
Why Is Hollywood So Scared of Climate Change? - adrian_mrd
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/14/movies/hollywood-climate-change.html
======
colechristensen
What I'm getting tired of is Hollywood films, documentaries, awards, etc.
preaching to me.

Specifically nature documentaries, when I watch recent productions I get the
feeling that they aren't trying to show the results of studying nature, to
educate about this or that: I get the feeling that they are packaged
environmentalist manifestos (look at all these cute little animals that are
going to _die_ because you don't recycle) either made to shame/enlighten
people who don't do _the right thing_ or to boost the egos of people who _do
good_.

It bothers me because it so often feels shoehorned in and off topic. I
wouldn't mind at all if it were the topic, but injecting it into every topic
is the problem.

Using art as a tool is complicated. When overdone it is unambiguously wrong,
when done correctly it can be a powerful good force, and somewhere in the
middle is a wide grey area which is difficult to navigate.

~~~
moultano
The feeling of everyone studying the natural world now is one of overwhelming
loss, that everything they've devoted their lives to is disappearing before
their eyes. There isn't any way to make an honest nature documentary and _not_
include that. To do otherwise would be to pretend that the careful selection
they do to show a pristine wilderness and healthy animals is reflective of
reality.

~~~
colechristensen
> The feeling of everyone studying the natural world now is one of
> overwhelming loss

I am beginning to have my doubts about the reasoning behind these feelings.

It is not that I deny that there are problems which have happened, are
happening, and certainly will happen.

I'm starting to think most people thinking, talking, and feeling about it are
being driven and biased by a shared sort of doomsday cult not in major but
only subtle ways. "Everyone" just "knows" _it_.

There is loss, there is reason for concern, there is _change_ in progress, and
lots of reasons to feel about it. The feelings though don't seem like they are
driven by fact, reason, analysis, and – well – science, but driven by shared
feelings and ambiguous knowledge that things are _bad_.

~~~
moultano
You should read a bit more about it. The changes are so visceral as to be
unignorable.

[https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2019/07/weight-of-
th...](https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2019/07/weight-of-the-world-
climate-change-scientist-grief/)

>She had been taking these sorts of research trips for two decades, and over
recent years she had witnessed about 85 percent of the island’s reef system
perish due to rising ocean temperatures. “I was diving with tears in my eyes,”
she recalls.

[http://theconversation.com/sadness-disgust-anger-fear-for-
th...](http://theconversation.com/sadness-disgust-anger-fear-for-the-great-
barrier-reef-made-climate-change-feel-urgent-119232)

> We found a large proportion of respondents, including Australians and
> overseas visitors, expressed forms of grief in response to loss and damage
> to the iconic ecosystem. Negative emotions associated with words given in
> short statements about “what the Great Barrier Reef means to you”, included
> sadness, disgust, anger and fear.

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/12/greenland-
resi...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/12/greenland-residents-
traumatised-by-climate-emergency)

> 76% claiming to have personally experienced global heating in their daily
> lives, from coping with dangerous sea ice journeys to having sled dogs
> euthanised for economic reasons tied to shorter winters.

------
hashberry
Why is the working class responsible for fighting climate change? Why must
Hollywood "challenge audiences to change their ways"? Especially when China is
building 300-500 new coal plants?[0][1]

Actually, as individual consumers, the best way one can lower one's carbon
footprint is to not spend money. Don't buy the brand new cars product placed
in films. Don't drive to the theater, wait until the movie can be streamed.
And don't buy candy or soda or beer in theaters. Use as little resources as
possible.

[0] [https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/03/28/china-new-
coal-p...](https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/03/28/china-new-coal-
plants-2030-climate/) [1] [https://www.npr.org/2019/04/29/716347646/why-is-
china-placin...](https://www.npr.org/2019/04/29/716347646/why-is-china-
placing-a-global-bet-on-coal)

~~~
triceratops
> Especially when China is building 300-500 new coal plants?

China is also building a ton of renewable energy. They're building a ton of
_everything_ and "India and China are doing X" isn't a reason for others to do
nothing.

> Actually, as individual consumers, the best way one can lower one's carbon
> footprint is to not spend money.

I can't upvote this enough. This is the best way for individual consumers to
make a difference.

~~~
bryanlarsen
> This is the best way for individual consumers to make a difference.

Disagree strongly. Individuals cannot solve this on their own, it can only be
solved at the national and international level. This means voting and ensuring
that politicians know that your vote rides on their action: letter writing,
protests, et cetera. And of course politicians won't do anything until such
intentions are widespread, so this means grass-roots movements.

~~~
triceratops
I'm not advocating selective boycotts of things or companies that are bad
actors - those are not effective. I'm also not saying it's the best way for
individual citizens to make a difference. Obviously laws are better because of
the tragedy of the commons/prisoner's dilemma nature of the problem. Whoever
pollutes will outcompete whoever does not because (currently) it's cheaper to
pollute than to not.

I was saying that the best way to make a difference as a consumer is to be
less of a consumer. Most people in developed countries buy way too much shit.
Changing that is a win for the individual (more money in your pocket) and the
environment. And doing this does not preclude pressuring your elected
representatives for broader change.

------
criddell
> “The past 25 years of the environmental narrative is about sacrifice and
> doom and not doing what you want and not getting what you want,” said Aaron
> Matthews, head of industry sustainability at BAFTA. “We don’t think that’s
> the right tone to get people over the line.”

