Climate Change Denial

October 28, 2010

PHOTOSHOP CLIMATE IMAGES ‘FEED XENOPHOBIA’ AND DENIAL

George Marshall @ 8:23 pm

The desire to stir a debate around climate change is not an excuse for sensationalist images and language that demean immigrants.

The effects of climate change are so hard to imagine that we should welcome an exhibition of Postcards from the Future’ that promises “Images that bring ideas to life and frame the climate debate in a way that everyone can understand”. Unfortunately the debate it frames is dangerous and the main reason that it can be readily understood is that it fits all too easily with existing prejudices.

 

Cut-and-paste monkeys: an insulting analogy for the "equatorial immigrants" who would swamp British culture.

 

The pictures are artfully composed photomontages that juxtapose iconic London landmarks with eye-catching climate impacts – for example the Household Cavalry ride down a sand-strewn Whitehall on camels; an oil palm plantation grows in Hyde Park; and people skate on the Thames after the Gulf Stream packs in.

The creators, Robert Graves and Didier Madoc-Jones, assure us that they “researched different scientific projections”. Really? Not one of these images reflects any real climate scenario for London. They are pure science-fiction.

Certainly they are striking and win attention, but at a price. Public acceptance of climate change is still weak and 55% of people believe that climate change has been exaggerated for political ends. Fantasy images actively feed that public denial and with it the widespread assumption that climate change is conjectural and without firm basis in fact.

However the greatest concern with this show is not that it parts with reality, but that it speaks all too well to real prejudices against immigrants “swamping” British culture. This is a recurring theme. One postcard shows Asian peasants working in paddy fields in the shadow of Big Ben.

 

Two other postcards in the series show shantytowns around Nelson’s Column and Buckingham Palace.

These images cause deep disquiet for those who work with refugees and immigrants. Jonathan Ellis, policy director at the Refugee Council, calls them “lazy and unhelpful” at a time when “we need fresh and creative messages, and a fair and rational debate based on the facts”.

“Producing sensationalist pictures which fall back on cheap stereotypes of refugees do not help anyone’s cause,” says Vaughan Jones, the chief executive of Praxis, a London-based charity that provides practical support for refugees and asylum seekers. “The issue is too serious for this inaccurate treatment.”

Hannah Smith from the Climate Outreach Information Network runs a programme that brings together over 30 refugee, human rights and environment organisations. She argues that the images give an entirely erroneous impression and that “the actual patterns of migration are far more likely to be the movement of people inside existing national borders, or, in the case of the UK, from within the European Union. To suggest that there will be mass migration from the [global] south is misleading and feeds xenophobia.”

These criticism are exacerbated by the language used in the captions. The caption for the Buckingham Palace shantytown talks of the royal family being surrounded by “overwhelming numbers of immigrants”. Another caption, for a picture of monkeys on the balustrade of St Paul’s Cathedral describes them as “a new breed of tropical immigrants reminiscing about equatorial days”. This is a misapplication of language that Hannah Smith regards as deeply insulting.

Any representations of climate change enter a complex psychological, social and political landscape created by over twenty years of confusion, denial and anger.  An aspect of this is that the perpetrators of climate change are constantly seekijng to absolve themselves of their ethical responsibility for the historical problem or the failure to take collective action. I predict that we are heading for a bitter blame game and, judging by the usual human response, the most consistent mechanism for dealing with collective guilt is to blame the victim. The racist right are already sniffing round the issue  of climate migration and will try to take hold of this agenda.

When I look at the postcards from the perspective of refugee organisations (indeed with any kind of progressive politics at all) these concerns seem so sensible and self-evident that I wonder why no-one involved with commissioning, producing, or promoting these images thought to raise them.  The entire approach of the postcards is provocative: taking symbols of British cultural identify and contrasting them with caricatures of Third World poverty. The impression that they give is that we have been invaded by an alien horde, and that we are the victims, not them.

