On the Ballot: Climate Change

Graphic by Anjali Rao-Herel ‘22

By Abby Wester ’22

Staff Writer

In the 2020 election, the issue of climate change often divides along party lines. Democrats tend to support policies that limit greenhouse gas emissions while Republicans generally take a more hands-off approach. Environmental policies also differ within the major political parties, specifically within the Democratic Party, as there are various moderate and left-leaning views. Joe Biden’s and Donald Trump’s responses to climate change have been split along party lines. 

Biden’s climate plan is regarded as one of the most progressive ever listed on the U.S. ticket. His proposal promises to make a $1.7 trillion federal investment in environmental justice and clean energy over the next 10 years. Biden has been seen as an opponent of the Green New Deal, the congressional resolution put forth by progressive members of the Democratic Party to fight climate change.  “I don’t support the Green New Deal,” Biden said during the first presidential debate. However, the plan that Biden’s campaign has released is similarly modeled after the Green New Deal in that it connects protection of the environment to the revitalization of the economy.

Biden’s plan has five key aspects. He promises the United States will use 100 percent green energy and have net-zero emissions by no later than 2050. He will invest in the nation’s infrastructure, which may improve climate resilience. The Biden campaign also pledges to rally the rest of the world to join in the United States’ efforts to combat climate change by urging other nations to abstain from actions that harm the environment, such as arctic drilling. By serving as a leader in the fight against climate change, Biden hopes to lead the world in creating green technologies and environmentally safe industry standards. Biden advocates for environmental justice and promises to stand up to the large polluters who, as the plan highlights, disproportionately harm communities of color and low-income communities. According to his plan, Biden will secure benefits for and invest in workers in the coal and power plant industries as the economy shifts toward clean energy.

Many conservatives have rallied against the progressive Green New Deal since it was proposed in Congress by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey in February 2019. Trump has accused Biden of supporting the Green New Deal, and Biden in turn denounced the congressional resolution. While Biden says he endorses the framework of the Green New Deal seen in his own climate plan, their formats are fundamentally different.

 The Green New Deal is a congressional resolution. It’s a broad framework that outlines the goals of achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 while providing improved infrastructure and secure jobs for all Americans. Biden’s climate plan offers specific details about how the climate and economic goals would be achieved.

On the other hand, Trump has yet to release a cohesive plan of what he would do if granted a second term in office, but rather has provided a list of individual steps that he has already taken to benefit the environment as well as the economy. For example, he created a Superfund task force to streamline the cleanup of hazardous waste sites, signed an executive order to protect and restore one trillion trees by 2030 and invested in clean water infrastructure. When it comes to burning fossil fuels, Trump has rescinded the Obama administration’s clean power plan — along with a number of other environmental regulations that would limit greenhouse gas emissions — and worked to improve infrastructure and resources needed to increase gas and oil production in the U.S.

From immense detail to a more laissez-faire approach, there are several partisan ways to address environmental issues, such as climate change. Both candidates have taken steps to address the environment in a way that will please their core bases.

What We Know and Don’t Know About Air Pollution’s Impact on Human Health

Photo courtesy of ECF.com

By Helen Gloege ’23

Staff Writer

At the start of this year’s pandemic-induced lockdown, a decline in air pollution produced photos demonstrating a clearer, lighter and completely unobstructed view of the India Gate War Memorial in New Delhi, India, and the clear, blue waves of the Grand Canal in Venice, Italy, known for its murky waters. These examples of the real-world impact of decreased air pollution reveal the dramatic effects of what the world would look like if air quality improved. While the amount of global air pollution has a clear connection to human activity, there is little known about the impact of air pollution on human health and what possible compounding effects it might hold for future generations. 

The World Health Organization estimates that over 90 percent of the world’s population breathes air containing harmful pollution levels. Polluted air often contains airborne particulate matter that is considered especially dangerous. Particulate matter refers to the mix of solid particles and liquid droplets. Some particles are large or dark enough to be seen with the naked eye, such as dust, dirt or smoke, while others are microscopic and remain unseen. 

