In twenty first century America, individuals face various issues on countless different scales. Some predominant issues, however often overlooked, are prevalent in their succession and are affecting everyone at this exact moment. One of these issues that is facing not only the nation, but the world as well, is the highly-controversial issue of climate change, its supporters, doubters, and the potential consequences we may face if action isn’t taken imminently. A prominent source for this controversy is, inevitably, the media. Media in today’s developed American society has the capable of skewing the opinion of an individual, with statements that are not always legitimate and factually-based. Another source for misattribution is the prevalence of opinionated politics in social America, which tend to be favorable of the money-making sector which includes almost everything except environmentally-friendly topics. The issue of legitimizing climate change is whether or not it exists in the first place, the most effective form of action to take, and the willingness of making sacrifices to get there. Additionally, these assets can be seen in, not only American culture, but in theoretical fiction as well. The result of this grand culmination of factors is a desperate society in which individuals are either fighting for the right to health, or wealth.

Countless figures, including celebrities, have been infamous for denying climate change in belief that it is a hoax. Even some published studies are unsure as to its legitimacy due to undocumented temperatures from past millennia, as well as uncertainty as to how much of the current emissions are truly impacting the globe’s temperature. However, the ultimate conclusion has been made to justify the claim that global climate change does exist. For example, “…the latter half of the century was probably one of the warmest 50-year periods for several millennia. However, more research is needed to consolidate and verify that conclusion” (Bradley 1355) Bradley acknowledges the change is notable, yet rationalizes that further justification between natural and human-invoked causes is only fair. One, and potentially the most, supported claim behind this science is the increase in emitted greenhouse gases have been at fault for the rising temperatures. Scientists claim “Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere warm the Earth by reducing the radiation of heat into space, thus increasing the net inflow of radiative energy,” and “the atmospheric concentration of…carbon dioxide has increased by about 27 percent since the Industrial Revolution and is currently rising at about .5 percent per year” (Schmalensee 3) proving the dramatic carbon-footprint that humans are increasingly producing. Specifically, the United States is one of the main contributors to this global phenomenon. Take note, “The U.S. has apparently accounted for about 20 percent of recent global anthropogenic CO2 emissions,” our impact is a vast majority of the entire globe’s. Conclusively, the science behind anthropogenic causes is there. Are humans the sole cause for the warming? Absolutely not. However, the straggling rates as to how much we are contributing is, without a doubt, impacting the health of our home. 

Within the film industry, one producer in particular, Roland Emmerich, has developed a film in response to mythological theory. The film, 2012, was produced and released just weeks before the proposed end of the Mayan calendar on December 12, 2012. This day involved the unveiling and deterioration of the earth’s crust, resulting in massive volcanic explosions, earthquakes, and ultimate land engulfing by the ocean. In the beginning scenes, a motivated journalist travels internationally to personally experience the boiling of the Earth’s core. He, after doubtful hours, comes to believe, and later proves to others, that “the Earth’s crust is destabilizing,” (Emmerich 2009). However, this information is only accessible in one man’s basement in India, making it difficult to express the significance of the issue to others; yet, the evidence is present. In relation to present day, this context proves that the raw proof exists, but often times not everyone has access to it, and hence has viable logic behind disbelief. However, as noted in the movie, the government is aware of the global issue the moment the issue becomes prevalent. However, as many have come to learn, politicians have become awfully intelligent in how they handle information. When the Chief of State is first demanded he tell Americans of the danger they will face, he responds by saying, “What do you mean?” (Emmerich 2009) encompassing the sacrifice of the people’s well-being and lives. Additionally, in the film, when demanded he tell the public for safety purposes, he responds slightly with a “I will tell everyone the truth,” (Emmerich 2009) however, does this truly happen? Not quite yet. Only a few more earthquakes to break the Richter Scale before the information begins to be passed to the public.

