No Exit: Ecological Limits and Climate Change

Global temperatures are expected to rise by 1.4 - 5.8° Celsius by 2100. Global temperatures have already risen by 0.6° C above pre-industrial temperatures. [1]

Actually everybody knows about climate change and its potential consequences. You are bombarded with information about it all the time and you can hardly escape from it. There are plenty of advertisments and many discussions about this topic and more and more people question this problem.

But why then has it taken such a long time for awareness of the problem to be raised? Nobody feels responsible for it although there’s such a flood of information. Although you hear all the time that it’s up to you to change something, you don’t realise that you could really contribute to the solution because you can’t see any immediate results. Human beings need to feel under threat to realise the problem and its risks and change their behaviour.

Often panic has to break out to raise awareness. That has happened already in other fields, one example of this is recycling. People needed time to understand that it’s important to recycle their waste, and so today it’s normal and everybody knows about the urgency to behave in an environmetally conscious way.

In my opinion people just need time to understand the problem of climate change and by and by they will start to do their best to cope with the problem.


____
[1] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001.

Panic Buttons

It’s mankind’s instinctive need to feel safe. People will do everything possible within their power to maintain this feeling. This strong desire for protection is often combined with the fear of loss or of getting hurt physically or psychologically. This existential fear easily causes panic, leading to the creation of a scenario of risk. The essence of risk is not that it is happening, but that it might be happening. [1] Risk operates outside the capacity of human perception, invisible and often unconscious.

In many instances the government, the media and insurance companies play with this natural fear, spreading panic strategically in order to pursue their own interests. It is used as a tool to raise awareness of issues, especially those of a political and environmental nature. As the use of fear to influence people produces a strong effect, it’s important to prove its use is responsible to prevent misuse.

During the second world war, for example, the fear of losing one’s livelihood was used for manipulation and propaganda. These days it is the fear of terrorism and the potentional for a nuclear war that play a big role. Another example is the American Government’s use of fear in its tv advertisments to encourage people to join the army and appeal to their sense of coherence and patriotism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAp-VdBkIDE&eurl=http://www.freeunibz.net/blog/?p=1894

Panic buttons can be found in many different fields. The use of the right stimuli can motivate people to change their behaviour and reflect thoughtfully about themselves, their environment and their future.


____
[1] Barbara Adam and Joost van Loon, „the risk society and beyond“, 2000

No Exit: Ecological Limits and Climate Change

“What country is the largest source of global warming pollution?

The United States. Though Americans make up just 4 percent of the world's population, we produce 25 percent of the carbon dioxide pollution from fossil-fuel burning -- by far the largest share of any country. In fact, the United States emits more carbon dioxide than China, India and Japan, combined. Clearly America ought to take a leadership role in solving the problem. And as the world's top developer of new technologies, we are well positioned to do so -- we already have the know-how.”

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp

The White House only recently accepted that Global Warming is happening
For a long time the facts of Global Warming provided by scientists were altered before publication in order to play down the threat of global warming for the public.
When George W Bush was asked what was being done about the Global Warming, he avoided answering the question and said:
“The Globe is warming. The fundamental debate is, whether it’s man made or natural.”
The power is in the Governments hand and we only get the pieces of information that were chosen for us, the ones we are allowed to know. For a long time there was confusion about Global Warming being real or not. It is real, now we know that!
Scientists were and are being controlled by the government and are being silenced if they have something inconvenient to say to the public.
This is how I see it: Scientists have the facts Designers have the skill to provide it to the public in ways that the Government would not intertwine.
However this raises debate whether the public would believe anything that is not evidenced in great detail for them and if is not published in a daily newspaper on the front page? It is important to raise credibility in our society and with designs spread the word that global warming can be slowed down and probably the Earth can sustain itself for a little longer, than it can with the climate changes of today. Yes, the government has the power to do something about this, but we can all do our little bits to try and make it better. To communicate these ways and to make being friendly for the environment an attractive and if possible a fashionable option is the designers job.