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, particles come in various sizes and shapes and can entail hundreds of different chemicals. Some particles are emitted directly from sources, such as fires, fields or construction sites. Most of the particles form in the atmosphere due to chemical reactions, such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emitted from power plants, industries and automobiles. 

There is not much known about the impact or location of particulate matter. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is planning a satellite mission that will help determine connections between particulate matter, air pollution and human health. The Multi-Angle Imager for Aerosols satellite will launch into orbit around the Earth in 2022. The data from the satellite will provide maps of particulate matter air pollution that will be used by epidemiologists to study different types of particulate matter and its impact on health. 

Currently, there is a belief that infections derived from air pollution-related health problems make people more susceptible to severe illnesses. Larger particulate matter is responsible for irritating airways, while smaller particles may go deeper into the lungs and cause inflammation that affects other organs. Particulate matter 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller is associated with an increased risk of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. People who breathe more particulate matter are more likely to develop lung cancer, lower respiratory infections, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and health issues during pregnancy. 

A map produced by Physicians for Social Responsibility shows neighborhood-by-neighborhood pollution levels across Los Angeles overlaid by COVID-19 case counts. The maps show that heavily polluted areas tend to worsen COVID-19 outbreaks, while areas with less pollution have fewer COVID-19 cases. Researchers at Harvard University reported that individuals living in areas with higher smog levels were more likely to die from COVID-19. Other researchers from Emory University found a similar correlation that linked higher COVID-19 death rates with nitrogen dioxide exposure.
It is unlikely that air pollution is the full story. Redlining practices frequently exclude people of color from neighborhoods considered desirable, instead pushing them into housing near freeways, refineries and power plants. COVID-19 has disproportionately affected people of color. They are more likely to suffer from preexisting conditions, less likely to have access to health care and more likely to work jobs that are not remote. This information indicates that air pollution exposure isn’t the full story, and it is probable that there are other effects at play.

Scientists have used monitoring instruments on or in the ground to measure air pollution exposure. However, to gain an accurate sample, a dense array of monitors is needed. The Multi-Angle Imager for Aerosols satellite will acquire data from space, preventing a need for monitors on the ground. Completed studies will examine the impact of long-term exposure to air pollution, focusing on particular locations. The target areas will be based on a set of criteria, including population, variability in the amount and type of particle matter, how well monitored the area is and access to public health records. The data will also apply to other research, including investigating aerosol and cloud interactions with climate. Aside from epidemiologists and other scientists who will use the raw data, policymakers and air quality regulators would also benefit from the information.

           This information will benefit a recent international health study called the Global Burden of Disease, which claimed that breathing in particulate matter resulted in over 4 million premature deaths globally. Another recent study specifically addressed the impact of air pollution on people in South Asia. It is expected that in New Delhi, going outside and simply breathing the air can shorten one’s life span by over nine years. 

There is currently a surge in air pollution in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal. Bangladesh currently leads with the lowest average life span, with air pollution cutting the average life expectancy by about 6.2 years. Air pollution will shorten the average Indian life expectancy by 5.2 years. There are certain areas with much worse average life expectancy reductions, such as Delhi’s 9.4 years and Uttar Pradesh’s 8.6 years. Meanwhile, in Pakistan, the average life is shortened by 2.7 years. In Nepal, life expectancy is cut by 4.7 years. 

The traditional air quality index provides daily air quality assessments but does not include the health risks that may result from the air quality. The air quality life index converts particulate matter air pollution into its impact on life expectancy. This work has quantified the causal relationship between human exposure to air pollution and reduced life expectancy.

