3640 Response Assignment #3
Due Monday11/13

Instructions: Using the following questions as a guide, develop a response essay for your viewing ofChasing Ice, If a Tree Falls, Bidder 70, and Trinkets and Beads. Your essay should incorporate some of the ideas in the assigned readings for these films. The emphasis on this writing exercise is to develop themesin Naess, and Wilson, and Chapters 4-7 in Peter List’s Radical Environmentalism text, as well as connect these issues to earlier readings.

Make sure you discuss each of the films, but do not simply answer the questions--use them to guide your thinking (i.e., keep them in mind) as you write a response essay. Length should be 4-5 pages double-spaced. You can partner up with one other person to complete this, but see me first if you plan to do this.

For Chasing Ice(discuss in the context of Naess and Wilson)

  1. What is the relationship between human-generated rising CO2 levels and climate change? How is the ice core evidence (showing the relationship between atmospheric CO2 to worldwide temperature change used to make this connection scientifically supported?
  2. Explain why James Balog had been a climate change skeptic earlier in his life. Comment on his change of mind based on his entry into these natural areas and how this has led to his current “extreme” activism. What does his reversal say about our ability to change our hearts and minds and the role of knowledge in personal development and eco-activism? Compare to Naess’ “deep ecology” and Wilson’s Biophilia.

For If a Tree Falls and Bidder 70: (discuss in the context of List Chapters 4-7)

  1. Using the reading by Edward Abbey (in Chap. 5) and Dave Foreman (in Chap. 7), define "monkey-wrenching." What are the advantages and disadvantages of this action? Is the action taken by Tim DeChristopher (Bidder 70) monkey wrenching? Why or why not? What aboutDaniel McGowan (If a Tree Falls)?
  2. In both the reading from Peter List (Chaps. 3-7) and in the documentaries watched, several environmentalists express dissatisfaction with the limitations of mainline or mainstream environmentalorganizations like the Sierra Club or Green Peace. What are the limitations of these organizations and what did those dissatisfied people do?
  3. Explore the relationship betweengovernment regulatoryentitiesand the industries they are supposed to regulate.Discuss examples from the readings and documentaries (like Bidder 70and Gasland—or even Trinkets and Beads). Whose concerns are attended to and who is left out? In the scenarios you found, who benefits? What is at stake for all groups involved?

For Trinkets and Beads: (discuss in the context of Lynn White and/or Carolyn Merchant)

  1. The land occupied by the Huaorani is said to belong to them under Ecuadorian law; but the oil underground is said to belong to the government. Compare to John Winthrop’s argument in early American (Puritan) history that although the Indians have a natural right to the land (because they live there), they do not have a civil right to the land because they are not subduing it. Discuss the different “levels” of ownership in the case of the Huaorani and Ecuador. What allows people to claim ownership and what makes one group more entitled than another? Using Lynn White’s and/or Carolyn Merchant’s analysis, explain how the culture and its assumptions about ownership play a part in the dominion of nature.
  2. Why are there an increasing number of tribal leaders, like Moi, fighting Western “progress” and actively trying to return to traditional ways of their people? Compare the native and Western cultures: the Huaorani have “no need for oil,” just as the Arawak Indians had no need for gold. What are the similarities between the oil companies and Columbus? What lessons have we learned from history, besides how to separate people from the land? Connect these lessons to the activism in Rapa Nui and Patagonia in 180° South.