Image: http://creative.myspace.com/groups/_ag/climate_code/images/TWC-CustomCommunity_PSD_-09.jpg

Sources:
Climate Conspiracy or Global Catastrophe – BBC 4 (14-03-2006)
Panorama: Global Warming – BBC 1 (04-06-2006)

No Exit: Ecological Limits and Climate Change

Despite the fact that climate change is happening faster because of human activity, popular media reports doubt causing a public opinion split between admitting or denying our role in the acceleration of climate change.

The media’s influence on public opinion is huge and according to Al Gore’s film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ popular media show doubt in 53% of their reports on climate change. When art and design interacts with the media they can produce a new and innovative way of communicating a message. If art and design were to work with science to communicate the truth with objects and images, this doubt could be undermined. It is true that climate change is inevitable in the Earth’s natural lifecycle but ‘the challenge of anthropogenic climate change is that it is occurring on time scales short compared to the ability of societies to adapt easily.’¹ The human race has caused climate change to accelerate at a rate our evolution as a species and society cannot keep up with. Gore argues that ‘we can no longer afford to view global warming as a political issue - rather, it is the biggest moral challenges facing our global civilization.’²

Yet still there are skeptics, but whilst watching ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ I became hopeful that everyone could be convinced and ‘real’ action could be taken. Gore uses humour and showmanship to undermine skeptics along with strong and convincing graphics such as the so-called ‘hockey stick graph’. He mixes personal experiences and scientific information, the sort of approach which could be innovatively communicated by an artist or designer. It seems that public opinion is most influenced through design, be it fashion or object, so it is logical to use this medium for communication.

Communication design can help the public to distinguish between popular media’s false doubt and scientific fact, ‘the problem also is with the content and methods of science, we must rethink the ways that science is carried out, and how it is organized within our societies.’¹ This is where I believe our role as designers can be played out.

¹ ‘Lovely Weather: Asking What the Arts Can Do for the Sciences’ by Roger F. Malina in ‘Ecomedia’ 2007

² www.climatecrisis.net

Image: http://youmaybegreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/global-warming-earth.jpg

NO EXIT:ECOLOGICAL LIMITS AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Shell’s two year tenure as sponsor of the Natural History Museum’s

‘Wildlife Photographer of the Year’ exhibition has come to an end.[1]

 

“Climate Change - Shell’s role in one of the biggest threats to biodiversity as one of the world’s major oil companies, Shell has a significant role in causing - and therefore responsibility for - man-made climate change”[2]

 

 

The role of Art as a way to draw importance of the issues concerning the Natural World is a very significant thing. Although I question in which way institutions are becoming hybrid platforms on advertising Climate change related statements? Those statements are coming from companies of a dubious activity, such as fossil fuel extraction (oil companies)?

  How can we openly asses the problem of trying to make society think differently about stories like the Wildlife Exhibition?    As a cause and effect Art as a cultural vision opens up new worlds and perceptions, but it can not in the long term be held by companies that manifested activities are opposed to the topic exposed.

            Consider for example the real natural damage those oil extractions have for the environment?            

They sponsored Wild Live Photography exhibition; Sponsor is a funny word for a context that means to support.

 

  What topic in Art in relation to Climate change could an oil company held for example? Renewable energies, new material coming from “Petrol”, but sure there are many topics good enough in which they could participate and attempt to manifest their interest for cultural sponsorship.

           

           

 

 

 

---

[1] http://www.artnotoil.org.uk//content/view/21/

[2] http://www.artnotoil.org.uk//content/view/21/

No Exit: Ecological Limits and Climate Change.

“Ice caps melting”, “CO2 levels causing global temperature rise”, “In the last decade or so we have really started seeing our world as being on the brink of destruction due to everyday human activity and its impacts on climate and ecological change” [1]

These are all phrases with which we are now completely familiar with and I doubt there is a single person in the developed world who is not aware of global warming issues whether or not they believe in them. I’m not going to name any of the statistics or arguments for or against, as I am sure you are all aware of most of them.

