries carbon dioxide emissions. Professors and scientists all over the world are discovering new theories that they believe will solve the problem of global warming.
In Burlington, Vermont the citizens decided several years ago that instead of generating more power for the growing community, they would just use less of it (Kolbert 173). The people of Burlington were upset by the lack of action of the federal government regarding global warming, so they chose to make their own changes. In 2002 they launched an energy saving campaign known as the “10 percent challenge�. The city aimed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 10 percent (Kolbert 174). Burlington discovered many fascinating ideas to accomplish its goal.
Instead of collecting rubbish at the county dump, the city began reselling it to people who could use it. This cut down on both the cities waste stream and the need for new materials. The Burlington Electric company now converts nearly 50 percent of its energy from renewable sources. They have added a wind turbine and a fifty-megawatt power plant that runs off of wood chips instead of heavily polluting coal power plants. Burlington’s supermarket is heavily stocked with local produce because produce shipped in can travel thousands of miles just to arrive at the store. Burlington encourages its citizens to turn off lights when they are not using them. They estimated that if a household usually leaves the porch light on at night using a standard light bulb, they could save 10 percent of the monthly electricity bill if they switch to compact fluorescent bulbs. The Burlington electric department estimates that the energy savings project that the city has undertaken will, over the course of their lifetimes, prevent the release of nearly 175,000 tons of carbon (Kolbert 176). If every singe town and city in the United States matched the efforts that Burlington has made, the aggregate savings would amount roughly to 1.3 billion tons of carbon over the next several decades (Kolbert 180). Although this wouldn’t completely solve the problem of global warming, it would be a giant step towards the solution.
Some people such as Claudia Deutsch think that we can effect global warming by watching what we eat. Many animal rights activists groups are stating that becoming a vegetarian or eating less meat will help create less greenhouse gasses. These groups believe that the livestock business creates more greenhouse gasses than all forms of transportation combined (Deutsch 2). This could be entirely possible because of all that goes into the process of raising cattle and transporting the processed meat to consumers. Grain needs to be transported and processed for the cattle to eat, then when the cows are ready to be butchered they must be transported again, and then they have to be transported yet again to various grocery stores or restaurants so they are available to consumers.
Robert Socolow, a theoretical physicist is one of many scientists to propose their own plans to reduce carbon dioxide levels in order to combat global warming. Socolow broke his plan down into manageable blocks called “stabilization wedges� that would help lower carbon dioxide emissions. He defined a stabilization wedge as a step that would be sufficient to prevent a billion metric tons of carbon per year from being emitted. With the current rate of 7 billion metric tons and the expected rate of 14 billion metric tons in the next fifty years, seven wedges would be needed to hold emissions constant at today’s level (Kolbert 137). Socolow came up with fifteen different theoretical wedges, eight more than were necessary. For example wedge number 11 is solar power and wedge number 10 is wind electricity, so each wedge has a certain role to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. There are two wedges related to automobiles, one is that all vehicles must be driven half as much and the other wedge is that all vehicles must be twice as efficient (Kolbert 141).
In today’s world there is no direct cost to emitting carbon dioxide, so it is not likely that any of Socolow’s wedges would voluntarily be implemented. But as stated in An Inconvenient Truth, “It might cost us more to do nothing, than to fight global warming�. This is why governments need to intervene and set up strict guidelines on carbon dioxide emissions no matter what it does to the economy. In The Day After Tomorrow the vice president was arguing that fixing the global warming problem would have to great of an effect on the economy, but Kolbert has a great example combating this opinion in her book. The United States has gone through a similar issue as this in the past. When we decided we did not want child labor, the price of goods increased but the loss in spending power and the effect on the economy was outweighed by the benefits of knowing our goods were produced ethically. There are many options that an individual or nation can embrace to help contain global warming so that Earth is a great place to live for our children and grandchildren.
The writers and directors of An Inconvenient Truth, The Day After Tomorrow, and Field Notes from a Catastrophe are trying to accomplish the same goals and objectives. They are attempting to connect with their worldwide audiences to inform them that global warming is a major issue in science today and the leading cause of climatic change. These sources have shown that the increase in carbon dioxide levels are raising the temperature of Earth every year, which is in effect altering weather patterns and ocean levels that have been relatively constant for centuries. There needs to be both a global and individual effort to reduce the emission levels of greenhouse gases in order to combat the climate change caused by global warming. This might not affect our lifetimes, but our children and grandchildren will be in the middle of the problem if our current lifestyle choices are not corrected.

Works Cited
An Inconvenient Truth. Dir. Davis Guggenheim. Perf. Al Gore. Paramount Classics, 2006.
Deutsch, Claudia H. “Trying to Connect the Dinner Plate to Climate Change.� New York Times 29 Aug. 2007.
Kolbert, Elizabeth. Field Notes From A Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change. New York: Bloomsbury, 2006.
Schollmeyer, Josh. “Lights, Camera, Armageddon� The Best American Science and Nature Writing. Ed. Brian Greene. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006. 259-269.
The Day After Tomorrow. Dir. Roland Emmerich. Perf. Dennis Quaid and Jake Gyllenhaal. USA, 2004.

Posted by Matthew Abens at 6:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)