by Beth Osnes
CSTPR Faculty Affiliate and Associate Professor of Theatre and Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado

“If a dove is the symbol of peace, then a butterfly is the symbol of change,” declared sixteen-year-old Finny Guy through a megaphone at the Climate Strike on the CU Boulder campus on September 20. As shown in the photo, Ting Lester stood by embodying the beauty of the butterfly, making present her commitment to transformational change needed in our policies and choices to reverse global warming. Finny and Ting are a part of Young Womxn’s Voices for Climate (YWVC), a group of ten young womxn from Boulder middle and high schools along with several CU students, including Sarah Fahmy (PhD Theatre), Lianna Nixon (PhD Education), Jeneé LeBlanc (BS Environmental Studies), and Elise Collins (MBA Business). It is brought together by a partnership between Inside the Greenhouse, which resides within CSTPR and is focused on creative climate communication, and SPEAK, an initiative for young womxn’s vocal empowerment for civic engagement. Facilitators for YWVC include CU Associate Professor of Theatre & Environmental Studies, Beth Osnes, co-founder of Inside the Greenhouse and SPEAK, and Chelsea Hackett, recent PhD graduate of New York University and co-founder of SPEAK.

These young womxn use creative communication to advocate for policies that support Boulder’s efforts to mobilize our community for stabilizing our climate. They were invited to perform for a Boulder City Council meeting by Boulder’s senior environmental planners on July 9 to convey their perspective on why the council should approve the request to revise our city’s climate action plan. Set to the Lion King’s song, “Can You Feel the Love Tonight?” they performed their own version of “Wind Turbines are Beautiful” costumed as wind turbines. YWVC is guided by the work of Project Drawdown that researched and ordered the impact of the top one hundred climate solutions. The young womxn of YWVC meet weekly at CU to plan and rehearse their actions. On September 26^th they were invited by Boulder environmental planners to perform at the Boulder City sponsored Climate Mobilization Action Plan Launch event. With over two hundred people in attendance, they performed their run down of the top five Drawdown solutions. To dramatize Drawdown solution number five, Tropical Forests, they enacted a skit and a song, featuring an old-growth tree and two costumed rolls of recycled toilet paper, to convey how reduction in use of paper products can help preserve tropical forests. Their next project will be on November 20 at Climate Change Theatre Action, at which they will perform two short plays focused on gender and climate change. They will then lead attendees in a creative process of their own expression on various climate-related issues. Visit Inside the Greenhouse to get the full details on this event.

Actively involving adolescents while they are still relatively young is important regarding climate-related issues, since research reveals that pessimism about addressing climate change increases with age, particularly from early to late adolescence (Ojala 2012; Stevenson and Peterson 2016). Our approach addresses the need to develop appropriate methods for supporting youth in maintaining their feelings of hope for sustained action. Arts-based methods are uniquely well-suited to this need since they give a context for exploring emotions and are rooted in action. In the book Pleasure Activism: The Politics of Feeling Good, author Adrienne Maree Brown introduces something she calls “pleasure activism,” a politics of healing and happiness that explodes the dour myth that changing the world is just another form of work. Our approach with YWVC is certainly in line with this sentiment. By taking on this issue with humor, creativity and expression, these young womxn do not make light of the importance of the issue; they bring light to it.

*Womxn is a term used to intentionally include transgender women and women of color.

Media and Climate Change Observatory (MeCCO)
September 2019 Summary

September media attention to climate change and global warming was at its highest level globally in nearly a decade. Coverage was most abundant in history apart from attention in November and December 2009 associated with the Copenhagen round of climate talks (COP15) and the University of East Anglia email hacking scandal ‘climate-gate’. Compared to the amount of coverage in the previous month of August, global coverage was up nearly 24% and compared to the amount of coverage a year ago (September 2018), it was up 126%. Compared to August 2019 overage also was up across all regions: Africa (+10%), Asia (+32%), Europe (+25%), Middle East (+6%), North America (+13%), Oceania (+20%), and Latin America (+28%). Compared to the previous month, coverage also was up across the wire services (+25%) and across global radio segments (+59%).