The sad truth of the matter is that many people become desensitized to issues when they are repeatedly bombarded with them no matter how serious those issues are. As Jo points out in a previous entry “Apparently 53% of the public press is sceptical about the issue of climate change and global warming, whether they’re talking about the exact effects, the timescale or the magnitude of the causes.”
A nail in the coffin for all those stragglers who are still not sure whether or not to take action is aptly provided by Greg Craven. See the video below.
He argues the case of risk management. We are already in the ‘test tube’ of the global warming experiment there is no exit. Even if we are not the cause of global warming the risk of the consequences that arrive with inaction far outweigh any of the risks of action.

The problem we face now is not just asking what we can do to stop global warming but what can we do to change peoples attitudes. At the moment I live with three other people and we all try and take responsibility in keeping the place tidy (to varying degrees of success!) When living with more people though I know it is very easy to assume or hope that somebody else will take responsibility as it becomes harder to identify who created what mess.
Obviously equating the state of the planet to the state of my washing up is a gross exaggeration but it serves to make a point! Apathy can be a vary dangerous thing.
People generally don’t like to be guilted into doing things or told what to do. For action against climate change to really succeed we need to somehow change peoples perceptions so that ‘the greener way’ is not a chore but rather the more natural and easier way.

[1] - Dave
Image - 'earth is da bomb' found on Google images

No Exit: Ecological Limits and Climate Change

In the last decade or so we have really started seeing our world as being on the brink of destruction due to everyday human activity and its impacts on climate and ecological change. As a result, a large portion of our world today is seriously focused on going green in attempts to slow or even reverse the negative effects we have burden our environment with. The most obvious influence is the emissions produced by automobiles that are polluting our environment daily. Conversely, we are also developing and producing more and more eco-friendly fuel-efficient hybrid vehicles in an effort to stall total destruction of the environment. Hybrid cars are obviously not the sole answer to our problems, however they are a large piece to the puzzle.

 “Maintaining a sustainable context for human development is not only a political, scientific, technical or funding problem. It is fundamentally a cultural problem that requires reorienting human development and the built environment; artists have an important role to play not only in creating new cultural contexts, but also changing the way that science is done. (1)” Though retooling the entire world is an enormous task that would most likely take decades to complete, it is not impossible or impractical. This insurmountable task is in fact obtainable and hybrid cars are proof. We are obviously strides to revamp culture the green way, and hybrids are a good start. If hybrids are sustainable designs, then hopefully every car on the road will be more fuel-efficient and eco-friendly someday in the distant future.

 The role of artists and designers in the scientific community has become much clearer to me because of hybrid cars. Poorly designed cars usually do not sell very well, obviously. That is why transforming existing and successful car models into hybrids seems to have been the most effective design solution: if it ain’t broken… I think that this is very encouraging for designers and for our environment. Though there are still questions on the costs of designing hybrids…

 It is a fact that going green also means spending a bit more of green. Well, no one said saving the environment would be cheap. So obviously if you are someone who is a bit more economically minded, hybrids are not the answer for you...however, there are alternatives! For example, the Volkswagen Jetta TDI is a diesel-powered sedan that sells for about $2,500 more than the gasoline-powered version, yet it achieves 50% better economy (2). In actuality diesel fuel economy is less fragile than that of hybrids because driving style affects them much less. Additionally, several more "clean" diesels, built to take advantage of low-sulfur fuel, have been produced in the past few years and have proved to be rather effective thus far.

 So if you straight up cannot afford a hybrid, there are several fuel-efficient alternatives: ride the bus, ride a bike, WALK, buy a clean diesel vehicle, etc. If all else fails, recycle, recycle, recycle, and eventually everything will be fine... right?

 

(1) Roger Malina. ‘Lovely Weather: Asking What the Arts Can Do for the Sciences,’ in Ecomedia (Edith Russ Site for Media Art, 2007).

(2) http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Savinganddebt/Saveonacar/P37272.asp

No Exit: Ecological Limits and Climate Change

During Marco Polo’s travels in the 13^th Century he came across a village in China which made a kind of porcelain requiring it to be left to mature for 40 years. The people who dug the clay did so for the next generation, not themselves. This kind of long term thinking seems alien to much of modern western society. The short term view reaches into all areas of life and many areas of design ethics such as natural conservation, futures and most salient, climate change.

