* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Social Movements
General circulation model wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
Soon and Baliunas controversy wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit email controversy wikipedia , lookup
Climate change denial wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on human health wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Global warming controversy wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the Arctic wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit documents wikipedia , lookup
Instrumental temperature record wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Global warming hiatus wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Fred Singer wikipedia , lookup
Future sea level wikipedia , lookup
Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Business action on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
The Day After Tomorrow (2004) Most summers, Hollywood releases a disaster movie in which a highly implausible catastrophe serves as the backdrop for heroism and hope. Murderous aliens invade or a large meteor hurtles towards earth, and humans face the prospect of going the way of the dinosaurs. Audiences return home momentarily frightened but ultimately safe in the knowledge that the chance of any such cataclysm is vanishingly remote. The Day After Tomorrow follows the usual script. The movie opens with a sequence of bizarre meteorological events. A section of ice the size of Rhode Island breaks off the Antarctic ice cap. Snow falls in New Delhi. Hail the size of grapefruits pounds Tokyo. Enter Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid), a scientist whose research suggests an explanation: sudden climate change is a very real possibility. The idea becomes a political football when it is ridiculed by the Vice-President of the United States, but once torrential rains and a tidal wave flood New York City, Hall’s theories are vindicated. In a matter of days, temperatures plummet – at one point, they fall 10 degrees a minute to 150 below zero. The entire northern hemisphere is plunged into a new ice age. Almost everyone freezes to death in the northern United States while millions of desperate southerners flee into Mexico. A human drama unfolds along with the disaster. Hall’s estranged son (Jake Gylenhaal) and his girlfriend (Emily Rossum) are in New York when the storms hit. Hall makes his way from Washington D.C. to rescue them and achieve reconciliation with his son. Although is seems like standard fare, The Day After Tomorrow is a Hollywood disaster movie with a difference, for it is based on a three-part idea with considerable scientific support. Everyone agrees with Part 1: Since the Industrial Revolution, humans have released increasing quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as we burn more and more fossil fuels to drive our cars, furnaces, and factories. The great majority – but not all – scientists agree with Part 2: The accumulation of carbon dioxide allows more solar radiation to enter the atmosphere and less heat to escape. This contributes to global warming. As temperatures rise, more water evaporates and the polar ice caps begin to melt. This causes more rainfall, bigger storms, and more flooding. Part 3 is the most recent and controversial part of the argument. The melting of the polar ice caps may be adding enough fresh water to the oceans to disrupt the flow of the Gulf Stream, the ocean current that carries warm water up the east coast of North America and the west coast of Europe. Computer simulations suggest that decreased salinity could push the Gulf Stream southward, causing average winter temperatures to drop by 10 degrees Fahrenheit in the United States Northeast and other parts of the Northern hemisphere. A recent Pentagon study suggests that such climate change could cause droughts, storms, flooding, border raids, large-scale illegal migration from poor regions, and even war between nuclear powers over scarce food, drinking water, and energy. The Day After Tomorrow greatly exaggerates the suddenness and magnitude of what scientists mean by abrupt climate change. “Abrupt” can mean centuries to climatologists, and temperature drops of 10 degrees a minute are pure fantasy. Still, at the movie’s core lies an ominous and real possibility. The Day After Tomorrow also teaches us an important sociological lesson about the framing of issues by social movements and their opponents. Environmental problems do not become social issues spontaneously. They are socially constructed in what might be called a “framing war.” Just as Jack Hall and the Vice-President sparred over the credibility of Hall’s prediction of sudden climate change, so do groups with different interests dispute all environmental problems, framing them in different ways so as to win over public opinion. Before environmental issues can enter the public consciousness, policy-oriented scientists, the environmental movement, the mass media, and respected organizations must discover and promote them. Members of the public also have to connect real-life events to the information learned from these groups. On the other hand, some scientists, industrial interests, and politicians inevitably dispute the existence of environmental threats. For example, the big oil-producing states, oil companies, and coal producers deny that global warming is a problem and hire scientists to help them make their case. Consequently, some members of the public have begun to question whether global warming is really an issue. Part of the environmentalists’ response involved piggybacking their message on The Day After Tomorrow. In the months leading up to the release of the movie, they bombarded journalists with e-mails explaining global warming and offering interviews with leading scientists on the subject. Newspapers and magazines around the world subsequently carried stories on the issue. Environmentalists then distributed flyers to moviegoers leaving theatres. In this way, The Day After Tomorrow became not just another disaster movie but part of the framing war around one of the major environmental issues of the day.