This burgeoning coverage lends itself to the notion that media are treating climate change not as a distant challenge in space and time, but as an intersectional set of issues in the here and now. Figure 2 shows trends in newspaper media coverage at the global scale – organized into seven geographical regions around the world – from January 2004 through September 2019.

Trends, however, varied across countries. MeCCO documented particularly strong signals in the quantity of coverage in the United States (US) in September in both television and print media. US television media reached its second highest levels (after the aforementioned period of November and December 2009. US print media of climate change or global warming reached an all-time high since MeCCO monitoring began in January 2000. US print media coverage of climate change surpassed the previous high water mark achieved in January 2017 (largely dominated by speculation of how newly inaugurated US President Donald Trump would impact global efforts to combat climate change (See MeCCO Summary 1 for details). Contributing to these increases, a ‘Covering Climate Now’ campaign was led by US-based media organizations Nation and Columbia Journalism Review designed to increase media coverage of climate change across more than 300 participating outlets. With a combined potential audience of over 1 billion readers, viewers and listeners, this initiative contributed to the increases in coverage that we in MeCCO detected.

Similarly, New Zealand print media coverage reached an all-time high, while the amount of coverage in Germany and Spain were second highest, and the United Kingdom reached the fourth highest on record in the month of September. Also in September 2019, Indian print media coverage reached an all-time high (see Figure 5 for more details). Compared to the previous month of August 2019, coverage was up in all eleven countries MeCCO monitors, except one: Canada (+31%), India (+26%), Germany (+26%), Spain (+81%), Japan (+49%), New Zealand (+17%), Norway (-13%), Sweden (+3%), UK (+8%), and US (+6%).

Below we describe media coverage that focused on political, economic, cultural, ecological, meteorological and scientific dimensions.

In September, media political and economic connections with climate issues dominated coverage around the world. For example, the month began as many United States (US) Democratic presidential hopefuls pushed out climate plans ahead of a September 4 climate town hall hosted by CNN. Journalists Juana Summers and Ellen Knickmeyer reported, “Five Democratic presidential candidates in the span of 24 hours have released sweeping plans to address climate change, ahead of a series of town halls devoted to the issue. On Wednesday, California Sen. Kamala Harris and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg each unveiled their climate plans. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former Obama cabinet member Julián Castro each laid out theirs on Tuesday. The flurry of plans comes ahead of a CNN town hall event on global warming, which 10 Democrats seeking the White House plan to attend. The forums come after liberals had demanded that the Democratic Party focus at least one debate on climate change, but a climate debate resolution was defeated at the Democratic National Committee’s summer meeting last month. Many Democrats see climate change as an urgent crisis. The issue is so urgent among Democratic voters that Washington Gov. Jay Inslee made action to limit the worst extremes of climate change the core of his presidential bid. But Inslee dropped out of the presidential race in August after failing to earn a spot in the September primary debate. Inslee would not have been invited to Wednesday’s climate change forum, either, having fallen short of the polling criteria. Since he abandoned his presidential bid, a number of candidates including Harris and Warren have embraced parts of the agenda he championed”.

Meanwhile Wall Street Journal reporters Chad Day and Tarini Parti wrote, “Four more Democratic presidential candidates have rolled out plans to address climate change through trillions of dollars in government investment and a fundamental overhaul of the American energy economy. Sens. Kamala Harris of California, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg—all of whom had previously endorsed the Green New Deal, a sweeping proposal aimed at weaning the U.S. economy off fossil fuels—unveiled detailed plans …”

In early September there was a 7-hour marathon of CNN town halls, featuring ten 2020 Democratic candidates in 40-minute consecutive segments. In contrast to the up to 15 minutes of climate change discussion in the June debate, this dedicated time to the intersectional climate challenge significantly boosted media attention both within the event itself, as well as through media accounts that followed.

