
In twenty first century America, society faces issues on countless different scales. Some predominant issues, however often overlooked, are prevalent in their succession and affect everyone at this moment. A greater issue 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 capability of skewing the opinion of an individual, with statements that are not always legitimate and factually-based. Another source for misattribution is the abundance of opinionated politics in social America, which tend to be favorable of the money-making sector, including almost everything except environmentally-friendly topics. Such assets can be seen in not only American culture, but in theoretical fiction as well. 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 people to make sacrifices to get there. The result of the grand culmination of said factors is a desperate society in where individuals are either fighting for the right to health, or wealth.

Countless figures, such as politicians, have been infamous for denying climate change and believing it is a hoax. Such evidence exists in a proprosition by the House of Representatives in 2011, stating that “Conrgess accepts the scientific findings… that climate change is occurring,” (Powledge) yet legislators voted against such claims by a 240 to 184 vote, and did so in a partisan matter. Even some published studies are unsure as to its legitimacy due to the absence of documented temperatures from past millennia, as well as uncertainty of how greatly current emissions are truly impacting the globe’s temperature. With this in mind, a conclusion has been made by various scientists 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) Here, 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 that the increase in emitted greenhouse gases have been at fault for the rising temperatures. Scientists have concluded that “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,” and, “Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere warm the Earth by reducing the radiation of heat into space, thus increasing the net inflow of radiative energy.” (Schmalensee 3) Such evidence reveals the dramatic carbon-footprint that humans are increasingly producing, which adds immensely to the greater picture of climate change. 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,” implying that human impact is a vast majority of the entire globe’s. Conclusively, the science behind anthropogenic causes exists. Yet, are humans the sole cause for the warming? Absolutely not. However, the straggling rates as to how much we inhabitants contributing is, without a doubt, impacting the health of this planet. 

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. In the film, this date involved the unveiling and deterioration of the earth’s crust, resulting in massive volcanic explosions, earthquakes, and ultimate oceanic consumption of the land. 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) transforming the myth into society’s reality. However, this raw proof is only visible in one man’s basement in India, making it difficult to express the reality and significance of the issue to others; yet, the evidence is present. In relation to present day, this context proves how the proof exists, but not everyone has access to it, and hence has viable logic behind his or her disbelief. As noted in the movie, the government is aware of the global issue the moment the issue becomes prevalent. Yet, 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. Later on in the film, when demanded he tell the public for safety purposes, The Chief responds slightly with a “I will tell everyone the truth,” (Emmerich 2009) however, he doesn’t convey this quite yet. Only a few more earthquakes break the Richter Scale before the information begins to be passed to the public.

Visually, the film provides many aspects that foreshadow 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 many 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’s position in the film, adding an aspect of reality and personalization. The addition of this perspective resembles 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 to reveal how such events can happen to any place in the world today. The application of natural disasters that factor into the bigger picture also connects to the reality of climate change in present day, making the issue 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, specifically the United States, remind individuals of a signed protocol: The Kyoto Protocol, a bill proposed and signed by many nations in hopes of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. This agreement, however, does promote the idea of “reducing emissions of greenhouse gasses,” yet, it has “set no mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions for individual nations,” (Joshi, Sah 771) which is rather ineffective. When politics is involved with an issue, although not always so, money is typically also being debated. Specifically noted by American politicians, this establishment of set limitations of emissions would “cause more damage to the economy of the U.S. than to those of other nations,” (Joshi, Sah 771). Thus, proving how United States politicians are often more concerned about the health of their bank accounts more than the future of 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 such 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 native representatives. Ironically, politicians tend to be 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 and planetary health isn’t important enough to be invested in. 

Similarly, in the film, many individuals of governmental 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 noted greed behind national power. In the following scenes, the repetition of doubtful comments is 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, reflecting upon the ignorance of many individuals on current crises the 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. The idea of the “end of the world” was enough for citizens to balance between fantasy and reality in the first place. The disbelief that may occur with animals being strung sky-high in the atmosphere coincides with that of current day politicians, religious devotees, etc. towards the general concept of existing climatic change. In another scene, the main character’s family walks past 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 of the world ending. In current day America, one isn’t typically found to be living amongst the wild and surviving without basic needs that would entail 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 persona and lifestyle of 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 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 of doubt. 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 most-likely 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. After tens of earthquakes and flooding (which has resulted in transportation by plane only to the last standing continent), citizens begin to take the hint meanwhile their authorities 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 the public with. In terms of climate change, statistics have proven that opinions on this topic tend to lean the same way: majority for opposition. I suppose our representatives feel public knowledge is sacrificial for the money some may not feed into the economy if there were no boundaries for the issue’s awareness.

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 fatal destruction, as well as extinction of the human race. The outcome of the drastic events portrays the nameless effects the real world may come face-to-face with if the current stance of ignorance continues to exist. In general, the pure catastrophes that occur throughout the film 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 existence.

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. Such 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 and world’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 is truly 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 to make sacrifices to get there. 