Imagine that this approach had been taken with the climate change context: Westminster Abbey covered with Arabic signs and flanked by minarets, camels racing in the Derby,  Beefeaters are replaced by Romani…etc etc. Would this be accepted for public display anywhere, not least the usually extremely sensitive Museum of London.

So this raises a fascinating question: why did the cover story of “climate change” permit the enthusiastic promotion of images and language that would be normally be considered unacceptable in a public exhibition?

One reason is that we have already come to “frame” climate change in this way. Impacts are invariably presented as the crude data of square kilometres flooded or numbers of people displaced. There is still a painful lack of elaboration or analysis of the real political and social impacts of these changes – who will be affected, how will they adapt and where will they go.

This in turn reflects the disturbingly limited range of voices that can be heard talking about climate change. While environmentalists have dominated the public discourse from the outset, it has only been in the past five years that development organisations and unions have become involved.

Human rights and refugee organisations are only now fully recognising the importance of climate change and they are struggling to find their niche and be heard on the issue. “We operate under such constant pressures, both internally and externally, that we have been in the bunker for far too long”, says Jonathan Ellis.

Even the core term “climate refugee”, used universally by environmental organisations and throughout the postcard captions, is inaccurate, argues Vaughan Jones. It took decades of hard campaigning to get refugees protected under international law and “the term must be preserved as a legal status for those fleeing persecution”.

None of this is to doubt the sincerity of the photo-artists or those organising the exhibition. Nor does it imply that climate change is so complex that it cannot be communicated to the general public.  All it shows is that climate change is a challenging area, framed by denial, guilt and discrimination, that requires the same intelligence and sensitivity as any exhibition on gender, race or class.

These  images deliberately chose to create a reaction use extreme and sometimes ludicrous contrast. But they could have shown many different scenarios that would have been far more realistic and engaging- images of adaptation and co-operation and real impacts that were well referenced by the science.  The history of immigration in Britain has always been one of immigrants adding new ideas, energy and diversity to Britain, so could not images of climate migrants have shown them dding to British culture and our capacity to adapt and change.

This is a longer version of the article that appears on The Guardian Blog

7 Responses to “PHOTOSHOP CLIMATE IMAGES ‘FEED XENOPHOBIA’ AND DENIAL”

  1. As a primarily visual person, my reaction to these images (before learning about the appallingly xenophobic captions) was quite positive. They are clever, slick, well executed in the manner of a high profile advertising campaign. I actually applaud this polished attempt to bring the problem ‘home’ to the public here. People are notoriously poor at visualising strongly something they would rather deny, so maybe after viewing these they won’t find it so easy to run away any longer. Images like these, in their weirdly surreal juxtapositions, serve the purpose of helping people realise how very small our planet has become, and how our actions in the West are having a significant impact not only on global climate, but on every planetary ecosystem, and on the lives of people we are unlikely ever to meet except in the lurid dreamscape of these postcards. For a similar concept, see photographer George Logan’s incredibly successful book ‘Translocation’, in aid of the Born Free Foundation. It shows African animals translocated to hauntingly beautiful Scottish and Cornish landscapes. And it works. http://www.translocationbook.com/

  2. s johnson says:

    Sorry have to disagree here insofar as the refugee imagery is concerned . The point of the pics is not to preach to the converted or appeal to liberal sensitivities. The point is to make an impact on deniers.

    In my observation, 100% of deniers are conservative. Such people are also generally xenophobes.

    Showing the fact that billions of people will be displaced and displaced into the first world whether the first world likes it or not is a message that is sure to be upsetting to a likely denier.

    In the US we call this a good shot. I think you call it a jolly good shot.

    This is a war. This is every bit as serious as WWII, except the outcome is arguably even more previous since there will be no civilization of any kind and thus no chance for a future redemption, however far fetched the idea may be.

    It’s the end of civilization. We need to drop every bomb of every description that could possibly work we can on the enemy’s head.

    That’s what you do in war.

