For
many, there is no denying that climate change is not only a very real problem,
but one whose effect is rapidly increasing on our day to day lives. It is one
of the gravest scientific and financial threats facing the world and yet
despite being faced with this reality, there are those within our society that
continue to deny its existence. This essay attempts to closely examine these
threats, analysing the effects climate change has already had, as well as
comparing differing views on climate change. In doing so, the essay shall
evaluate the measures taken by campaign groups and also consider companies who exploit
national and global concerns around climate change to promote themselves,
taking into account varying opinions on whether this consumerist mentality can
be conclusively argued to help or hinder the problem of climate change. Ultimately,
this essay will then consider the way in which designers might promote
awareness of climate change and evaluate the ways in which the media has
already jumped on the ‘green’ bandwagon.
Climate change is an extremely
complicated concept, brought about by many contributing factors; these include
the production of greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide, as well as our
relentless use of fossil fuels. Those that deny responsibility for global
climate change can be argued to be delusional, human activities such as our
exploitation of natural resources to facilitate an ever growing technological
and electronic age have caused a negative effect on the climate. Due to a
combination of global expansion and increasing population, more people exploit natural
resources, more forests are chopped down, more fossil fuels are used, more
roads and cities are built, and we pollute more soil, water and air, and
contribute more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. All of these factors upset the natural balance of the
Earth and contribute as a whole to climate change.
Considering the ever more tangible,
visible and physical evidence of climate change in our everyday lives, it
becomes even more baffling that any individual or corporation is able to deny
its existence. One of the most evident consequences of climate change can be
monitored through changes in the weather
over the last quarter of a century; it is undeniable that we are faced with
much hotter temperatures and erratic weather conditions: ‘the rate of warming
has been increasing further in the last few decades. The warming trend for the
last 25 years is more than double the rate of the previous 100 years, and the
10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1990.’ (Chivers, 2010, pp26-27).
This shows a clear correlation between the use fossil fuels and an increase in
temperature. Whilst on an individual basis hotter weather may seem a desirable
prospect, this increase in temperature has catastrophic implications
everywhere, implications that can no longer be ignored. For example, glaciers
provide a huge reflective surface for a lot of the sun’s rays to be bounced
back, thus creating a natural barrier against increasing sea levels; this
phenomenon is called the ‘Albedo Effect’. However, due to the drastic increase
in temperatures over the last twenty five years, these glaciers have been
melting at a much more rapid rate: ‘since 2005, Artic sea ice has been melting
faster than scientists predictions, the Greenland ice shelves summer melt
period has increased by 16% over the last 30 years and 2010 has seen the
fastest Greenland melt ever recorded.’ (Chivers, 2010, p27). As a result, the
Albedo Effect is no longer effective in reflecting the sun’s rays, allowing for
more sun rays to hit the earth with drastic consequences.
During the last five
years, we have begun to see further consequences and implications of climate
change: ‘ Pakistan has just been hit by devastating floods, the worst in the
country’s history, killing around 1,600 people, and leaving 20million homeless.
Russia is recovering from a blistering heat wave that saw temperatures
consistently at 20degrees above normal and caused thousands of deaths. Huge
wildfires have been sweeping through northern Portugal, torrential rains have
unleashed killer landslides in China, hundreds have been forced from their
homes in Iowa, Niger has just been hit with disastrous floods straight after a
crippling drought.’ (Chivers, 2010, p32).
These examples give a very brief, factual outline as to the ways in which
climate change is affecting us, but there are still people who deny it’s
validity despite all the scientific facts in front of them; their eyes are so
one-dimensionally geared towards their businesses and making a profit
regardless of the cost to the environment. In a haze of arrogance and personal
gain, such companies have the audacity to create adverts that deny the reality
of climate change.
