Cowspiracy, as its names implies, is a film about
conspiracies. It alleges that major environmental non-profits like Greenpeace
and Natural Resources Defense Council are ‘hiding’ the truth to climate change
to us, the public as they secretly take money from the powerful meat and dairy
industry. The co-found and co-producer of this documentary, Kip Anderson,
describes the actions of the environmental groups as ‘fixing a leaking faucet
or cleaning windows in a house that is burning down’ and ‘not smoking next to asbestos
to reduce the chance of getting lung cancer’ in an interview with Climate One,
an environmental podcast programme. His accusation was subsequently challenged
by many others, including those he interviewed in the documentary.
Towards the end of the interview, one audience even
questioned his ethics, whether that be in documentary-making or science in
general. This really struck me and led me to think about the ethics of
documentary-making and making scientific claims. What discerns right from
wrong? At which point do you cross the line? What are the role of politics in
environmental science? These were some critical questions that I have thought
long and hard. To gain a better understand, I interviewed a few environmental academics
at UCL Geography department. (Disclaimer: They have not watched the documentary
and were simply asked some general questions after I briefly described the film
to them. The statements below have been paraphrased.)
Question 1: What
do you think of the wider implication of this documentary on climate science
and policy?
Dr.S:
Well as I haven’t heard of this documentary, I’d say its impact
is likely very limited. Even if it is popular, I think because the way they portrayed
the environmental issue makes it easy to discredit for the following reason:
- Too
much control. People do not like being told what to do. An abolitionist
approach of going full vegan makes people think ‘well if I am not vegan
and if that means I am not an environmentalist, I may as well not be
environmental friendly at all.’
- It
just seems like another scaremongering documentary. People are normally
quite informed of issues like climate change.
Professor V:
I agree with the documentary in the sense that agricultural
sector play in terms of its contribution to climate change and environmental
impact. There are issues to do with methane produced from ruminant animals.
Land use change associated with farming are also important. It may generate
more attention within the scientific community and this may translate to some
policy action.
Dr.R:
As the public is not well-informed of climate science, they
may take the documentary at its face value. And if they think it is solely the
duty of environmental groups to combat climate change, it is very likely that
they would stop donating to them. However, it is debatable on how this
documentary would translate into policy actions
Professor Anson Mackay:
There are similar documentaries in the past as well. For
example, the famous ‘The Inconvenient Truth’ documentary by Al gore. There were
obviously some scientific inaccuracies and generated some controversies. But it
did successfully install environmental awareness in the public.
However, there is likely to be limited impact as there are
many social, cultural and economic barrier in terms of changing one’s diet.
Additionally, people generally do not think about the production of food source
or linking it to animal slaughter.
My thoughts:
It is very interesting to see a diversity of views, even
within the scientific community. For example, Dr. S thinks most people are well
informed of climate science whereas Dr. R thinks otherwise. Prof V think it ‘may’
lead to some policy action whereas Dr. R thinks it is debateable, contingent on
what role do the public perceives themselves, government, environmental groups,
and scientists play in combatting climate change.
Although not included in the statement above, during the conversation,
all four unanimously agreed that it would be difficult to encourage dietary
change among people, especially when Cowspiracy took such an ‘all-or-nothing’
stance.
Lombardini and Lankoski (2013) also expressed similar views after
assessing the success in promoting plant-based diet through the implementation
of mandatory vegetarian day in the Helsink Schools in Finland. They found that
in the short-term, most student responded negatively in forms such as decreasing
participation in school lunches, decreasing amount of food taken to plate and
increasing food waste. However, there were improvement in the medium term. The
only non-compliance left was the decreased amount of food taken to plates. The researchers
suggested that to encourage dietary change, it is important to understand the
causes of non-compliance, as opposed to what Cowspiracy implied (i.e. people
who consumes meat are unethical and not environmental friendly). They
recommended that providing vegetarian options would be preferable if the cause
of non-compliance was due to psychological reactance. Also, menu development
could also help reduce friction in dietary transition. Moral suasion and
information campaigns work most effectively in cases where people disagree with
the objectives and effectiveness of plant-based diet in promoting
sustainability.
As an environmental activist, I support the idea of adopting
a more sustainable diet, whether that be vegan/ vegetarian diet, or simply reducing
food waste. However, I would definitely not side myself with the idea that ‘people
who consumes meat are unethical and not environmental friendly’ as I think it
could potentially push people into thinking there is no point in doing other
environmental-friendly actions, as Dr. S rightly pointed out. Secondly, I think
that many people are not that well-educated in terms of climate science (just
scroll through the comments on any climate-policy-related posts on facebook,
and there are always people who label it as ‘liberal propaganda). They may easily
be misinformed, especially the idea of a conspiracy is so eye-catching and
sensational. Lastly, I think this is not just a direct attack on environmental
NGOs but also one on the scientific community. The scientific community should leverage
on their credibility to speak out loud and hard against any misinformation such
as Cowspiracy.
To be continued.
No comments:
Post a Comment