Stories abounded. For example, journalist Aamer Madhani from USA Today reported, “There’s perhaps no topic that more starkly divides Democratic hopefuls and President Trump than the debate on climate change. Democrats writ large see global warming as an existential crisis, while Trump has dismissed the issue as a Chinese-made “hoax”. He has incorrectly suggested wind turbines cause cancer…until this week, global warming has remained largely a backburner issue in an internal Democratic debate that’s largely focused on who is best equipped to take on Trump in the general election and whether pursuing Medicare for All is the best way to fix health care in America. That could be changing. Capped with Wednesday’s CNN’s climate town hall — coming as Hurricane Dorian bears down on the southeastern United States — top Democratic hopefuls this week tried to demonstrate how they would approach turning the tide on global warming should they become the next commander-in-chief”.

As another example (among many), New York-based Guardian journalists Emily Holden and Oliver Milman noted, “Democrats vying for president revealed a fundamental split over how aggressively the US should tackle climate change in a seven-hour town hall meeting on Wednesday. Bernie Sanders painted an apocalyptic future wreaked by the climate crisis and pledged to wage war on the fossil fuel industry. A high-energy Elizabeth Warren urged optimism for building a better America and the former vice-president Joe Biden, who has a pitched a more moderate proposal, said he would push other nations to recommit to stronger action”.

Then in mid-September the United Nations (UN) General Assembly and dedicated day – the Climate Action Summit – addressing climate policy action further boosted media attention. Among many media accounts, BBC journalist Roger Harrabin commented, “The UN’s climate summit has closed amidst cautious praise for its achievements, and bitter condemnation for its failures. On the plus side, more than 60 nations announced they were working on or exploring plans to reduce greenhouse gas to virtually zero. And a similar number said they would definitely boost their climate change ambitions by next year. On the minus side, the campaigner Greta Thunberg blasted leaders for what she called inadequate ambition that risked the future of the young. Germany’s pledge, for instance, was described by critics as totally unfit to meet carbon-cutting targets it’s already promised. And scientists will warn on Tuesday of alarming changes in the natural world, including melting ice and sea level rise beyond previous projections. So it’s possible to describe the UN summit as a cup half-full, or a cup three-quarters empty. That said, there were very clear signs that around the world people are waking up to the threat of an over-heating climate. India, China and the EU say they will deliver tougher carbon-curbing plans in 2020”. Read more …

by Patrick Chandler
PhD Student in Environmental Studies Program at University of Colorado Boulder and 2019 winner of the Radford Byerly Award in Science and Technology Policy

Photo: Patrick Chandler during a performance of Inside the Greenhouse’s musical for youth engagement, Shine, on Earth Day 2019. Credit: Beth Osnes.

“Are you the artist?” This question followed by others of a similar type such as: “Who’s idea was this exhibit/production?” and “Who’s the lead on this project?” are some of my least favorite. For the past ten years, I’ve been working with communities and organizations to bring science and art together to communicate about environmental issues in order to engage observers and promote action. Each project has been a team effort that involved artists, scientists, educators, students, and community members. But somehow, that seems to be an unsatisfying answer to those who ask the questions listed above.

We tend to try and single out individuals, in both good and bad situations, in order to simplify responsibility. When a crime is committed, the question becomes, “Who did this?” rather than “Why did this happen?” The same happens when amazing things occur. Our first inclination is to ask who rather than how and why.

Isolating an individual as a cause simplifies our perception of events and alleviates responsibility. It enables us to say, “That person did something amazing/terrible!” and sets them apart from you and I. Most of us can name 10 individuals that stand out in history with no difficulty but might have trouble naming ten communities that collectively transformed humanity. I think this is because creating these hero/villain stories helps us to believe we don’t need to try and be that good (that person is special!) and that we couldn’t possibly be that bad (that person is disturbed!). So, what would happen if we abandoned this simplified narrative and embraced the idea that each of us can embody the full spectrum of human potential?