Particulate matter, as previously mentioned, has an impact on respiratory, immune and cardiovascular systems. Recent studies have pointed toward a link between long-term exposure to air pollution and global deaths from COVID-19. A study published in the Cardiovascular Research journal estimates that about 15 percent of global deaths from COVID-19 could be linked to particulate matter exposure. The study analyzed health and disease in the U.S. and China in connection with air pollution, including COVID-19 and SARS. The information gathered from the study was combined with data from satellites and ground monitoring on global exposure to particulate matter. That information was combined with satellite data and ground monitoring of global exposure to particulate matter. Particulate matter is known to increase the likelihood of COVID-19 risk factors such as asthma, lung and heart problems. Moreover, particulate matter appears to increase ACE-2 receptor activity, which is known to be involved in the way COVID-19 infects patients. The study says that this doesn’t mean pollution is responsible for killing people with COVID-19. Still, the pollution particles are likely factors that aggravate the disease.

Current information highlights how little we know about the effects of air pollution and particulate matter on human health. Governments are responsible for setting limits on hazardous air pollutants to protect the public. Still, it is hard to determine the line for acceptable risk without adequate information. We know that methods for monitoring and estimating air toxins aren’t sufficient enough to determine the risks to human health, and more research needs to be done on the long- and short-term impacts. Attention must be paid to the separation of causal factors, as the combinations of hazardous air pollutants could have cascading effects and cause different outcomes.

Antarctica Undergoes Warming Temperature of Deep Oceans and Melting Ice Shelves

Pictured above: Antartica. Photo courtesy of WikiMedia.

By Siona Ahuja ’24

Staff Writer

Recent studies have confirmed that the Antarctic ice shelf is melting at irreversible rates. Industrial emissions from thousands of miles away have caused the depths of the Antarctic Weddell Sea to heat up five times faster than the rest of the ocean. 

Warming trends in Antarctica have been mixed, with western parts of the continent steadily warming while the eastern region has remained relatively unscathed. Unlike the Arctic, which is known for having heated up exponentially within the past few decades, Antarctica’s behavior has proven to be more difficult to map out. Natural fluctuations of warm and cool ocean currents (which cause the El Nino and La Nina currents) over a long period have pushed warm winds over to the South Pole. This natural phenomenon is not the only driving force behind the Antarctic’s heating, as indiscriminate burning of fossil fuels has also been a significant factor in melting ice shelves.  

Oceans consume more than 90 percent of excess heat generated by greenhouse gas emissions. These oceans also absorb large amounts of atmospheric shock. As a result, southern oceans have absorbed over half the heat generated from 2005 through 2017. 

The mixing of warm southern oceanic currents, especially those enveloping Antarctica, means that deeper waters are heating faster than surface waters. The melting of Antarctic land ice into the sea also causes the ocean’s topmost layer to remain considerably cooler. This will eventually lead to what scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies call a “heat flux,” where increased warming rates would cause the accelerated melting of ice shelves and a greater rise in sea levels, causing unmitigated disasters. 

Climate scientists remain skeptical about the world’s ability to stop or decelerate the warming of the continent. The world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the United States, formally exited from the Paris Climate Agreement on Nov. 4, 2020. Even if other countries fulfill the targets they set in this treaty, Antarctica’s fate remains sealed. Researchers believe that it will be difficult to counteract these changes if temperatures rise 2 C above pre-industrial levels. 

 Dr. Richard Jones and Dr. Ross Whitmore of the Monash University School of Earth, Atmosphere and Environment, are lead authors of the Oct. 21 study. They state that the study implies ice loss unfolding in Antarctica is “likely to continue unabated for a long time — even if climate change is brought under control.” 

This change holds significant implications for the icy continent. The native animal population is decreasing. While some species are adapting to the heat, other populations are declining. Krill, small shrimp-like crustaceans crucial to Antarctica’s ecosystem, have also declined around 80 percent since the 1970s because of excessive commercial fishing, depleting ice and the recovery of whales. 

Warming has also caused new kinds of algae to bloom, shading swathes of snow tints of green, red and pink. This alga is so vivid that it can be seen from space. Moreover, ocean warming exacerbates the thawing of sea ice. Darker sea ice has lower surface reflectivity. This causes more solar radiation absorption, furthering melt and creating a “feedback loop.” Land in Antarctica is also growing greener. Rising temperatures have led to the growth of plants, mosses and lichens, which might pave the way for a whole new ecosystem. 

