Essay on Media Portray of Environmental Issues

Prior to watching Chasing Ice, I felt like I was well informed on the issue of climate change as well as itʻs ecological effects. Although, I also cannot recall actually spending time to understand the severity of the issue or learning of decisions that I could make as an individual that would alleviate it. After watching Chasing Ice, I realized that ignorance and the general unawareness of the public is the first component of the issue that must be addressed in order to combat it. When facts and warnings of climate change are communicated through articles and other media outlets, people are often inclined to avoid the issue. As a result, the issue does not seem as urgent as it actually is and does not receive the attention it deserves. It

As a kid who has cared about nature his entire life, and an avid modern environmentalist for four years and counting, this issue has been at the center of my psyche for quite some time. I have seen public perspective on this issue change before my eyes. From the original rejection of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth movie on “global warming” to personally marching alongside 300,000 people in our nation's capital to raise awareness on climate change. However, despite all of these avenues the issue is still spoken about as this distant idea that eventually will be a disaster. Many politicians and news networks speak of the need for slow implementation of policies and programs to right our environmental wrongs. The best way to paraphrase the common narrative of this issue would be to say, climate change is going to happen down the road, it will probably be bad and trying to fix it in the near future would be a good idea. That weak call to action shoves climate change onto the long to-do list of the leaders of our world. Not only does it not create the urgency needed to actually curb the effects of our environmental ignorance, but it does not accurately describe the threat of a changing climate. Treating this like a political issue will not allow for the rigorous changes needed to address such a problem in the timely manner that is required.

The problem that the pro- global warming theorists have created is that of social standing and little else. While there may be scientific backing to support some of the theory, the media presents the problem with great sensationalism. Global warming and energy conservation has thus become a trend and losses some of its validity through this. The scare tactics used by the media to “promote awareness” are just that, a linguistic ploy to gain favor. “Awareness of this global threat reinforced public concern and environmental problems and thereby provided environmental activists, scientists, and policy makers with new momentum in their efforts to promote environmental protection.” (McCright, 2000) This statement draws line to the potential benefits that would be received if the pro-global warming theorists were to draw enough attention to the issue. Driven by social empowerment and conviction to environmental protection, these activists misrepresent the actual threat and paint it as being much more

Climate change has been a subject of discussion in the media for many years, supported with the use of arguments against oil polluting the environment and extreme scare tactics of Polar ice caps flooding civilians backyards. The issue has been ignored by the majority of lay people as seeming too complicated, and with all the conflicting information in the media in the past, who can blame them? However, scientifically, climate change and what perpetrates it is fairly simple to understand and society as a whole is beginning to come to a clear consensus on climate change. Thanks in part to more readily available forms of media and information, people have become cognizant of the fact that climate change is a legitimate problem which requires immediate amelioration. While this may seem melodramatic, society is realizing that climate change is an issue which can no longer be denied if the human race wishes to continue.

Today, there are already organizations promoting awareness of global warming and trying to make our thoughts to one. In Sweden, they produce environmentally friendly cars and give big tax; In Great Britain, they build a lot of windmills; Australia banned the sale of incandescent light bulbs and started a program called Proarbol to help stop deforestation and to increase jungles in Mexico. Countries including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, EU, India, Indonesia, Russia, South Africa and America have set goals to reduce green house gas emission or carbon emission by a certain amount until 2020. If there’s a problem, solutions defiantly exist and all we need is a little more consideration during everyday life. Things you can do are to set you’re A.C higher, take public transportation, start using renewable energy and encourage others around you, don’t pour oil or paint into sinks, donate for eco friendly groups, don’t litter in public areas and promote the cause to people around you. Bigger things the government can do is to establish protected wild-life areas and parks, limit road constructions, reduce deforestation, build more schools, fight wrong information and to prepare for impacts. Since human can create

That is a really deep question. For this paper, I wanted to understand the climate change issue better. I wanted to understand how humans acknowledge (or even deny) climate change, still yet do nothing to remedy the problem. Most people are guilty of this. I, myself am guilty of this. As Nordhaus and Shellenberger state in their article, the problem seems to be a thing that will only be a priority once it is in our faces. Rust says that these films create an awareness that is somewhat being lost in this postmodern globalization. The Day After Tomorrow, Soylent Green, and The Mist all send a message that could get us thinking about cutting back to prevent climate change. But as my topic has illustrated, it seems a bit farfetched that change would actually

Around the world, humans are aware of the environmental crisis going on, yet, the issue is brushed under the rug and ignored. This issue is ignored due to the fact that some people are unwilling to change their lifestyles, it is expensive to be environmentally friendly, and there is a lack of effort towards change worldwide. Scientific evidence has proven that there is a crisis happening, but people show disinterest in it. Some people feel helpless because there is no way that the individual effort that is made can possibly make a global difference.

