Kathy
Kuang
Brown
ENG
306
4
December 2016
People’s Climate March
Tens of thousands of people gathered in
the streets of New York City on September 21, 2014, some dressed in colorful
costumes, many holding signs, and various still adding the finishing touches to
their costumes and signs (Archdeacon). All were eagerly waiting for the arrival
of 11:30 a.m., when the People’s Climate March would officially start (People’s Climate March). Each person
stood at distinctive locations, depending on their identity (People’s Climate March). That is, the
streets were organized by specific macro-categories, such as “We Have the
Solutions (food and water justice groups, political and environmental
organizations)… The Debate Is Over (scientists, faith communities); and To
Change Everything, We Need Everyone (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer
(LGBTQ) communities, cities, neighborhoods, states, international groups)” –
just to name a few – with those who fall under “Frontlines of Crisis,
Frontlines of Change” at the front of the lineup (Giacomi and Turner 27).
Although their identities were diverse, they all united under one unifying
belief: something needs to be done regarding the inaction against climate
change.
This unity intimates the underlying identity
associated with climate change activists that participated in the march: global
citizens. The notion of a “citizen of the world” actually existed as early as
around 300 BC in ancient Greece (Stokes 19). It describes an entity whose
concerns “transcend …national citizenship and boundaries of the nation state” (19).
Fast forward to present day, this
characteristic still stands, but the identity is more prevalent due to the advancement
in technology that allows for international discourse. Global citizens are the
individuals that advocate for global problems and believe that everyone is
technically responsible due to the ubiquity of the issues (19). They “typically
act cooperatively with others in transnational movements of protest and social
transformation”, frequently regarding political matters (21).
An instance of this aforementioned international
cooperation that global citizens partake in is the climate change movement,
particularly in a specific protest within the movement known as the People’s
Climate March. Their identity actually complements and contributes to the rhetoric
of the march; this essay aims to elucidate that intricate relationship between
global citizen and the effectiveness of the march in context to the climate
change movement overall. I argue that this particular march was a crucial
moment during the rhetorical crisis of the movement due to its novel uniting of
disparate entities that would not normally work together. In the subsequent
paragraphs, I plan to accomplish this by first providing the relevant history
of the climate change movement, including the transition from the realization
of the existence of problem to the subsequent political activity that
ultimately instigated the development of the People’s Climate March. Next, I
will discuss the standard political methodologies used to address the climate
change issue that eventually contributed to the dissolution of the divisive
forces that prevented climate change activists from working communally and the resulting
establishment of the global citizen identity in the march. Finally, I will consider
the importance of the history of the climate change movement and the global
citizen identity to examine the rhetoric of the People’s Climate March.
From the Beginnings of
Climate Change to Climate Change Protest: A Brief History
Floods, rising temperatures, melting
polar caps, and many other occurrences are evidence that the climate on Earth
is changing. These changes are a result of human activity – mainly fossil fuel
burning. The burning of fossil fuels releases a gas known as carbon dioxide and
the excess release of this chemical can cause a phenomenon known as the green
house effect, which is characterized by the insulation of heat on Earth.
Although this model is a widely accepted notion today in the scientific
community, a major conflicting model (that many current climate change skeptics
support) suggests that the change in temperature is due to natural variability
– for example, changes in solar radiation and the discharges from volcanoes could
increase temperature; however, it has been determined that those forces are not
enough to explain this increase (Burch and Harris 13). Human activity is to
blame. In 1938, Guy Callendar calcified the notion that the rise in global
temperatures is indeed attributed to the rising carbon dioxide levels produced
by the burning of fossil fuels (Flemming 581).
Unquestionably, global warming was occurring
as a result of man-made greenhouse gases, but it was not a concern to many. In
fact, the first public address on the issue of climate change by a world leader
was made in 1988, decades after Callendar’s findings; Margaret Thatcher, who
was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom at the time, “set
a precedent for [the] issue” (Nulman
9). She informed the Royal Society of the “growing evidence of the
rise in greenhouse gases ‘creating a global heat trap which would lead to
climatic instability” in the form of a speech (Nulman 9). The first major
international attention to the issue was given at the Earth Summit of 1992, a
conference on the environment initiated by the United Nations. There, they
created the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an
international treaty regarding climate
change policy; it “manage[s] emissions of greenhouse gases and the resulting
climate change, [and] help[s] hold periodic meetings…called Conferences of the
Parties [COP] …every twelve months” and it receives information of the progress
of climate change through the latest scientific research reviewed by prominent
scientists of The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (Burch and
Harris 17). Although the UNFCCC was a
substantial step towards the global agreement to address climate change, it was
not a crystallized promise by any country. Binding emissions targets were later
discussed in the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 at the Conference of Parties III (COP3),
which aimed to “stabilize greenhouse emissions at a level that would prevent
dangerous levels of climate change” (17). The Kyoto Protocol
was brought up again in 2009 at the COP15 – twelve years after its initial
adoption at the COP3 – where it was determined that it could not be implemented
due to the failure of agreement (Rhodes). However, a second commitment period
for the Kyoto arose later from the COP17 thanks to a major political leader of this movement, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
(“UN Secretary General”). Under his leadership, which
initiated in 2007, the effort to assuage climate change inched forward. The Conference of Parties that he actively
participated in as secretary-general, COP16 and COP17, for instance, resulted
in greater collective effort as well as the development of the Green Climate
Fund (which helps developing countries with climate change efforts) and the
second period for the Kyoto Protocol, respectively (“UN Secretary General”).