Expansion of the oceans gives way to numerous coastal disasters like floods and ice melting, which can endanger 40 percent of the world’s population that lives on coastlines. Scientists are certain this phenomenon will affect people living inland as well. 

Antarctica is facing the consequences of human activity despite being secluded thousands of miles away from civilization. Just as the whole Earth has impacted Antarctica, the changes it sustains are felt globally. Researchers hope their findings ignite conversations and policy changes that can prevent any future major disasters. 

Election Stress Disorder and How To Deal With It

By Nancy Jiang ‘23

Staff Writer

If you are stressed or feeling anxious about the election results, you might be experiencing election stress disorder. (Yes, it’s a real thing.) 

According to the American Psychological Association, 68 percent of Americans claim that the 2020 U.S. presidential election is a major source of stress in their lives, more so than the 2016 election when only 52 percent of Americans reported feeling stressed. The stress level is especially high for specific groups such as African Americans, who saw an increase from 46 percent in 2016 to 71 percent in 2020, and adults experiencing chronic illnesses. Although the exact reason remains unknown, 25 percent of college students reported clinically significant stress symptoms related to the election in 2016, meaning these symptoms were so severe that they needed to see a doctor. 

Uncertainty is considered a major cause of election stress disorder. People worry not only about which candidate will win but also what the future of the nation will look like, especially in an election between two candidates who are extremely divisive. It’s hard to make predictions as the country would be moving in opposite directions based on either one’s administrative plans. 

“No matter who wins, people will protest,” Allison Benguiat ’22 said. “One thing is for sure: the unrest of the crowd.” 

Additionally, international students’ experiences in the U.S. will be hugely affected by the outcome of the election, as they must face additional unknown factors such as the future policies for student visas and U.S. work authorization. “I’m worried about my visa expiring. That will stop me from coming back to Mount Holyoke,” Susan Wang ’23, an international student from China, said. “I hope the pandemic gets more under control after the election. As much as I miss the campus and hope to return, the increasing number of positive cases makes me hesitate.”

Some students appear more comfortable with uncertainty. “We’ll have to figure out what to do based on the new policies,” said Kelly Li ’23, who is also from China, “But as for now, we can do nothing about it. We’ll have to take it as what it will be, so I’m not stressed now.” 

As of Nov. 4, Democratic nominee Joseph Biden had won 50.3 percent of votes while President Donald Trump had won 48.1 percent, according to the Associated Press. 

Li’s strategy of “taking it as it will be” is also suggested by the APA to help deal with election stress disorder. Distracting yourself from constant worrying might also help alleviate anxiety. Watch a few episodes of your favorite TV show, talk to family and friends or focus on schoolwork (although that might cause another type of stress). If that doesn’t work, you can also talk about your concerns with someone from Mount Holyoke’s Counseling Service online.

The Politics of Reproduction in Poland and the United States

Graphic by Trinity Kendrick ‘21

By Kesshini Bhasiin ’22

Health & Science Editor

Content warning: This article contains discussion of abortion. 

Tens of thousands of women braved the cold, possible arrest and a deadly virus as they marched across Poland to fight for their right to choose this October. Dressed as baby incubators from “The Handmaid’s Tale” in red hoods and carrying red lightning bolts, these women banded together in the country’s largest protests since the 1980s following an unappealable ruling to ban almost all abortions in the country. Per this new ruling, the procedure may be carried out only under strict exceptions — conception via criminal acts like rape or incest or when continued pregnancy poses a threat to the woman’s life. Prior exceptions granted for fetal abnormalities have been abrogated under this new law. A sense of despair and vehement anger toward the government and the Catholic Church appears to hang heavy across the European nation, with many visuals depicting smoke, shouts and tears. 

Given the United States’ confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett — the third conservative justice President Donald Trump has appointed to the bench — it is possible to wonder if the U.S. is headed down a similar path. This Supreme Court bench is set to receive cases that could open the doors to overturning Roe v. Wade, especially with the conservatives holding a 6-3 majority and numerous Senate Republicans keen to support such a move. In essence, there appears to be a very real possibility that women could stand to lose their reproductive freedoms. 

