From Entertainment to Outrage: the Faces of Environmental Justice
Photo Courtesy: The Today Programme
There exists within society a spectrum of acceptance for environmentalism. All environmental advocates have a common goal: a more sustainable world where human impact on nature and global warming is limited. Why then, do we admire some but vilify others? Why are the faces of environmental justice perceived so differently? This scale of acceptance takes into account the political sphere: the more radical, the less tolerable. On the more accepted side of the spectrum we have people like David Attenborough, well known and widely respected; his soothing voice conveys stories of the wondrous world around us. But somewhere in the middle is where things start to get controversial.
In 2018, a 15 year old girl with a handmade sign took on world leaders alone. Greta Thunberg, now aged 20, continues her activism through protests, meeting world leaders and shaping the planet's climate conscience. I place Greta about halfway along the acceptability scale as she’s perceived by some politicians as a threat but admired by the public; her global recognition means she has been given a voice to call out leaders refusing to make a change, which has earned her much backlash. Famously, former President Trump once suggested that she has anger management issues and that she should “chill”. Ironic really, since the world is only getting hotter. But she remains an inspiration to the general public, especially young people. According to multiple news outlets, on the 20th of September 2019, millions of people stood with her in the ‘Fridays for Future’ marches.
The current state of the environmental crisis and its projections have also driven naturalists such as Chris Packham into a state of desperation. In his parliamentary interview with the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, his passion for the environment shone through as he pointed out the intrinsic as well as the economic value of nature. But it seems like many governments fail to recognise either, which is why Packham along with many other nature TV personalities are not only becoming more vocal about what society needs to do, but also how governments must act now before we reach a point of no return. Packham, deemed by some to be Attenborough’s successor, recently released an eco-documentary titled: “Is It Time to Break the Law?” In this, he battles with his sense of environmental duty and his fears about his future and family that might arise should he join those enacting a less palatable form of environmentalism. He spoke with Just Stop Oil protestors and Swedish Ecology professor Andreas Malm, who have realised that peaceful protests and polite letters do not achieve the tangible change we need. That soothing voices are not heard. For years, Attenborough has been warning us of our impact and documenting how much damage has been done since he first started out in his career. But governments haven’t listened. So will it take the louder, more proactive message from protestors to wake us up?
Photo Courtesy: Channel 4
Those at the more extreme end of the scale are less accepted by both politics and society because many people do not agree that it is ethically acceptable to break the law for the sake of the environment. The anger towards Just Stop Oil is mounting up with their continual acts of vandalism and public disruption. But their priorities remain constant. A JSO protestor after vandalising a Van Gogh painting left us with some thought provoking words: “Are you more concerned about the protection of a painting or the protection of our planet and people?”
Even Attenborough may be seen moving to the more radical end of the spectrum as he grows tired of the lack of action by world leaders. The BBC refused to broadcast the last episode of his new series on British wildlife, worried that its themes of the destruction of nature risk backlash from Conservative politicians and the right-wing press. It’s as if some media outlets want to fix well-known environmentalists in their current, permissible position on the scale of acceptance. That way, we at home can simply watch a nature documentary and convince ourselves it’s not that bad. We won’t be convinced to break the law, we won’t hold leaders accountable for their lack of responsibility. But the sense of urgency emanating from all environmentalists, no matter where they are on the scale, is becoming insuppressible, which makes it less digestible for those afraid or unwilling to do anything about it.
Regardless of your opinions of the individuals and groups mentioned- and of your own place on the scale of acceptance - it is important to recognise that there is a common goal for everyone on the scale and that those on the less accepted side, historically, tend to achieve more change.