Envi-cartoon-alism

During out recent test, we experienced the new AP writer’s like of cartoons. In light of this I would like to use this issue to analyze further cartoons. Because of my policy I looked for recent and relevant environmental cartoons. A note on sources: Grist.org did not provide cartoon material for this week so other sources are used.

In this cartoon, provided by cartoonstock.com, energy policy is depicted as somewhat of a dead weight for congress. The energy policy itself is a sloth, of course meant to signify the extremely slow movement of such policies along the different branches in the tree of congress. The sloth begins to think about carbon credits and nuclear power, but is more interested in sleep, and just as the sloth’s determination to focus is hopeless, so to are the attempts at addressing issues like carbon credit and nuclear power in congress.

The above cartoon by Steve Greenberg is insinuating that politicians, although they attempt to appear eco-friendly, actually care very little about the environment. This cartoon seemed appropriate for tomorrow’s Earth Day. The politician, whose office is next to a toxic spewing plant (one which most likely supports the candidate financially and is returned with favors) realizes that it is Earth Day and walks to a tree (past toxic waste barrels and a river polluting pipe which he pays no attention to) and hugs the tree for a media photo opportunity. The last frame is the same as the first; he is back in his office with his back conveniently turned to the pollution in the back ground. The cartoon suggests that while politicians have every intention of allowing environmental damage, they are willing to hug a tree if it will get them positive publicity.

This cartoon, also by Steve Greenberg, makes several points about the recent matter of the Endangered Species Act. In previous posts, I discuss the act in more detail, but simply from the cartoon, on can see several of Greenberg’s arguments. The first that is most obvious is the overwhelming majority that is in favor of extending the Act. One realizes however, that of this majority, none are actually able to vote in man’s political system. Another notable depiction is Greenberg’s use of sleeves for the two voters opposed to the Act. One is a plaid pattern and the other a business suit. The plaid is a more common one and reminds the audience of a logger (of course the chainsaw is also a hint) The arm bearing the suit is also holding a saw, but brings to mind the bureaucratic and politician’s side of view. It is interesting that both individuals opposed are wielding chainsaws. This suggests that is not the animals themselves we want (yes, some animals are poached) but rather it is the land they inhabit that we seek to take as our own. Both the loggers and government workers are against the act where as those actually affected by the act have no say. Obviously we cannot give animals the right to vote, but we are a species that has used as part of an argument to form a country, “no taxation without representation”, or in other words, no law without a say in making it.