Visually, the film provides many aspects that can justify the upcoming of “the end of the world” which is predisposed to take place on December 21, 2012. One of the most predominant aspects is the angle of film which occurs at eye-level. Although this is a rather common tool utilized by may directors, the angle is rather significant in this sci-fi film. By filming at the level of a true individual, one can put himself into the shoes of the actor in the position of the film, adding an aspect of reality and personalization. This addition resembles that of the true existence of the issue of climate change in the first place, proving both the reality of the issue, as well as how the effects will implicate every individual here on earth. Additionally, the events leading up to the end of the world are rather ordinary, natural occurrences for the globe today. For example, the implementation of earth quakes, volcanic eruptions, and flooding all take place in modern day. Although the presentation of these events in the film are much more abundant than they would be in the real world, their overall placement in the film justifies an aspect of reality that can happen to any place in the world today. The application of these natural disasters adding up to the bigger picture also connects to the reality of climate change in the present day, making the issue to be more applicable.

Since the proof behind global climate change has been researched and published, why are so many individuals still in denial of the crisis? Some politicians may fool their countries, specifically the United States, by reminding individuals of a signed protocol: The Kyoto Protocol, a bill proposed and signed by many nations in hopes of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The truth behind this agreement, however, is that it does promote the idea of “reducing emissions of greenhouse gasses,” yet, “set no mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions for individual nations,” (Joshi, Sah 771) which couldn’t be more ineffective. When politics is involved with an issue, typically money is also being debated. Specifically noted by American politicians, this establishment of set limitations of these emissions would “cause more damage to the economy of the U.S. than to those of other nations,” (Joshi, Sah 771). Thus, proving politicians are mainly concerned about the health of their bank accounts more than their people. In the eyes of educated individuals, such as Princeton grad and previous international law professor Richard Falk states “A world of sovereign states is unable to cope with endangered planet problems…” (Joshi, Sah 772). Reminiscing back to the idea that individuals are often ignorant and refuse the claim that climate change does exist, these ideas tend to be popular in the minds of- that’s right- our representatives. Politicians tend to be, ironically, more in tune with the idea that “each government is mainly concerned with the pursuit of national goals” (Joshi, Sah 772) and quite frankly, this issue of public health isn’t important enough to be invested in. 

Similarly, in the film, many superior individuals of power begin to deny the issue in its beginning stages of talk. When the journalist begins to tell the Chief of Staff at a black-tie event fundraiser that the planet is in grave danger if evacuation isn’t carried out immediately, he sarcastically responds with a stark tone by saying, “Let me guess, national geology crisis?” (Emmerich 2009). This comment was followed by hysterical laughter of the surrounding crowd of politicians. The location of the encounter signifies the situation in itself by commemorating the money operation behind politics in the first place, implying the greed behind national power. In other scenes, the repetition of doubtful comments are often heard such as “I know it sounds completely implausible,” and “A situation so devastating, at first I refused to believe it” (Emmerich 2009). The ringing of disbelief in even the slightest of conversations has an amplified effect on the tone of the crisis, proving the ignorance of many individuals on current crises our world faces in twenty-first century America. 

In a more visual aspect, there are many scenes in the film that seem to appear almost hysterical due to the stretch of some events that occur, which also exploits why some disbelief may linger of the catastrophe. For example, when the original word of disaster gets out, families observe giraffes and rhinoceroses being patrolled in the air by helicopter to safer ground. To begin with, the idea of the “end of the world” was enough for citizens to digest. The disbelief that may occur with animals being strung sky-high in the atmosphere coincides with that of current day politicians, religious devotees, etc. In another scene, the family walks past governmentally-restricted grounds to find a man who seems to be living in the wilderness. This man has abided in a powder room-sized trailer his whole life, mapping out the events that are predicted to take place on this day on which the world ends. In current day America, one isn’t typically found to be living amongst the wild and surviving without basic needs: food, clothing, and shelter. The doubt of this man’s overall lifestyle and entirely mapped out plan for where to go, how to get there, and when to leave can come across as quite preposterous. The events surrounding this strange, almost imaginary, man also concur with that of the disbelievers in regards to today’s societal danger of dramatic climate crisis.