Climate change, plastic pollution, and the underlying causes of both threaten our ability to survive on this planet. But, more often than not, we look to others for solutions rather than confront our own infinite potential. If we are to overcome these global environmental issues, we have to admit that each one of us can have significant impact, and we have a responsibility to actualize our potential. But, not alone. In and with community we can combine our incredible potential to transform systems.

It’s time to start asking what we can do “with” instead of what we can do “for.” If scientists, artists, and educators ask what they can do in partnership with communities rather than what they can create for them we can begin to form a new vision that brings the head and heart together and motivates action. However, this is easier said than done. It takes a dedicated group of partners, time, resources, and flexibility along with regular work to maintain a partnership to make it happen.

For the past two years, I’ve been a part of a group of partners from the University of Colorado Boulder (CU) and the Jefferson County School District (JeffCo) who have been working together to pilot a curriculum with students in Jefferson County. Our goal is to develop lessons that bring together art and science in 4^th and 5^th grade classrooms to address climate change and create a performance that invites the community to work with students to build resiliency.

Photo: Students and teachers from Jefferson County Schools during a visit to CU in March 2019. Credit: Lianna Nixon.

Actively involving students in climate change issues while they are still relatively young is important. Research reveals that pessimism about addressing climate change increases with age—particularly from early to late adolescence (Ojala 2012). It is essential to discuss resilience and climate concerns in a positive way. Michale Rohd, author of Theatre for Community Conflict and Dialogue: The Hope is Vital Training Manual writes that, “The act of expression is an act of connection—through it we become positive, active participants in our lives and in our communities” (Rohd 1998).  Witnessing youth arts and performance gives adults hope. Engaging youth in solutions-oriented arts regarding resilience and climate change increases their level of hope and positive action. Giving youth a feeling that solutions to climate change are within their control can motivate behavior that benefits families, local community, and the world (Stevenson and Peterson 2016).

There is a need for an effective framework for this type of community-integrated co-production of lessons to promote action. Though each community has specific needs, the process of bringing communities together and designing an art/science project with and not for them has an associated set of best practices. Our hope is that through this project, we can add to the understanding of what creates effective art/science/education partnerships and help actualize the collective potential needed to overcome the immense challenges we currently face as a society by actualizing our collective potential. In doing so, we hope to change the focus to how change happens in communities and the process that enables systems to become sustainable rather than who to single out as a separate and uniquely powerful individual.

References:

Ojala, M., Fakulteten för utbildningsvetenskaper, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Uppsala universitet; Institutionen för pedagogik, didaktik och utbildningsstudier, 2012. Hope and climate change: The importance of hope for pro-environmental engagement among young people, Environmental Education Research, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 625.

Rohd, M.,1998. Theatre for community, conflict; dialogue: The Hope is Vital training manual, Heinemann, Portsmouth, NH.

Stevenson, K.T., Peterson, M.N. & Bondell, H.D., 2016. The influence of personal beliefs, friends, and family in building climate change concern among adolescents, Environmental Education Research, pp. 1-14.

What will it take to address the compounding problems?
The Conversation

by Cassandra Brooks, CSTPR Faculty Affiliate, Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies at University of Colorado at Boulder

Photo: Changes to the ocean and frozen parts of the Earth affect humans in multiple ways, including changes to fisheries availability of fresh water. Credit: John Weller.

The U.N.‘s climate panel report released Sept. 25 makes crystal clear that the planet’s oceans, snow and ice are in dire trouble and the damage is causing harm to the people who depend on them. Even with aggressive efforts to lower greenhouse gas emissions, many nations will struggle to adapt.

All people on Earth depend on the ocean and cryosphere – the frozen regions of our planet. Together they provide vital services to humanity including food, fresh water and energy. But they also perform critical services, including the uptake and redistribution of carbon dioxide and heat.