It's not Hollywood's job to _get_ people over the line.

BAFTA could always create an incentive to make the kind of film they want to
see. Maybe an award for best film featuring environmental issues.

------
crimsonalucard
Hollywood isn't scared of climate change. They are good at understanding what
we're scared of and making entertainment out of it.

What you see in Hollywood is nothing but a reflection of our own fears.

Also note that Thanos cutting the population in half isn't going to solve
environmental problems. Humans reproduce at an exponential rate so cutting the
population in half is ultimately futile.

~~~
avip
Most of the developed world is already reproducing below replacement rate.

~~~
kerkeslager
Most of the world is not the developed world (population-wise), and is
reproducing well above replacement rate.

So, what's your point?

~~~
avip
Most of the world is already on sub-replacement. The only worth mentioning
exception is Africa.

~~~
kerkeslager
I really don't know where you're getting your information. Geographically,
most of the world's nations still have a positive population growth rate,
including some developed nations such as the US[1]. India may have a lower
proportional growth rate than some African nations, but since its population
is already very large, it contributes more to the overall world population
growth than any country[2]--surely this is "worth mentioning"?

[1] [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-growth-
rates](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-growth-rates)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth#Growth_regions)

~~~
avip
As always, I rely on OWID

[https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-
UN?tab...](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-
UN?tab=chart&time=1950..2015&country=OWID_WRL+IND+USA+Africa)

Go to interactive mode. India and USA are already on sub-replacement. China is
way under. Africa is the main reason world’s population is still growing.

~~~
kerkeslager
Did you even read my post? OWID was one of the links I cited.

I'm not sure how to go to interactive mode, but the chart you linked _does
not_ say that India and the USA are on sub-replacement. That's a graph of TFR,
not population change, and it shows 2.35 children being born per woman in
India as of 2015, so by itself the chart proves that India is increasing the
world population. The rates are 1.87 for the US, which is sub-replacement, but
the US also has increasing population due to immigration. Obviously that isn't
a change to the world's population, but if you're counting immigration out of
other countries in population change, you have to count immigration into the
US.

To quote Wikipedia:

> From 2017 to 2050, nine countries are expected to account for half of the
> world's projected population increase: India, Nigeria, the Democratic
> Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Tanzania, the United States,
> Uganda, and Indonesia, listed according to the expected size of their
> contribution to that projected population growth.

5 out of 9 of those countries are in Africa, but note that India is #1.

Note that if you look into where they are getting their data, both OWID and
Wikipedia are citing the UN DESA.

Also note that a decline in population growth rate is not the same as a
decline in population. Growth rates have been in decline worldwide since the
1950s, but are still positive, meaning population in those countries is still
growing.

~~~
avip
India's TFR is reported 2.2-2.3 for 2018. That is, for a developing country
with high child mortality, the replacement rate.

~~~
kerkeslager
How high is child mortality? 4.1% as of 2016[1]. Even using your low number
(2.2) that you didn't cite, 2.2 * (1 - 0.041) = 2.109, still above
replacement. Please at least try to look up the statistics and form your
opinion based on them, rather than forming your opinion and making up claims
about the statistics based on your opinion.

Why don't I just make this really simple for you: India's population will grow
by 1.10% annually from 2015-2020 according to UN estimates from 2017.[1] If
that's not recent enough for you, India is projected to grow 1.08% in 2019.[2]
So however you want to argue this, India's population is growing. As I said
and cited before, its absolute (not proportional) growth is greater than any
other country in the world.[3]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populatio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate)

[2] [https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/india-
populat...](https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/india-population/)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth#Growth_regions)

~~~
avip
The fact that India’s population is growing does not imply TFR is above
replacement.

Now you can go back up to my original post, and see what it was about (I was
replying to someone claiming that halving world population won’t help as we
are “reproducing exponentially”). I think you are trying to make some point I
probably agree with (or correct something I’ve said but it’s unclear what)

~~~
kerkeslager
> The fact that India’s population is growing does not imply TFR is above
> replacement.

That's true: the UN measuring the TFR being above replacement is what implies
that the TFR is above replacement.

You just ignored half the post you responded to, so I'll say it again: How
high is the child mortality rate? 4.1% as of 2016[1]. Even using your low
number (2.2) that you didn't cite, 2.2 * (1 - 0.041) = 2.109, still above
replacement.

> Now you can go back up to my original post, and see what it was about

My original point was that the TFR for developed nations is fairly irrelevant
given the overall world population is still growing. But we're well past the
point where you can maintain any credibility based on your original post
anyway, because you've made a bunch of erroneous claims since then. All the
following are wrong statements quoted from you:

* Most of the world is already on sub-replacement. The only worth mentioning exception is Africa.

* India and USA are already on sub-replacement.

* India's TFR is reported 2.2-2.3 for 2018. That is, for a developing country with high child mortality, the replacement rate.

Since you are now selectively reading the facts, my posts, and even your own
posts, to try to draw attention away from where you're wrong, I don't think
you're engaging in good-faith debate any more, so I'm done.

~~~
avip
This is not how replacement rate is calculated.

The common formula/approximation is inverse of product of probability of
reaching mean fertility age and female ratio.

The female ratio in India is 0.482. The other factor I have no idea. If it’s
~94% then 2.2 is the replacement rate. I think that’s fairly high provided we
start at 96.8% but who knows.