  3. Joe Earth says:

    I don’t know if there are any captions along with the postcards or what the artists intentions were, but I don’t see these postcards as depicting third world inhabitants transported to the developed work. I see them as showing the developed world and the developing world existing at the same time – a reminder that people outside the developing world exist and that, as fellow human beings, we have a moral obligation to protect their well-being.

  4. Simon Butler says:

    A great article George. It seems to me that a big problem with the pics is that it gives the impression that climate change is an external threat, something imposed on the big-emitting first world countries from the outside. But of course this turns things wholly upside down.

    Your point that, “There is still a painful lack of elaboration or analysis of the real political and social impacts of these changes – who will be affected, how will they adapt and where will they go.”, is a very good one. It presents an implicit challenge to climate activists and writers.

    @ s johnson: I seriously doubt these pictures will turn hardened climate deniers into proponents of climate action. Reinforcing prejudiced views is hardly a “good shot”, but is very short-sighted. If we are going to build an effective climate movement, then it will have to draw on people’s capacity for empathy and humanity. And above all, it will have to be grounded in reality – focussed on the real threats, not imaginary ones. But the point of climate advocacy can’t be limited to convincing deniers in any case. Equally dangerous, but far more accepted, are the various business-as-usual responses to the climate threat that focus on adaptation rather than rapid decarbonisation.

  5. All photomontages are very interesting and educating in one time. They point out those unpopular issues in very friendly, but contrasting way. I had never before put the refugee and environmental problems together. I have just realised that they are connected in many ways. People need for their lives to have breathable air, clean water, food and neighbourhood without restrictions. I believe those postcards will soon be used to juxtapose contrarieties of the life on this Planet.

  6. AssemblyLineHuman says:

    I think too much is being read into what is a simple message. I notice the left seem to look for racism in everything, but in this case, there is a simple depiction of a scenario that both the left and right, and others like myself who belong to neither of these camps, want to avoid. Maybe conservatives dont want to be swamped by refugees, but what sane person does? Even someone of a left wing bent would, or SHOULD, object to a situation arising where millions have displacement forced upon them. I would think most, if not all people would agree that this is an outcome that should be avoided. It is a trvial matter whether the primary motivation is national self interest or concern for the welfare of people in third world nations. Why is that so important?

    I find it saddening that people nevertheless choose to beat their political drum, rather than agree to fix a problem. It is a shame when people elevate obscure, suggested racism above actual solutions. I do enjoy this website and find the information here useful, but I cant stand it when every percieved hint of racism causes people to go off on a tangent. I think loss of focus is a real killer.

    Again, what part of those images depicts something we should accept? Despite the differing motives, action on climate change is more important then trying to change someones personal belief on what makes up a society.

    S Johnson is right. If someone wants to stop climate change to avoid demographic changes in his nation, why should that stop me exploiting his will. Surely tackling climate change is more important than someones personal notions of foreigners?

  7. This is an appallingly PC piece George! Your stuff is usually pin-sharp, but this is the worst kind of Guardianista offence-seeking nonsense. Calling ‘racism’ on people in this way is not helpful or fair.

    I saw these images as works of art, not as political statements or as attempts to ‘accurately represent the science.’ Shantytowns in London? Well, you know what? That’s very likely over the next century. Who they will be occupied by – the poor, white ethnic English, or recent immigrants, or both – is a moot point. Though given that 51% of London’s population was born outside the UK and that 4 million new people have fetched up here in just over a decade, I don’t take the same complacent view on population movement and its impacts as you seem to.

    But even leaving that aside, I think you are being way too literal here, and way too right-on. I see no ‘racist’ intent in these images, and I don’t imagine that anyone other than people working for race-focused NGOs would see one either. I think it’s smart juxtaposition which, while certainly ‘exaggerated’ in literalist terms (like much of the best art) does a pretty good job of getting me, at least, to reconsider my view on the future of this currently ‘first world’ city.

Leave a Reply

0.131 seconds | Valid XHTML & CSS | Powered by Wordpress | Site Design: Matthew Carroll