In support of this, polls from politicians’ opinions have been taken and have demonstrated that “one third of respondents expressed agreement with the statement that ‘Increases in the Earth’s temperature over the last century are due more to natural changes in the environment than are due to human activities,’” (Williams 21). These staggering numbers are reasonably defended, however. After all, “political ideology and religiosity have been identified as pre-dispositional factors that play an important role in shaping public understanding of politicized science,” (Williams 22) how ironic coming from a nation with a consistent representation of white male supremacy. More specifically, “recent research finds that political ideology is closely linked to beliefs about global warming, where ideological conservatives are more doubtful…” (Williams 22). Not only does the white man have an encrypted idea of the science behind how the world works, but bias also has a role in this common theme. Studies have also come to reveal that “individuals seek out information based on their existing predispositions,” and, “the web may work to steer individuals toward information that further reinforces their existing views” (Williams 22). Given, if evidence supporting one’s disbelief has been published on a religiously-affiliated individual’s internet page, individuals supporting that information will further make use of it to justify their claim.

With the idea in mind that political figures can conceal information from the public until (often times) it is too late, the citizens can be harmed more than helped. Once the individuals in the film get the hint, after tens of earthquakes and flooding which has resulted in transportation by plane only to the last standing continent, their commanders are behind the scenes in raw desperation. Purely spoken, the Chief of State speaks, “We have to save what we can and we have to move now” (Emmerich 2009). The consistent utilization of the term ‘we’ exploits nothing but pure irony. ‘We’ never existed in the film, as commanders refused to be informative, as their job entails, for the protection of the people in which they govern. Furthermore, the effortless ignorance of the issue in the first place resulted in a merciless defeat for the government. Similarly, not only have there have been countless scandals and inconsistencies within our democracy, but often times, there are theories that the government knows much more than the information they provide us with. In terms of climate change, the numbers have proven that opinions on this topic tend to lean the same way: majority for opposition. I suppose our representatives feel our knowledge is sacrificial for the money we may not fuel the economy with if there were no barriers for our awareness to this issue.

As potentially expected, the film consummates to the destruction of six of the seven continents the world knows today. As seen in the final scene of the film, the only existing landmass left is Africa, and the only individuals left on the entire planet are a few thousand on each of three American Navy ships. Evidently, the world comes as close as one can get to a fatal depletion of the world, as well as extinction of the human race. The outcome of these drastic events portrays the nameless effects the real world may come face-to-face with if the current stance of ignorance filling many individuals continues to exist. The pure catastrophes that occur throughout the film in general can exemplify how great of an extent the consequences may be if action isn’t taken to educate the disbelievers of the raw science behind the issue’s original  existance.

The abundance of global issues in today’s realm is only growing larger by the hour. The majority of the world, mainly concerning that of developed nations, relies on the media for information. The issue with this is the presentation of false information and misattributions.  Our world is currently facing a threat so great that records haven’t come to show patterns so drastic in the age of our earth. These patterns are those of climate change. The warming of the earth’s surface is taking place as we speak, and is- again- causing grave “environmental degradation” (Joshi, Sah 771). Many individuals throughout the world, specifically in America have come to believe that climate change is a hoodwink and futile to our attention. The reason for this disbelief has been proven to come from a variety of different sources such as religion, but primarily from media coverage of political ideologies. Politicians in our country have the tendency to flock towards, you guessed it, the green, rectangular, piece of paper that only controls everyday life in this country. Shifting to an environmentally-friendly industry would not only involve the shifting of energy sources, but also the investment of money that our representatives must not be able to afford. Ultimately, the prevalence of incredulity towards this alarming issue has resulted in the nation’s procrastination to its attention, potentially harming the future of the entire globe. The portrayal of this subject’s significance and potential impact is evident throughout popular culture, as observed through instances in the film, 2012. Fundamentally, the issue of legitimizing climate change truly is whether or not it exists in the first place, going about the most effective form of action to take, and the overall willingness of individuals making sacrifices to get there. The end may be near… will a consensus be, as well?