Although the scientific evidence on climate change is not conclusive, there are few in the scientific community who disagree that CO₂ emissions lead to global warming. The prevailing issue about climate change is that people either do not think about or do not understand the effects of their actions in the long term.

How would a designer tackle the problem of trying to make people think in a larger time frame? One solution is the Clock of the Long Now, currently housed in the London Science Museum. Designed to run for 10,000 years, it ticks once per year, bongs once a century and cuckoos once every millennium. Not only does it perform the task of getting people to think about the longer term by contrasting the 12 hour timescale of a normal clock with a period far longer than we would normally consider, but also tries to enter the conscious of the viewer by creating myth and event. The clock is supposed to be a continuous reminder that the world will not end when we die, and perhaps a desire to protect the clock can trigger an urge to protect the earth as a whole for the people of the future.

www.longnow.org
Hinte, E. Eternally yours: Time in Design 2004

No Exit: Ecological Limits and Climate Change

We look at our world at the brink of destruction caused by human activity and its influence on our climate and ecological change. Greenhouse gas emissions come from natural resources and of course human activity. Cutting down of fossil fuels seems to be an obvious answer to help reduce these emissions into our atmosphere, but why such a slow movement to do so? In what way can this be done?

Wind Power. Wind power is the conversion of wind energy to some sort of useful form such as electricity. Cutting the use of fossil fuels to create electricity greatly reduces greenhouse gas emissions and is clean, widely available, plentiful and renewable.

Wind power enables energy and electricity to be produced in a way that is not going to harm the environment or contribute to the devastation of the atmosphere.


However, there are some disadvantages and concerns involving wind power. One of the most prominent of these concerns is that the landscape seems to be ruined in the eyes of some. Wind farms tend to be quite large and take up a lot of space, but the land the wind farms are set on is nearly undisturbed. This land is still readily usable for agricultural reasons or for any other purpose really.

Originally, the costs of a wind farm was great but has since dropped significantly and will continue to drop as the number of wind farms increases. Yet another big concern is with the noise. The sound that is generated from the windmills is constantly up for debate amongst residents living near the wind farms. That's right. There is a hesitation for wind farms and a possibly cleaner environment and more stable atmosphere due to the noise.

It seems quite problematic that we're in a world that is more accepting of the idea of our climate and environment being at the brink of havoc from our own activity, than one that is willing to compromise the slightly bothersome noise created from a wind turbine. A system that is put in place to help our environment and hopefully cut back the destruction that is being created by our affairs.

NO EXIT: Ecological Limits and Climate Change

Although it is impossible to prove the link between climate change and ecological structures, because of non-climatic effects influence local, short-term biological changes, the earth average temperature has increased by 0.5° Celsius in the last 100 years.
This change had an affect on over 1700 species, moved the poles an average of 6.1 km per decade and moved spring 2.3 days forward in the last decade. The structure and functioning of ecosystems are in danger and it is highly possible that climate change has already affected living systems.

Therefore: What does alter the earth’s climate?

“Any factor which alters the radiation received from the sun or lost to space, or which alters the redistribution of energy within the atmosphere, and between the atmosphere, land and ocean, can affect climate.”
By the increase of greenhouse gases the ability of the earth to cool itself is reduced. Therefore the temperature on earth increases. This is the so-called “Greenhouse enhanced effect”, which means that, it is the result of the emission of carbon dioxide, water vapor, ozone, methane and nitrous oxide. The warming of the atmosphere is related to the emission of greenhouse gases.
Anthropogenic particles in the stratosphere reflect and absorb solar radiation and therefore decrease the greenhouse effect. These anthropogenic particles develop from the emission of sulphur dioxide, which comes from fossil fuel burning. (Sulphur dioxide shooting ship) Aerosol concentrations, which are transformed into sulphur dioxide, can change the size and number of clouds and so cool the atmosphere and produce a negative radiative forcing.
Large amounts of aerosol concentrations are released by volcanic activity.