One such advert that is broadcast across America is made by CEI (Competitive Enterprise Institute), who are an American non-profit libertarian think-tank;
within their advertisement they claim carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a
hoax created by the government, they further this ludicrous argument by adding
that carbon dioxide is ‘what saved us from a culture of back breaking work’ and
they ‘light up our lives’- Global
Warming – Energy (2006). Other outrageous claims
are that rising temperatures should not be a global concern, claiming that we
will all ‘adapt’ to our differing circumstances. It is clear that through false
advertising and a manipulation of the facts, companies such as CEI attempt to
pull the wool over the seemingly ignorant and naïve members of the public.
Sympathies of the public are further manipulated in the emotional blackmail of
a campaign which pictures a family and suggests that using fossil fuels is the
way to provide for and support ones loved ones. Their motives behind such
absurd advertising can be found in the sponsors of said company; some examples
are General Motors, the American Petroleum Institute, the American
Plastics Council, the Chlorine Chemistry Council and Arch Coal- clearly showing
their deep ties within the fossil fuel industry. In denying climate change, CEI
promotes the use of fossil fuels and thereby promotes their sponsors. It
becomes clear then that the advertising strategy of non-profit organisations
such as CEI are driven from behind the scenes sponsors with less than decent
intentions.
Regardless
of their sketchy marketing strategies, it is clear that companies such as CEI
have a huge influence on the demographic that they target; people still follow
and believe what they say, and as such, beliefs and attitudes towards climate
change become relaxed despite its very real threat to our global community. Not
only this, but attitudes towards consumer choices are also relaxed, meaning
that in general we are not as concerned as we should be when buying products
and using energy that use fossil fuels or other contributors to climate change.
Huge corporations such as General Motors benefit from this laissez faire
attitude to consumerism, enjoying continuing sales and profits whilst hiding
behind the marketing campaigns of other, less offensive companies.
Whilst the threat of deceitful advertising is
undeniable, there are still individuals and companies which accept and confront
the issue of climate change through the creation of new technologies that help
save energy and fuel or through honest marketing strategies which promote awareness
to try and educate individuals on climate change. One such person is Al Gore
who starred in the film An Inconvenient Truth,
made to raise awareness of climate change via a very dramatic slide show. The
film is intended to shock and scare the public providing them with the
‘inconvenience’ of climate change. This shock factor was clearly portrayed well
in the film, considering that it grossed at $24 million in the U.S and achieved
2 academy awards, 2 Oscars, another 24 wins and 5 nominations (An Inconvenient
Truth 2006). The film states in an undiluted and frank manner the shocking
facts and stark visuals of climate change, clearly portraying a very possible
future for the whole of humanity should we not choose to make a more positive
impact on the world.
Al
Gore’s main focus is to send a shockwave to the audience through well-chosen
but nonetheless very real facts such as the melting of the glaciers and the
affect this has on the sea level. He then shows images of Cities such as
Manhattan under water, again this is used to ‘bring it home’. In much the same
way as the CEI advert, the film uses the family to do manipulate an audience
into sympathising with Al Gore’s point of view. Al Gore plays on this clever
marketing device further, stating ‘What we take for granted might not be here
for our children’ and ‘Future generations may well have occasion to ask
themselves, "What were our parents thinking? Why didn't they wake up when
they had a chance?" We have to hear that question from them, now’. Persuasive
and emotive language such as this really drives his message home and forces the
viewer to think selflessly about future generations. This technique is
continued and exaggerated throughout this film, playing on the sympathy of the
audience. For example, when his five year old child is hit by a car, this
prompts him to re-evaluate his life and ‘do something important’, i.e. promote
the consequences of climate change. Whilst the initial story is neither
directly relevant to climate change, nor entirely necessary, it is no clearer
than in this example that Al Gore relies heavily on shock tactics, sympathy and
emotional connection in the success of this film.
Whilst
this essay has already explored the use of hard hitting emotional stories to
convey a serious message about climate change, such as in the work of Al Gore,
it can also be said that humour is a powerful device to promote the issues and
dangers around climate change. Admittedly the use of humour and animation in Al
Gore’s work is targeted at an entirely different demographic, highlighting the
need for the promotion of climate change awareness to reach an even wider and
more comprehensive audience in order to instigate change. Al Gore and ‘An
Inconvenient Truth’ pave the way for the future raising of awareness in the
film industry.
