England-2011-eva

Eva's Journal

Reflections on Climate Change

I believe the take away message from the recent weeks lessons on climate change is that global warming and its effectual relationship with human activity (i.e. the burning of fossil fuels) are present and very much real. Knowing these facts it becomes increasingly important, vital really that action must be taken on every level (nations, individuals, etc.) to counter act the effects of global warming. The most effective modality for myself was the play Greenland because I am a visual learner and its marriage of the scene (i.e. the water, the paper, etc.) with the voices of the characters acting out scenes demonstrating the facts and questions surrounding climate change created an easy to understand medium with which to learn about climate change. I think the main difference between the European perspective and the American perspective on global warming is that climate change has already been established as a rarely disputed fact, so the debates that occur here are not about global warming’s existence (as they are in the U.S.) but rather they are about what should be done in regards to it. I think that this difference is really similar to the difference between attitudes on the Earlham campus and the attitudes seen around much of the U.S., at Earlham global warming has been widely accepted and the focus is much more on the solutions rather than its existence that is debated in U.S. politics.

Greenland Review

I found the play Greenland to be educational and full of good information. It was able to cleverly incorporate a vast group of both opinions and approaches to the issue of global worming and our carbon print. From what I could tell the information they gave in the play was all accurate but it was also very much skewed to represent a particular perspective (although it was the one that I myself hold). As we discussed in class, a play was an unfamiliar medium for the presentation of scientific information, which made it, at times, difficult to take seriously (not because the information wasn’t accurate, but because of its dramatization). As something to shape public opinion the play did not do a good job. Although it represented different opinions in a very realistic way and the realities of people that do not believe global warming is a real issue it did so in a way that seemed somewhat divisive rather than bridging, i.e. the parents seeing their daughter as a radical and never agreeing with her and blissfully ignorant. This ignorance would be hard to identify with if this was your real world situation, or rather it wouldn’t be someone you would necessarily want to identify with or that would help you change your opinion.

Atmosphere Questions

Which specific aspects of climate change did the designers of atmosphere choose to focus on?

The designers of the Atmosphere exhibit choose to put a very significant stress on climate change at it relates to global worming.

How well sourced was the science and technology discussed in the kiosks?

The information in the kiosks seemed to be very well informed and at the same time put into digestible formats.

What was the most surprising thing you learned?

I was most surprised by their predictions for the future. I have of course heard of scary predictions of the effects of global worming but to have the information presented in the way that it was both shocking and educational about what actions can, are and should be taken.

Which of the interactive kiosks did you find most engaging? Why? Which of the interactive kiosks did you find least engaging? Why?

I played and interacted with most of the kiosks and found the one which involved the extraction of fossil fuels to be most engaging but I think that that night have been because I liked the game the most. They all did a good job of mixing information and entertaining/interactivity but the space was all so stimulating that it was very difficult for me to force in on any one activity/station.