In recent efforts, Ban Ki-Moon, aware of the general delay of climate change policy action,
highlights the urgency to act; during his speech at the press conference at the
United Nations Headquarters, he states, “action on climate change is urgent.
The more we delay, the more we will pay in lives and in money” ("Press Conference "). Thus, as a result, he convened a conference, The 2014 Climate Summit held in New York “to mobilize
political will for a universal and meaningful climate agreement [the] next year
in Paris; and… to generate ambitious steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and strengthen resilience” ("Press
Conference").
As noticed
from the brief climate change history above, after more than a
decade since the Earth Summit, this international effort was a disappointment
to climate change activists because International
collaboration to resolve the issue was sluggish. The history of the
Kyoto Protocol, which was the first major binding commitment for global
cooperation, is the epitome of the source of the disappointment. As aforementioned,
this protocol was introduced in 1997, and then it was determined as a failure
to be implemented in 2009, before it was given a second chance in 2011. In
other words, the Kyoto Protocol has been through and is still undergoing an
odyssey for almost two decades with no signs of progress; it has been an extremely
inefficient solution. Furthermore, this protocol adopted in Kyoto, has been
rejected by Canada and was not ratified by the United States, two large nations
that unquestionably contribute substantially to the emissions due to their
population size and their capitalistic dependency on fossil fuels. Clearly,
these international negotiations were simply not producing results. The climate
change policy is still relatively stagnant and yet, the climate is changing at
an alarming rate; as Birch reiterates the IPCC’s words in their Fifth
Assessment Report (AR5), “warming
of the climate system is unequivocal…. [C]oncentrations of greenhouse gases are
increasing…will continue under all…scenarios until 2100…and will require
substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions [because]
global sea level will continue to rise through the 21st century”
(184). As previously said, this increase in global temperatures and the
resulting devastating effects are due to human activity; “human activities are
the main culprits, directly or indirectly, through their use of fossil fuel and
changing land uses” (184). To substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions, global
agreement and the cooperation and participation of all countries must be
achieved (including Canada and the United States); human activity transcends
political boundaries.
In efforts to
influence international negotiations, the climate change movement
developed (Nulman 9). In fact, protests
developed presumably in 1992 when the Earth Summit was held, when these international negotiations
first initiated. As the international
discussions progressed, the rate of mitigation efforts proved to be
unsatisfactory. The result: current protest movements, including
People’s Climate March, aim to catalyze this extremely slow action. In fact,
People’s Climate March, which occurred in 2014 at New York, two days prior to
the Climate Summit was the largest climate change march (Giacomini and Turner
27). It included six contingents that involved participants that identify as
indigenous peoples, migrant workers, labor, women, families, elders, students,
scientists, LGBTQ, and a myriad of other organizations and identities (27). Due
to the fact that the march unified very dissimilar groups (some that even have
ideologies that fundamentally contradict another group’s beliefs) to work
together to protest against the inaction of climate change policies, this
protest is an instance of rhetorical crisis; it disturbs the established
rhetorical context. Inferably, this march
had an important associated identity and it developed as a result of the international
conversation of solution strategies, the topic explored in the next section.
Discourse in Solution Strategies and
the “Birth” of the Global Citizen Identity
There are generally two ways to limit
climate change, mitigation or adaptation. Mitigation is actually enacting
measures to prevent climate change or, if it has already started, reducing its
harmful effects; adaptation is the opposite: allowing climate change to
continue without intervention and simply accommodating to its reality.
According to Burch and Harris, the former “has been the most common policy
response to climate change since evidence of human interference with the
planet’s delicate climatic balance began to emerge” (15). Thus, in addressing
climate change issues, the UN has biasedly favored a certain goal: mitigation.
Even more important is the bias regarding mitigation. The goal is to reduce
carbon emissions, but only if the policy is economically advantageous.