That
being said, this essay now intends to consider other ways in which awareness
has been raised through advertising focusing on the work of a large group of
graphic designers over the last fifteen years; becoming one of the largest
players in social activism and is ‘the most significant changes to the field of
graphic design since Johann Gutenberg gave the world moveable type in 1450’
(Meggs 2006). Graphic Designers have
used their specific skills to help promote or educate people on social issues.;
For example, Chwast’s anti-war, “War is
Madness” 1987 (Figure 1) or Georg Olden’s, “Brotherhood Week,” for Race (Figure
2); these old posters show ‘that designers are engaged in social activism and
it is recognized as a gage of excellence within design’, (Schwarte, A 2011). Some
of the earliest pieces of design that are geared towards sustainable design have
been created for Earth Day; whilst these designs were predominantly geared towards issues such
as AIDS, equality, race and war, it is clear that there is a focus around
sustainability even if it could be argued to be a tenuous link. One such poster
is Robert Rauschenberg’s Earth Day 1970, reprinted from The Art of Action: 40
Years of Earth Day (Figure 3), this poster clearly shows that issues that are
ripe today were also prominent forty years ago. Rauschenberg was one of the
first people to have designed a poster which is focused around social issues, printed
for mass production. The image portrays shocking images of waste disposal, pollution
from factories, cruelty to animals, and harsh weather conditions, once again
implementing the shock tactics seen in Al Gore’s film. These images are printed
in black and white which not only highlights the seriousness of the situation
(‘the black and white truth’) but also portrays them in a negative light. The
dull images are contrasted with the vibrant image of a hawk, emphasising the
natural world, its beauty, power and grace.
Another
poster that was created for the same Earth Day was Walt Kelly’s 1970 (Figure 4)
this poster again uses a dull colour scheme in much the same way as
Rauschenberg’s design, suggesting the dim reality of a world suffering under
the consequences of climate change. The beautiful natural images are contrasted
with man-made rubbish, highlighting the effects of landfill and the importance
of recycling. The statement ‘we have met the enemy and he is us’, is fairly
self-explanatory, yet extremely powerful. It is once again a use of emotive
language playing on the emotions and guilt of the viewer to convey a message
that should resonate. The use of the small character picking up the rubbish
represents future generations that will ultimately pay for the actions of our
current society, should we not choose to try to make the world a better place.
Through their work, designers show us
that they believe that as a society, and ultimately as individual designers, we
have a responsibility for what we produce, how we produce it and how it is
used. There is a number of ways in which this can be done, one such way was a
term coined by Brian Dougherty who founded the Graphic Design studio Celery,
which was a studio focused around being ‘green’ and sustainable. It was one of
the first studios to have activism as their central goal and was ‘a new model
of Graphic Design that deals proactively with social and environmental
challenges’ (Schwarte, A 2011). In Brian Dougherty’s book ‘Green Graphic Design’
he created the term ‘ “NGISE” or “designing backwards” ’ (Schwarte, A 2011),
this process involved considering the end result and then working backwards to
create a design plan which limit the waste that is created through the design
process. Techniques such as trying a range of different paper stocks, from the
GSM to colour and selecting what will be used before the design process began
eliminates waste as it reduces the chance of changes in the middle of the
design process. Dougherty was inspired by an architect named Sim Von Der Ryn,
showing that ideas about sustainable design can come from all areas of art
based subjects. This philosophy led to a lot of other Graphic Designers
following suit and creating greener design. It also led to a lot of designers
becoming more web based, ultimately eliminating the unnecessary waste of paper.
This technique has become much more widely recognised and adopted in recent
years as we move further into the technological age and web and electronic
development increases creating an easier way in which to work. For example, Re
Nourish is at the forefront of sustainable design, having an online resource
system which helps other studios to design in a sustainable way. This system
calculates how much waste will be accumulated for each project or has been
accumulated in a previous project, thus making companies more aware of wastage
and the effect this will have on the environment. Ultimately, this resource has
shifted Graphic Designers to a more sustainable design platform; by
implementing phrases such as 'green your studio' to attract other studios to
the benefits of greener design. In addition to this, Re Nourish showcase projects
of sustainable design so that other studios can learn and become inspired by
greener design.