Assistant Professor of Politics and expert on reproductive rights in Latin America Cora Fernandez Anderson discussed the importance of these freedoms and the role of government, if any, in regulating reproductive rights. 

Fernandez Anderson said that historical facts and current trends may help anticipate the aftermath of more restrictive abortion laws. The new laws may lead to the birth of great “social injustice,” similar to that in the U.S. and the majority of Latin American countries before 1973, according to Fernandez Anderson. 

“Rich women will still be able to gain access to abortion — they will just travel elsewhere to do it — while women belonging to minority and poor communities will no longer be able to access safe abortions,” she said. 

This lack of access has not historically translated to a decrease in the number of abortions performed in these countries. Women of all communities and economic statuses have still found methods to carry out the procedure, either through self-injury or visiting illegal clinics with little to no protections in case something goes awry. Echoing the concerns of the feminist groups Fernandez Anderson worked with, she believes that such a ruling “would not end abortions, but end safe abortions.” 

However, looking to Latin American nations and certain states today shows that an existing drug may provide some relief. Misoprostol makes self-administered abortion procedures performed with the right information nearly as safe as surgical abortions. Networks have been developed by feminist activists across these regions, and if Roe v. Wade is overturned, they would possibly be “needed even more,” Fernandez Anderson said.

Historical precedent suggests that there are a few reasons why some governments support banning abortions despite the greater possibility of maternal injury or even mortality. One of the leading reasons is the involvement of the Catholic Church. In the case of Poland, a country with nearly 33 million practicing Catholics, the government’s decisions have been heavily influenced by rhetoric from the church on valuing the sanctity of all life. 

When such rhetoric came to a head after SCOTUS’ 1973 opinion in Roe v. Wade and voters began to support the pro-life movement, politicians seemed to acknowledge that discussing women’s reproductive rights in a manner favored by their constituents could almost certainly guarantee them being voted into power. This is now such a pressing issue in some states that, in the documentary “Reversing Roe,” Texas Democrat Donna Howard commented that a candidate’s stance on abortion is deeply important even when voting for unrelated offices, such as agriculture. 

Fernandez Anderson further noted that in countries such as Poland, “a deep history of imperialism” has played a role in decisions to protect the unborn. This is being branded “Polish nationalism” by Jaroslaw Kaczyński, the incumbent leader of the right-wing Law and Justice party. Similarly, in Latin America, it is often believed that abortion came alongside increased involvement of the U.S. government in the region, thereby leading people to believe that such a practice was not a part of their own cultural identity. 

It appears that there is sometimes a choice to be made between standing for women’s reproductive freedoms or standing for one’s church and state. 

Interestingly, the church appears to be “more coherent than the state” on the issue, Fernandez Anderson said. The church has long advocated for welfare programs, increased support for child-rearing and a more holistic approach to childcare that does not simply end after the birth of the child. In the absence of globally subsidized health care, affordable daycare and paid paternity leaves, it appears that governments have a lot more work to do to provide adequate support for a child after its birth. 

Debates still remain about whether governments should truly have a role to play in determining reproductive rights. When considering this, Fernandez Anderson laughed, noting how she had spent a considerable amount of time debating this issue in her courses. “The only role governments should play is to guarantee these rights to all citizens,” she said. If there arises a situation of inaccessibility or harm to a minority, then governments should step in to “ensure equality,” she added. 

There does appear to be some indication that the nearly 50-year-old precedent set by Roe v. Wade will be too strong to overturn; however, a stricter exception policy, similar to the one enacted in Poland, may be fast approaching.

Weekly Climate News

October 29, 2020

• Indigenous Mayan communities are suing the Mexican government over plans to install more than 1 million solar panels near their homes, a project that would require clearance of 600 hectares of trees from their communities. 