Global Warming has changed American’s perspectives in many ways though-out the past centuries including: the way society views our environment, technology, cultural values, as well as expectations. According to Kerry Ferris and Jill Stein, The Real World; An Intro to Sociology; 4th Edition (pg.45), a paradigm shifts, “occur when new data force new ways of looking at the world”. In the 1950’s increased awareness was placed on global warming and the Green House Effect due to new technology showing that the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were rising each year (Encyclopedia of Global Warming). As a result Americans were concerned with pollution for the first time in history; and in return, our cultures perspectives slowly started to change the way we look at the world.

2. I agree that journalism and policies must give all viewpoints the chance to be shared with the public, but I do not support the false balance of scientific legitimacy being granted to all viewpoints. It is important for the public to be informed of current scientific issues, without a doubt; however, I think the public should hear more about the viewpoint that the majority of the scientific community supports. In the process of weighing the evidence, it is true that the less legitimate viewpoints must also be considered. However, the false balance of viewpoints in journalism and policies makes it harder for the general public, especially the non-scientifically trained, to recognize the viewpoint

With the rise of calamitous news regarding extremists groups taking over certain states, countries threatening to go to war, and viruses spreading throughout the world; the outlook of humanity does not look good. In addition to these dire headlines is the matter of climate change, which, unfortunately, is not as alarming to the public eye. Nonetheless, climate change is a pressing matter as it will impact every facet of society from economy to even human survival. Perhaps the general public find climate change as a vapid subject because of its nature to react belatedly to human activity, and how it is often represented with numbers, graphs, and projections; things that are not compelling to those that do not understand its importance. Even

Seeing climate change as an emergency doesn't always make people make actions because of many psychological barriers that limit the mitigation of climate change. Frantz and Mayer in their article" The Emergency of Climate Change: Why are We Failing to Take action? "Published in Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy (2009) and Gifford in " The Dragons of Inaction. Psychological Barriers That Limit Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation" published in American Psychology (2011), discussed the reasons why the American public are failing to take action to Climate Change even though they know that it is a grave issue. They also offered some suggestions that help in getting over those barriers.

Often, the public and “political debate over what to do about global warming is far different from the scientific debate surrounding the issue” (Taylor) as the media publishes discourse relating to global warming which asserts a rhetorical influence through the ideological screen by which such information is subjectively presented to the public. In the example of a New York Times article on the topic of climate change, the author’s decision to discerningly highlight the fact “that concentrations of major greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continue to increase to record levels […] [and] that Arctic sea ice remain[s] at very low levels” (Chan) reflects a selective rhetorical emphasis and dissemination of information that does not include or illuminate other data suggesting a contrary or skeptical perception of global warming. As such, the public depends primarily on the media’s capricious determination of salience and rhetorical delivery to inform personal understanding and opinion regarding the validity and imminence of climate

Scientists write articles in medical journals that influence the media to elaborate on the topics through investigative journalism (Saguy and Almeling, 2008). Scientists and journalist alike overdramatize statistics and cases to gain public attention (Evans, 2010) to educate the public (Anderson, 2000). Commonly used is the statistical information on death tolls, an example of

Climate change. It has been on all of our minds as more and more controversy and panic are induced by new data being collected all the time. The very thought of it as the truth begins to fade into the foreground is enough to make many people sick. As this problem begins to take political forefronts, the question is, what are we going to do about it? Fortunately, public opinion and political concern as it has in the past and still does, has motivated individuals and even entire nations to take action against the upcoming threat. However, not all individuals are open to the truth of the existence and significance of climate change.

In this day and age companies have mastered the technique of misleading customers by fabricating false claims about a green product or service that they swear to provide. This insincere display of information is called ‘Greenwashing’, a spin-off of ‘Whitewashing’. Greenwashing could be said to be a global phenomenon and it’s commonly seen in advertisements, on products packing, websites, emails, speeches, and videos (just to name a few). Greenwashing is a thought out process, a planned and typically well designed campaign. There is a wide range of reasons why companies are eager to partake in greenwashing; divert attention for regulatory change, to persuade critics or consumers, expand the company's