On expecting every treatment of the Eco-Crisis to cover everything at once

I understand, and even agree wholeheartedly, with the following, with a few reservations about the critique:

“ ‘Our Planet’ talks about climate change without ever mentioning the industrial activity that’s led to it. The on-screen solutions are big picture conservation ones like protecting more of the oceans, which we should do, but neither the show nor the website explain how viewers can help ensure that happens. It doesn’t even get into the fact that oil companies, big agriculture, and other massive industries are driving climate change, let alone how to hold them accountable.” 

In the opening episode of Our Planet, Netflix?s new nature documentary, there?s a scene where a glacier tumbling down from the Greenland ice sheet begins to cough up chunks of ice. Zoomed in aerial footage, overhead shots, and a water-level view all set against detonating cracks show cliffs collapse and shards of jagged white and blue ice breaking apart.


The critique here is CORRECT, but the expectation that every communication effort MUST make mention of every possible (and even probable) culprit and causation is not exactly fair. I would not want everything I write on any topic to be called to the carpet on something I “missed”. It may not be overtly treated on every thought I post, or in every video I produce. edit and post, or any one sermon I might preach, but I am not “missing” these fine points. When “Everything is INTER-related”, I am constantly seeking out insights and perspectives that would help us get to an ecotheological place that is open to the complexities and relationships amongst our planet’s spiraling breakdowns in ecological balance, our political solutions re: solutions and responses to this, and the justice issues of race, economics, and education. Did I “miss” anything? Probably! 🙂


Leave a Reply