Whilst this essay has intended to highlight
the importance of promoting greener living, and greener design, it is important
to note the growing trend of designers who overuse ‘Green’ design. Graphic designers have been known to latch on to
the ‘green’ craze as a money making scheme, taking sustainability, climate
change and the environment for granted in a bid to raise profits and individual
success over the promotion of climate change awareness. Designers have
manipulated the fact that consumers are a lot more likely to buy there products
that bear an ecological seal or guarantee from the manufacture. This guarantee
becomes a way of maximising sales rather than protecting the environment.
McDonalds take ‘greenwashing’ to a new level, maximising on eco buzzwords and
symbols on packaging that suggest economic sustainability despite the truth.
For example, on their ‘fillet-o-fish’ boxes (figure 5) they display a symbol
that is recognised to be for a sustainably caught fish, but they fail to
mention they catch thousands upon millions of these fish depleting their
numbers. McDonalds has also changed all the branding to green, moving away from
the fast food red, as explained earlier this makes the consumer believe they are
somehow more sustainable and environmentally friendly because of the obvious
natural connotations of the colour. Consumers are led to believe that they are
helping the environment through manipulative advertisement such as this, where
as in reality, McDonalds is not a particularly sustainable company, nor does it
go out of its way to protect our environment or limit climate change.
Buzz words such as ‘green’ and
‘eco-friendly’ nurse consumers into a false state of security, they are led to
believe that they are not harming the environment because they are not told the
harsh facts behind such symbols and buzz words. The reality becomes that as a
global community, we are effectively ignoring the consequences of climate
change because we are ignorant to them. Despite this, Green Graphic Designers do
exist in our society who seek to make a change in deceitful advertising. These
designers produce environmentally friendly designs but also help ‘organisations reduce their environmental
footprint’ (Green Hat . 2012). For example, Green Hat design, who have the manifesto, ‘We live on a precious planet and a desire to lessen
our impact upon it should form a core objective for any business. We hope to
help that change happen by instilling the value of sustainability to all our
clients’ (Green Hat . 2012). This use of green
design is actually informative and helpful and creates awareness not just
locally but also globally.
To conclude, there is clear and
undeniable problem with climate change that
needs to be proactively addressed and not concealed under false and deceitful
marketing strategies. If not addressed properly, climate change poses a very
real threat for future generations and therefore it is up to our current
society to make a difference. This cannot be achieved however if there is no
exposure very real consequences of climate change, and if dishonest companies continue to deny the existence of it’s threat
through farcical marketing strategies. Further still, ‘greenwashing’ has
inundated our media, concealing and masking a very serious reality, companies
that implement greenwashing tactics ought to be sanctioned in order to promote
a truly more eco-friendly society. As a result of false advertisement, as a
global community we have relaxed our views towards climate change making it
difficult for positive designs and promotion to have a real difference. In
light of this fact, the most effective
way to promote climate change issues is through emotive sob stories and shock
tactics. That being said, this essay has shown that hard-hitting, sympathy
inducing media tactics are not the only way to promote eco-friendly living. Designers
play a crucial role in portraying a positive ‘green’ image; using their
fortunate position as somebody who influences the media, they can promote awareness,
without directly seeing it as a profit-making scheme.
Referencing
(Figure 1)
(Figure 2)
(Figure 3)
(Figure 4)
(Figure 5)
Bibliography
Chivers, D (2010). Climate
Change, the Science, the Solutions, the Way Forward. London: New
Internationalist Publications Ltd. p26-32.
Meggs, Philip (2006)
Meggs’ History of Graphic Design, 4th Edition, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons.
Unknown. (2006). an
Inconvenient Truth. Available:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1. Last accessed 8th
February 2014.
Green Hat.
(2012). About Us. Available:
http://www.greenhatdesign.co.uk/about.html. Last accessed 29th April 2014.