• Vietnam prepares for Typhoon Molave, the fourth storm to hit the central region of the country in the past few weeks in a series of the most intense tropical storms they have experienced in decades. Currently, 130 people have been reported dead and 18 missing, and about 300,000 homes have been damaged or completely collapsed by the floods. 

• The Trump administration has rolled back nearly 100 climate policies and rules in regards to clean air, water, wildlife and toxic chemicals. Here is the full list. 

• Ranchers and activists have taken sides in a proposed plan to cull the Tule Elk Herd in Point Reyes National Seashore, located north of San Francisco, California. 

• Check out this list of key Senate races which could largely determine the future of U.S. climate policy. 

• Japan announced ambitious plans to become carbon neutral by 2050. 

• Fossil fuel companies are losing favor with investors, as many are turning toward the renewable energy sector. 

• Poor air quality in Asia has been linked to billions of premature deaths, and a new report claims that breathing air in New Delhi can shorten life expectancy by more than nine years. 

• A new study by NASA will look at how particulate matter in air pollution affects human health. 

Environmental Art: From the Creative to the Political Sphere

Image courtesy of Mronline.org

By Siona Ahuja ’24

Staff Writer

The environmental art movement serves as an umbrella movement to various facets of nature. It is a call to worship it, be inspired by it, conserve it and resist those who cause irreparable damage to it. These creations call for humans to recognize their inseparable bond from nature and regard it as the very force that sustains them. 

Environmental art has been present since the earliest art forms, evoking sentiments of environmental interconnectedness among people with its longtime existence. Reflection of nature around humans has dated back to the paleolithic cave paintings that depict wildlife as well as hunting and gathering. Claude Monet revolutionized art and created the impressionist movement by using nature as his muse. 

“For me, a landscape does not exist in its own right, since its appearance changes at every moment; but the surrounding atmosphere brings it to life — the light and the air which vary continually,” Monet said. “For me, it is only the surrounding atmosphere which gives subjects their true value.”

The environmental art movement includes several submovements such as romanticism, eco-realism, arte povera and sustainable art.

Romanticism was a reactionary artistic movement that resisted the scientific rationalization of nature during the Enlightenment Era in the 18th century. The rise of capitalism regarded elements of nature such as water and wind as commodities rather than a source of appreciation. Poets, artists and intellectuals responded by utilizing art forms that celebrated nature in its purest form. For example, John Constable, an 18th century British painter, revolutionized the environmental art movement through his naturalistic, richly colored landscape paintings. 

In the late 1960s, environmental art manifested in the political sphere. The detrimental human impacts on the Earth were becoming visible in this period, and art became crucial to transforming human consciousness worldwide. Some concerns included oil spills and carbon emissions causing smog. The population explosion of the 1970s in particular led to a panic of overpopulation and its accompanying environmental pressures like pollution, starvation and resource depletion, which were depicted by artists at the time.  

Land art, art made directly into the landscape using natural materials like twigs and leaves, transformed into protest art. Creating outside traditional spaces questioned the commodification of art and its placement in studios and galleries. A major land art figure is Anya Gallaccio, a British artist who creates site-specific minimalist installations and often works with organic, decaying material. Her practice of using unconventional materials like ice, sugar cubes, flowers and fruit depicts her anti-consumerist stance and prompts the viewers to think about unnecessary human intervention in nature. Her works flow well with the general transitory theme of land art that suggests impermanence in the natural world. This movement is also notable for reintroducing nature to urban landscapes, as seen with Alan Sonfist’s prominent “Time Landscape” (1965-1978), a land installation in New York City. 

Arte povera, or “impoverished art,” was an avant-garde Italian movement of the 1960s that incorporated reused, commonplace and literally “poor” materials like rope, soil, rocks, paper, clothing and the like. This was a reaction to the minimalist and modernist abstract painting realm that had dominated Europe in the mid-1960s. Arte povera pieces were mainly sculptural and challenged the notion of art as a valuable, exclusive commodity. Marisa Merz was the sole female member of the initial movement and worked with unconventional items like boots, blankets and bowls of salt. 