Yet, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere says human-induced climate change is harming the health and function of the ocean and cryosphere in a number of ways. Glaciers and ice sheets are shrinking. Global sea level is rising at more than twice the rate of the 20th century. The ocean is warming, becoming more acidic and losing oxygen. Fifty percent of coastal wetlands have been lost over the last 100 years. Species are shifting, biodiversity is declining and ecosystems are losing their integrity and function. The strain on the ocean and cryosphere has direct and indirect effects, threatening human health, food security, fresh water and livelihoods.

Same trends, new urgency

As a marine scientist and environmental policy scholar who’s worked in the Antarctic for the last 15 years, I wonder if any of this is really news. Earlier this week, the World Meteorological Organization reported similar findings: that the last five-year period has been the warmest on record, ice mass is decreasing, sea level is rising and CO2 emissions are at an all-time high.

Earlier this year, the world’s leading natural scientists released the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services report which confirmed that biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services are deteriorating across the world. Last year the IPCC released a special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels with similarly dire predictions.

There are more details in this latest IPCC report on changes that have occurred in the past few decades. Since 1993, the rate of warming has likely more than doubled; the ocean has already soaked up between 20% and 30% of human-induced carbon emissions since the 1980s, altering the ocean water chemistry to make it more acidic; and marine heat waves have resulted in large-scale coral bleaching, which takes more than 15 years for corals to recover from.

The report notes that communities that live in close connection with coastal environments, small island nations, polar areas and high mountains are particularly vulnerable to changes, such as rising sea levels and shrinking glaciers. But communities in other areas are affected by ocean changes as well, such as through extreme weather events exacerbated by ocean warming.

This most recent report on the ocean and cryosphere is among dozens released during the last 30 years by the IPCC, but its message is the most bold and urgent to date: If the world’s nations do not act with urgency, we – and future generations – will suffer from these changes.

What can we do?

A relatively straightforward solution to curbing biodiversity loss, especially in the face of climate change, is expanding the global network of large-scale protected areas on land and ocean.

While highlighted by the report, the importance of this management practice is also old news. Protected areas have been implemented for years to conserve marine ecosystems, and are now being implemented across the world. Studies continue to show that strict protected areas, which limit or prohibit human use, safeguard biodiversity while also enhancing resilience to environmental impacts, including climate change. Indeed, high-profile initiatives like E.O. Wilson’s Half-Earth Project argue that people must protect at least half of the planet to ensure human survival.

But protected areas are not enough. The report also highlights an even more challenging, yet crucial, component of the solution: Rapid reduction of greenhouse gas emissions must be achieved across institutional boundaries. The global nature of the issue demands a globally coordinated effort toward ambitious cuts in emissions.

The United Nations Climate Action Summit, which convened over the weekend of Sept. 22, intended to do just this. The goal of the meeting was to identify realistic plans toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 45% during the next decade and further to net-zero by 2050. Seventy-seven countries announced efforts toward net-zero emissions by 2050. Multiple businesses voiced intentions to follow Paris Agreement targets to reduce emissions.

Widespread climate strikes, led largely by young people, are also a sign of a broader social response to climate change.

But is this enough to stop the degradation of our ocean, cryosphere and larger Earth system?

History shows that communities do change and that crisis can drive breakthroughs. On an international scale, the world witnessed this with the Montreal Protocol, which banned a class of gases called CFCs and halted the deterioration of the ozone hole, driven in part by fear of cancer and other human health issues. Another international victory was achieved when, in the face of potential discord, including a threat of nuclear war, global governments signed the Antarctic Treaty. Doing so transformed the southern continent from a burgeoning scene of militarization to an international commons dedicated to peace and science.

While ecological tipping points have proved impossible to predict, I believe a social one is arriving. The new IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere makes clear that no action on climate change is not a viable path forward.