|
THE 22nd
of April is always observed as Earth Day. Two media
institutions, GMA and the National Geographic Channel,
observed the day in the best way they could: use the
media to remind us that, indeed, there is only one
planet we can call our own, and we better take care of
it. There is no sense comparing National Geographic with
GMA. The two have disparate resources, with the former
more well-funded and, coming from a developed country,
has more experts to boost the accessibility of its
information. GMA has to struggle against a media culture
that does not support serious discussions about urgent
topics like global warming and its impact on countries
and their ecology and people. Still, we can compare
their approaches.
Humans
are the only living creature on Earth capable of
altering the state of the planet. On that note, the
National Geographic’s Earth Report: State of the
Planet initiates a cautionary tale about how we,
evolving as the superior beings in this planet, have
developed the capability to chop down 11 billion trees,
which, in turn, can release 8 billion metric tons of
earth.
National
Geographic never fails when it comes to photos. Images
speak a thousand words and deliver anxiety points.
Hillsides crumble. The solitary figure of a polar bear
scratches on chunks of ice. How long will this animal
live in that isolated area that is losing its
isolation? Glaciers break apart and create gateway to
regions hitherto closed to human traffic, vulnerable now
to human presence and predation.
These
pictures begin with the air of ethnographic detachment
until the words of experts and statistics start to
rumble with it: captions and cautions all in one
package. The figures are staggering; the facts are
almost fantastic given the horrific dimensions they have
reached. Close your eyes and think of the realities of
deforestation. About 26,000 square kilometers of rain
forest have disappeared and replanted with palm-oil
trees. In Brazil some 20,000 sq km of rain forest are
removed and in its place soybean and cattle farming
rise. If that is not depressing enough, studies indicate
that almost 50 percent of original forests worldwide are
gone, and with it the habitat of endangered species
whose numbers are decreasing day by day.
The
camera glides into a forest. It climbs up to towering
trees, some as old as civilizations. We are in a redwood
forest in California, where more than 95 percent of the
original trees have been cut down. In another forest,
huge trees fall down, felled by machines. Satellites
show forests collapsing into tiny areas. The lesson
comes: the cutting and burning of the forest yield 25
percent of the world’s carbon-dioxide emissions. Cut
more trees and you have more of these chemicals. Produce
more carbon dioxide and then you have more heat being
trapped in the atmosphere, giving us a world that is
getting warmer. More information coming scares us
because, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change report, the Earth has already warmed up
by 0.8 degrees Celsius.
One
outstanding contribution of Earth Report is its
assessment of the performance of the countries with
regard to ecological preservation and sustainable energy
programs. Using the Environmental Performance Index, a
research team at Yale University grades the performance
of countries. I brace myself anticipating the
Philippines to be up there with the top offenders. I am
not sure if it is a case of underreporting but in
concerns like deforestation, there is no mention of the
country. Indonesia figures as one of the top three
countries decimating its forest reserve.
GMA’s
Signos seems ready to answer my questions. Its share
in the discussion about the environment is set up like
CNN’s Future Summit, the all-star cast of
politicians, scientists and environmental activists
meeting in Singapore for a hot discussion about global
warming and climate change. Again, I am not about to
compare the well-oiled machinery of that meeting with
the attempt of our local network. There is, however,
much to be learned about that summit. The panelists, for
one, were not only scientists but also advocates and
activists. You can disagree with their stand but you
cannot ignore them.
The
decision of GMA is also a highly commendable one. There
is no money in this topic. The challenge for every
documentarist or host is always to make the discussion
of topics like climate change and global warming sexier.
That they, in fact, went on to stage the forum makes the
people behind the production a rarity, a bunch of
idealists deserving our applause. That said, however, at
the end of the production, one gets this uneasy feeling
that there is something amiss in the whole show.
Is it
the less-than-optimal use of the experts? Is it the case
of too lengthy a topic for so short a time? The problem
of time and content is not unique to Signos. I
have always raised the concern that a panoramic
treatment of a problem—like the panoramic camera
shot—cannot bring the audience into the circle of
sympathy and empathy. In the case of Signos, the
script spread itself so thinly across a field of
environmental phenomena that one feels like a
participant in a guided tour of the crisis. There was
also a sense of detachment from the panelists, as if the
problem at hand was some problem of another planet.
There
are, I believe, very few shows brave enough to give a
starring role to individuals working on obscure fields
like climate change. Signos was on the verge of
doing that. I was expecting the media giant to harness
with might all its resources to articulate the lines of
the scientists with the help of the scientists. I am
sure this intrepid band of men and women would not have
minded the extra media coaching. The aim was to provide
an in-depth perspective and present it in a manner
understandable to the general audience, but there was
not enough space for that mission. A big chunk of the
narrative was eaten up by the attempt to globalize the
environmental concerns, all at the expense of the
stories waiting to be told, and from which lessons could
be learned. There is enough time to connect ourselves to
the global community but, for the moment, let us tell
first our story.
Buried
in Signos is our own contribution to the
understanding of the radical changes happening in our
planet: the village slowly being buried by the sand from
the sea, the part of the city now under water, the
increase in the number of insects. The people behind
Signos still have the responsibility to look for
these local signs and tell them more fully next time
with the help of meteorologists and volcanologists and
other scientists who can be our good storytellers. And
if Richard Gutierrez agrees again to be the narrator,
GMA should make sure it airs the program at a time when
the fans of this brave actor are there to listen to his
admirable crusade. |