Sustainable art is an art form that is in harmony with the principles of sustainability such as social justice, ecology, grassroots democracy and nonviolence. The pieces are considered sustainable if they are made of recycled materials or by objects that do not exert any pressure on the Earth. Artists seek to highlight environmental degradation and the harsh reality of climate change through a creative medium. Camille Thibert is a French artist who creates what she calls “earthworks.” Her pieces incorporate reclaimed wood that is uniquely crafted through a drilling technique that creates shadows and textures in the portraits painted on them. By using nature as a medium, Thibert seeks to start a discussion on the vulnerability of nature and highlight how we should engage in a more conscious lifestyle. 

The work of Mount Holyoke Guest Artist in Art Amanda Maciuba is concerned with the current environment and human agency within the landscape. “Artists respond to this [environmental] threat in a variety of ways, from making work that mourns ecosystems lost, or creating overtly political work that shares or exposes issues in the environmental policy world,” Maciuba said. “The work can stem from more traditional drawings and paintings that respond to or illustrate these issues, to artists that directly intervene in the environment and their communities with site-specific installations and performances.”

As an artist whose primary discipline is print media and book arts, a majority of Maciuba’s work is paper-based. Her research practice, which is to explore the environments and communities where she lives to help her draw inspiration for her work, is extensive. “I consider going out and physically exploring the environment a vitally important part of my practice,” Maciuba said. 

“I also spend time investigating the people that live in a space and how they have impacted their environment,” Maciuba added. “My hope is that my work encourages viewers to reconsider their impact on their immediate communities.”

Maciuba doubts that this art movement is going away any time soon. She said that as climate disasters continue to grow more extreme, people are beginning to see how these threats impact their immediate livelihood. In line with this thought process, she announced that “the art studio department [at the College] is actually creating a new class that will specifically think about the art and ecology movement.” 

“I think one of our jobs as artists is to document and critically engage with what is going on in our lives, as well as the world right now,” she added.

The Best Movies for Environmental education

Pictured above: Seed: the untold story. Image courtesy of Cstpdx.com

By Catelyn Fitzgerald  ’23

Staff Writer

With online learning and quarantine, a break after a long day of classes likely consists of a movie or a few episodes of a show on Netflix. While students may want to spend those short moments of peace from an endless flow of assignments and tests watching a fun movie, it is still imperative to educate ourselves on the crisis that is climate change. Environmental education comes in many forms, and as we strive to be informed about the changes happening in the world around us, education can be incorporated into our daily lives by replacing one TV binge a week with an environmental documentary. Whether you are starting to learn about the environment and do not know where to begin or are an avid environmentalist looking to dive deeper into subjects of interest, there is a movie out there to teach and inspire you. Below are seven films that approach environmental issues in a (relatively) unbiased and compelling way.

“David Attenborough: A Life on Our Planet”

Where to watch: Netflix

Whether or not you are an environmental enthusiast, there is a chance you have watched a film by Sir David Attenborough at least once in your lifetime. With a voice that has become instantly recognizable across decades and around the world, Attenborough has written and narrated dozens of films showcasing the Earth’s natural wonders. 

In “A Life on Our Planet,” Attenborough returns to the screen to urge action against climate change. He reflects on his own travels as a film writer, which began when little was known about climate change, to show the major environmental changes that he has witnessed. With amazing footage of wildlife and an urgency that makes it impossible to look away from the screen, this film offers a broad view of the threat of climate change that is a must-watch for anyone, regardless of their level of background knowledge.

“Seed: The Untold Story”

Where to watch: Kanopy

“Seed: The Untold Story” teaches the importance of preserving seed biodiversity, along with the history and future of how the world’s food is grown. The film explores the influence of industrial agriculture on the biodiversity of the world’s seeds — which is currently at only 6 percent of past levels — and shows the work of seed banks around the world to preserve what little diversity remains. 

