FEAR IT ISN'T

______________________________________________________
50 DEGREES
A bresilien group.  Neomansland.
link>_______________________________________________________ 

“climate of fear” (e.g., Bonnici, 2007), and NGOs of “climate

chaos” (Stop Climate Chaos, a U.K. coalition for action on climate change).

«Images of polar bears stranded on ice have become iconic of climate change» (O’Neill, 2008).

I felt saying that «Ereaut and Segnit (2006) stating that the alarmist climate repertoire is characterized by an inflated or extreme lexicon», was in itself already giving it a tone. Alarming as if it was a negative thing with an wrongly urgent tone: «It is a terrible, immense, and apocalyptic problem, beyond human control. They find alarmist climate messages employ narratives of doom, death, judgment, and heaven and hell.» Don't some trust having the choice of hell or heaven (not talking about me) ? It all depends on personal choices? Death being the only thing we don't control? We don't necessarily commit suicide because we know we will die?
(perhaps even more legitimate and engaged in living for all it's worth, with no religious end of life escape in mind.)

I know I am sort of throwing all this and thinking out loud, but didn't wish to postpone this blog until I could -do better-. I had it almost ready yesterday, hoping to make it more... more paused, with the best examples I could find or think of, and images to accompany, but I decided to let the tone out without censure, and really not sure it can't be the other way around, but questioning myself as I go.

Why is fear so prevalent in climate change communications? It would guess it is fair enough and true and transparent, since it is simply the reality we are facing. We are in the catastrophe. We can alarm and propose solution but we certainly should not do the opposite and pretend all is we.  Do we prefer our doc denies you might die soon or be cured or let’s you know so you can choose therapy or not with a conscious mind. I have a friend who was told he had 2 weeks. He had time to say good-bye and us to mourn with him. Do we not tell kids about the catastrophe of drugs? Isn’t it political correctness not to say/show what harm can do, then, propose avenues? This is what I find very Christian Aid oriented personally to take on the author. Don’t show the war amputees; just show how war does good to populations. Do you show a message with flowers in a garden of love for a drug addict to choose a rehab home? Or do you tell him the dangers first, make sure he is well aware the next shot could be deadly, but offer him an issue with the flowery home? Or propose the issue with flowers right from the start  telling him there is hope so he might optimistically postpone his decision to later? I know Climate change is such a broader issue with invisible links that comparisons are hard. But many social realities are already deadly to many populations.

I appreciate the work of Adbusters, or Design for the Dissent, or posters saying –water and oil don’t mix- printed with Tar spill oil per example (and many others), if the piece as a great critical engaged idea, they aim to offer some room for reflection. Perhaps we don’t know that they change the world, but like environmentalists in their own communications, visual activists or engaged designers are trying to create awareness without being afraid of words or images.  Perhaps have some fields of social/environmental communication not yet been victims of political rectitude and are still allowed their own voice? We read everywhere they are wrong but I still wonder.  I am not convinced that an Amnesty campaign showing a liberated mom from jail reunited with her child is more empowering then the reality of seeing one giving birth handcuffed or with a baby breastfeeding behind bars. Aware we can –do- something to have better conditions for her is a call of proposed actions to change. That is what NGO’s do and invite us to listen to and act. If we don’t, I feel it is our responsibility. Refusing to see what hurts is another problem, but it doesn’t make it go away like in movies where all ends well. Matthew's proposal of Tim I had liked as well was just as moving to me as anyone who get's imprisoned for any abuse of rights for telling the truth.

We can truly criticize advertising for inducing greenwashing but social/environmental campaigns are different. Do we hold it against our dentist to show us gum damage on an information piece? Will it be his fault because it was so discouraging that we chose not to brush our teeth? Perhaps our system's fault for fees to be so high to have healthy teeth. He is a professional, he knows, he informs us, he offers tools, so it’s ok. And still, we have seen less people loosing their teeth in many of our western countries.  We didn't deny it from knowing. We didn't rebel brushing our teeth (past 5-6). Isn’t an environmentalist, a conservationist, an educator, a communicator’s role to similarly advise us ? Any role as a matter of fact? A vet, a plumber, a garage person, a fisher person?  Perhaps stopping the damage in time needs some provocation? After that comes good taste or good concepts, in optimistic or catastrophic adds, either way they can be unefficient communication pieces I tend thinking. How come we took so long for accusing cigarette companies but accuse cigarette smokers so easily? Because now they know? Why does the –fear- literature condemn environmentalists but not that easily policy-makers. I am sure we can find all opposite example to reflect on the opposite way, just as texts of hope and fear have us ponder on. But I guess this is my gut feeling.

«levels of alarm are often magnified»

I don’t find the alarm to have been strong enough personally. I have asked around me why people think it’s ok not to do much, and answers ranged from people will only react when they are really scared, to it’s almost too late, and anyhow people know nature will adapt, scientists said so, poor countries are such a huge population growth problem, etc. 

I hope to come back soon to post more pieces from engaged students. 


Vincent Tourigny, Uqam

Charles Brisebois Uqam

11.12.09 POSTER 4 TOMORROW

01 / 02

03 / 04

05 / 06

07 / 08

09 / 10
______________________________________________________
POSTER 4 TOMORROW
Posters made in my course for Poster4Tomorrow ! (freedom of expression) 
01. Jocelyn Blanchard / Your own enemy / Uqam, Montréal, Qc
02. Natacha Castonguay / Pencil behind bars / Uqam, Montréal, Qc
03. Etienne Beaudoin-Vles / Repression / Uqam, Montréal, Qc
04. Etienne Beaudoin-Vles / Trapped / Uqam, Montréal, Qc
05. Mathieu Daudelin / Situation / Uqam, Montréal, Qc
06. Mathieu Daudelin / Propagation / Uqam, Montréal, Qc
07. Olivier Mercier-Chan Kane / Shutter release / Uqam, Mtl, Qc
08. Pier-Philippe Rioux / Censorship / Uqam, Montréal, Qc
09. Sophie De Henau / Shut up / Uqam, Montréal, Qc
10. Sophie De Henau / When freedom is kept quiet / Uqam, Mtl, Qc
In  24 cities at once.FLICKR

Environmental Magazine covers from from 2006 students. 
Christophe de Muri / 2.Benoît Tradif / 3.Sonia Roy / 4.Alexis Coutu-Marion /




Quebec

no woods

Subway