Week six we were presented with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, juxtaposed to the short film “It’s All Cool”. The IPCC is a seemingly endless conglomeration of scientific statements of how climate change is very likely, and “It’s All Cool” is an accessible look at how many of these statements have been rejected by Joe Public and the government. Neither seemed to postulate a positive outlook on the situation of how environmental policy should be approached. I had difficulty retaining the information presented in the IPCC beyond the general theme that the scientists involved are highly certain of not only the existence of climate change, but also of carbon dioxide’s role in climate change and the rate at which it will happen. The limited accessibility of the graphs quells some (but not much) of my disbelief at how many policy makers are stubborn to acknowledge global warming and its ilk. However, like with the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, I find myself frustrated that it’s contents are not taken more seriously. In “It’s All Cool”, the government’s reluctance to create effective environmental policy is revealed. I was particularly amazed at the placement of lobbyists in organizations such as the White House Council on Environmental Quality. It seemed like a worst-case scenario out of Dryzek’s chapter on administrative rationalism. It amazes me that there are not laws to prevent such things, but then again, I do not know enough about American politics to know if such a law would be unconstitutional in some way. While I found “It’s All Cool” to be very insightful to the obstacles environmental scientists face when trying to have their work adopted into policy, the conclusion to the film was far too simplistic and, as far as I can tell, mostly untrue. The aftermath of Katrina was presented to the viewer as a catalyst for a major change in policy and public opinion of environmentalism. I personally heard much less about environmentalism than I did about the inefficiency of the government after the storm. Obviously, environmental scientists still face major hurdles when it comes to having their work accepted by policy makers seeing as the United States still does not adhere to agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol, nor has it implemented any major changes to its policy.
5/5
ReplyDeleteLauren, I think your observation is really keen. My guess is that the filmmakers were hoping that their movie would also be considered a catalyst at the time. We know now that Katrina did not have that lasting catalytic effect but at the time that the movie was released, I think they hoped it would.