The film travels across the world to various seed banks, which cultivate the remaining diversity of seeds in order to preserve their cultural and ecological importance, and then provide them free of charge to local farmers who would otherwise have to rely on large seed corporations. The film looks at the flaws of industrial farming from an unexpected angle, making it a must-watch for anyone interested in food and agriculture.

“Years of Living Dangerously”

Where to watch: Youtube

“Years of Living Dangerously” is a Youtube series that takes celebrities on a journey to learn more about an aspect of climate change. For example, in the first episode, actor Harrison Ford explores palm oil production in Indonesia’s national parks and discovers that this illegal activity thrives with the help of government corruption in the forestry sector. At the same time, New York Times writer Thomas Friedman travels to Syria to explore connections between the country’s devastating drought and the civil war that it faces ravages today. Meanwhile, actor Don Cheadle attempts to answer the question of whether religion and belief in climate change can coexist in a small Texas town. 

The series feels much like a TV drama, with vastly different narratives intermingling in each episode and leaving the audience on a cliffhanger every few minutes. While the 60-minute runtime of each episode is not enough to dive deeply into the issues it explores, the series provides an introduction to facets of climate change that are new to most viewers. If you want to see your childhood “Star Wars” crush get into a heated argument with Indonesia’s minister of environment and forestry over deforestation, this is the series for you.

“Chasing Coral”

Where to watch: Netflix

“Chasing Coral” follows a group of scientists as they attempt to capture an environmental phenomenon known as coral bleaching through the use of underwater time-lapse photography. By following the trials faced by the researchers as they try to comprehensively document coral bleaching, the film tells as much of a story about the lives of field researchers as it educates the audience about the threats to coral posed by climate change. One member of the research team, Zackery Rago, becomes a central part of the film as his passion for coral shows the emotional level of witnessing environmental degradation. Rago’s presence in the film adds a layer of storytelling that is compelling to any viewer, regardless of their specific interest in coral, and is a source of inspiration for other young scientists. 

“The Harvest”/”La Cosecha”

Where to watch: Youtube

Child labor has been the subject of global attention for years, but “The Harvest,” also known as “La Cosecha,” captures the lives of child farmworkers in a way so personal that it casts a new light on farming and food production. The film follows three young farmworkers who travel across the U.S. to find work each season while also trying to go to school and carve out a different future for themselves. Seeing children and teenagers who had such relatable dreams, feelings and angst at that age while leading such different lives is heartbreaking. I found myself scouring the internet for evidence on how the stars of the film are doing today and felt a temporary wave of relief to see them able to continue their education thanks to the film’s success. However, many children in the same situation will continue to grow the food that we eat without structural changes to U.S. labor policy. If you are interested in the people behind your breakfast, lunch and dinner, you should watch this movie.

“Switch: Discover the Future of Energy”

Where to watch: Youtube

“Switch: Discover the Future of Energy” follows energy scientist Scott Tinker as he travels the world to learn where our energy comes from and what it may look like in the future. The film explores the benefits and drawbacks of major sources of the world’s energy, such as coal and oil, and evaluates the viability of potential alternatives to these energy sources. The film takes an unbiased, explore-all-of-the-options approach and is a great starting point for anyone new to the world of renewable energy. The film reveals how entrenched we are in unsustainable energy sources, but provides a source of hope in the ever-growing number of innovations that may power the world in the future.

“Cowspiracy”

Where to watch: Netflix

I remember watching “Cowspiracy” in my AP Environmental Science class during my junior year of high school. Shockingly, by the time finals came around in the spring, I was a full-fledged vegetarian, cursing the livestock industry for its use of huge amounts of water and its contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions. To anyone with no previous knowledge of the environmental impacts of meat production, this film is shocking.  It has faced controversy for both its interpretations of data on livestock methane emissions and its attack on environmental nonprofits who the movie claims are just one part of a conspiracy to cover up the impact of the meat industry. Despite this, the film is still successful in shaking up audience views on food and climate change, driving home that reducing meat consumption is one of the single best ways an individual can reduce their environmental impact. I would encourage meat-eaters to watch this movie but to take it with a grain of salt.