Although the energy level of the sun varies, any change in the atmosphere triggered by for example the increase of greenhouse gases will eventually have an effect on climate change. For example cloud distribution, changes in rainfall, temperatures of atmosphere and oceans. Ecological systems will be affected over time.

Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change By John Theodore Houghton
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6918/abs/nature01286.html
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.015002320.x

No Exit: Ecological limits and Climate Change

October 6, 2007, marked the year’s Ecological Debt Day. Ecological Debt Day marks the point in the year where we have consumed over our annual sustainable ‘allowance’ of resources for that year. Similar to that of a bank account, if you spend / consume too much it will lead to debt. Unlike a bank account though, the environment has no single person who can be held responsible or forced manage the debt. Ecological Debt Day is to become an annual mark based on the same criteria for explaining, measuring and advertising our increasing consumption of endogenous resources.

This measure of ecological debt unlike our actual ecological debt is reset each year. This is because we accept it is very unlikely we will ever be able to repair the damage or renew the wasted recourses from the past. By marking the day in which we have over consumed the policy aims to attract people to assess and revise their consumption. We are currently consuming in our ‘over draught’ for approximately the last ¼ of the year (3 months). This means a large intervention must occur in order to change or debt pattern.

Imagine the difficulty of driving ¼ less, using your heating ¼ less or traveling ¼ less. It would be a sacrifice, but this appears to be the obvious solution to our crisis. Although our contribution is valid, the problem is globally. Should a whole nation such as the UK achieve this target we would still be globally consuming and emitting an increasing amount each year. As the GEO4 explains, “with an ever increasing population the amount of resources needed to sustain it exceeds what is available.”

Developing countries such as China and India, with populations over 1 billion are some of the worlds most polluting regions. This is not only a result of their high population but, a result of their development rate and industrialisation process. Therefore we are seemingly forced with a compromise; restrict financial and social development by decreasing industrial growth rates or sacrifice our resources and environment for a better global economy. The solution though must be finding ways to live sustainably now before all endogenous resources such as oil run out and we are faced with social, political and economical disasters.

No Exit: Ecological Limits and Climate Change

Much of the Global consumer industry is controlled by a few, giant corporations. As long as this continues to happen, it seems likely that goods will be imported, exported, packaged, and transported globally, with a hugely negative impact on the environment. It is simply cheaper and easier for the companies involved. Refusal to buy into certain brands is obviously better than ignoring the problem, but goes little way to solve it, and without abstaining from consumerism altogether, is very hard to do.

Being self sufficient to some extent is the simplest, and most obvious way of combating globalization. Caroline Lucas, (Green Party Member of the European Parliament) suggests in ‘Green Alternatives to Globalization: A Manifesto’ that the way forward is localization of economies, and minimal global trade. This does not have to mean a move towards socialism, but simply a less aggressive, more localized capitalism. Britain, the West, and intrinsically, the entire world, seems to be embroiled in the system of buy and sell, controlled by corporations that seem unlikely to relinquish control. The ecological methods of the West require a complete overhaul, a radical change of society, in order to sustainable change the effect we are having on the environment. In the current economic and political climate, one wonders how easy this would be. The chances of a political party putting forward a radical change of any kind purely to benefit the environment are slim. The chances of a party being voted in, if they did so, even slimmer.

Perhaps, therefore, the tools for change lie with the individual. Leading environmentalist George Monbiot, who runs the student activist community ‘People and Planet’ suggests an individual limit on carbon emissions, in a similar way to the Kyoto protocol, only on an individual basis. Maybe campaigning needs to be more responsible, not only advertising how to offset carbon emissions, but how to begin the reverse of globalization, and all its negative effects.

Campaign for a change of climate law:
http://www.thebigask.com/campaigns/climate/big_ask/march_about_climate.html

Student environmental activist community:
http://peopleandplanet.org/

From the time we realised we could create energy through combustion, humans have divided themselves from all other animals. We alone, have the power to be discordant to nature herself. As the years have progressed the gap has only become larger, from combustion to mass production the effect on nature has been evident. We have reached the stage where no small gesture will suffice, where recycling and re-use can no longer be our slogan. Now is the time for drastic action… but who has the power to lead us in the creation of a new system of living? Is it the politicians who hold the power?

Will we be saved by “the so-called Clear Skies Initiative” proposed by George W Bush which completely ignores “emissions of carbon dioxide…not included in the Clear Skies plan.”

(http://pubs.acs.org/cen/topstory/8129/8129notw3.html)

Or perhaps “Reach - the EU'groundbreaking Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals system” which aimed to “to register and test as many chemicals as possible and to eliminate the use of those found to be the most dangerous,” however “when … presented [at the European commission] … it was a shadow of its former self - watered down by relentless industry and political lobbying.”

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/nov/05/environment.greenpolitics.)

Three years ago we all had our hopes pinned on the “Kyoto Protocol.” However “most climate scientists say that the targets set in the Kyoto Protocol are merely scratching the surface of the problem. The agreement aims to reduce emissions from industrialised nations only by around 5%, whereas the consensus among many climate scientists is that in order to avoid the worst consequences of global warming, emissions cuts in the order of 60% across the board are needed.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4269921.stm)

The problem is that each of these systems has been proven to be profit or vote driven and ecologically flawed. They start out as noble ventures but at the end of the day, who runs this planet? Is it government or commerce?

CONSUME YOUR ETHICS

“ There are professions more harmful than industrial design, but only a very few of them. And probably only one profession is phonier. Advertising design, to persuade people to buy things they don’t need, with money they don’t have in order to impress people that don’t care”
Victor Papanek




So how did we become a world dependent on material goods for happiness?
Well…I looked into this and came across some interesting facts on how we have made consumerism a way of life.
Consumption is at the heart of the economy. Without it, it would crumble.
So in order to keep the economy afloat there has been designed strategies to do just that.

Consumption as a way of life…didn’t just happen. It was no natural progression that we now consume twice as much as we did 50 yrs ago. It was designed.
This designed strategy can be traced back to after the end of the Second World War.
Victor Lebow, a retail analyst, designed a strategy to ramp up the US economy after the war. He said, “Our enormously productive economy . . . demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfaction, our ego satisfaction, in consumption . . . we need things consumed, burned up, replaced and discarded at an ever-accelerating rate.” *
This has become the norm for most economies today.

So how was this solution designed into our everyday lives?
I am aware that we have discussed this in a previous lecture, but I feel it of great importance to reiterate on these points.
The strategies implemented are “planned obsolescence” and “perceived obsolescence”. “Planned obsolescence” being that of goods being designed with a specific lifespan and “perceived obsolescence” is down to the media and advertising, which advertises the new look of a product, making your perfectly good product loose value.*

When it comes to recycling and being more of a conscientious consumer, I often ask myself why it is that you never see adverts to simply consume less. That by doing this, you will have more money to enjoy other things and possibly be able to work less and enjoy life on the whole a lot more.
Are we not just jumping onto another wagon that makes us again, feel better with ourselves by consuming more fair trade, recycled, eco-friendly products? We already have all the products we need…why buy another just because it’s under the eco-friendly label?

Even if we do recycle, that only amounts to a small portion of the waste produced worldwide. One rubbish bin that we put out equals 70 rubbish bins of waste produced to manufacture that bin you just put out!!*
The solution is not recycling. It’s simply consuming less.
But how do we consume less when we are targeted with an average of 3000 adverts a day *, telling us that we are not good enough, not good looking enough and that we need the cheap clothes from Primark to make ourselves feel good and happy?

Another interesting fact or coincidence is that we own double the amount of things than we did in the 1950’s, but polls show that our national happiness is actually declining and that it’s peek was sometime in the 1950s -the same time consumption started to boom and to become a way of life.*


What we need is fewer adverts on recycling, more on less consumption and more information on how to have a better and fuller life. I also understand that this is a Utopian vision…but a vision I would like to believe in for now.


* www.storyofstuff.com
Design for the Real World, Victor Papanek

Image: www.celsias.com