Economics has been a guiding factor in many political
decisions (unrelated to climate change) in the United States since the 1920s for
various projects “ranging from dams to railroads” (Randalls 226). Not
surprisingly, climate change policy is not an exception; however, the
introduction of the analysis with regards to the costliness of resolving
climate change did not start until the 1970s (226). In the period from the
1970s to the 1990s, economic research had been aimed at directing climate
change policies by analyzing the economic consequences of potential actions
made to ameliorate climate change (225). In fact, the Department of Energy in
1980, declared “determining the optimal resiliency (meeting the goals of
climate “stability” and economic growth) is an important research issue,
because the costs of achieving a complete reduction in CO2 for maximum climate
resiliency (least harm) would be too high” (233). In other words, political decisions were not
aimed at maximally reducing carbon dioxide emissions in order to effectively
solve the dilemma. It became a question of how to reduce these emissions whilst
maintaining economic prosperity or rather, a “cost benefit analysis” (230).
This goal is still very much the leading
decision factor in policymaking for climate change, not just in the United
States, but internationally. For instance, Maria Neira, a member of the
Department of Health and the World Health Organization in advocating for a
reduction in green house emissions to improve global health acknowledges that
“policies for the mitigation of climate change” are developed to be “more socially
beneficial, cost–effective and widely supported” internationally (546). That is, even though sufficiently reducing
climate change (and therefore its damaging effects) will prevent an estimated
2.5 million deaths annually, which is actually an increase from previous years’
estimates of pollution-caused deaths associated with green house gas emissions,
the policies are still made in the concern of capitalistic interests
(546). Additionally, this ambition (of solving climate
change without affecting the economy) is also reflected in the methodologies
for mitigation. One of these methods is to fund scientific research that develops "clean
energy technologies" or "infrastructure design projects" and to
completely ignore studies that focus on other non-money-generating solutions
such as behavior change, policy design, or politics (Burch and Harris
9). In fact, the importance of using these technologies and
projects (including urbanization and spatial planning) was even stressed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) as international solutions (Birch 184). According to the
cost-benefit analysis, by placing preference in scientific research
projects that produce these aforementioned technologies and projects, not only
are the governments reducing carbon dioxide emissions, they are also
simultaneously capitalizing on them.
Due to this growing fixation, different
perspectives on solving climate change have developed, namely, those of the
solar commoners, and those of the green capitalists. Business profits depend on
oil and this is “largely responsible for climate destruction” (Giacomini and
Turner 28). This notion is the basis for understanding the solar commoners’
perspective on solving climate change. Solar commoners desire to undermine
capitalism as a whole, because that is the source of the climate change problem;
the rationale is that capitalism relies on fossil fuels, thus, by eliminating
capitalism, fossil fuel usage will initially be drastically reduced, but
eventually eradicated and ideally replaced by the sole usage of renewable
energy sources (Turner and Brownhill 102). This proposed dependence on
renewable energy sources is complemented by their idea of replacing capitalism
by a small scale or grass roots economy instead (Carlassare 92), especially since corporate
businesses frequently exploit resources that are free and vital to life, such
as the “soil, plants, animals, [and] people” to produce profits (Turner and
Brownhill 104). When this proposed form of economy is utilized, then fossil
fuel will be eradicated. Thus, the underlying basis for the solar commoners’
proposed idea of eliminating capitalism – and thereby fossil fuel usage– as the
solution is their dissatisfaction of the myriad harmful effects of capitalism;
not only do businesses harm the economy with respect to global warming, but
they are also unjustly taking advantage of resources (including human labor).
Green capitalists, on the contrary, are individuals that believe that the
solution to the climate change issue lies in altering capitalist habits of
utilizing fossil fuels, specifically, making processes in the capitalist chain
of production more ecologically friendly (Giacomini and Turner 29). They
believe that capitalism can be sustainable if companies take collective effort
to reduce their ecological footprint by reducing the usage of fossil
fuels. Overall, solar commoners are
asking for a radical change that undermines the globalized economy today,
whereas green capitalists seek a liberal solution that functions within this
long-established method of making capital.
Not surprisingly, because of the
radicalness of solar commoners’ ideas, the current methods of addressing
climate change reside closer to the green capitalists’ ideals. In fact, “Ban
…endors[es] ‘green’ market…solutions to climate change” (Giacomini and Turner
31). Additionally, as established earlier, since money is the leading factor in
international climate change policy, it is clear that a liberal solution is
indeed the actual strategy to reduce climate change. The problem then becomes
not how to solve the problem (solar commoners versus green capitalists), but
rather, how to accelerate the international cooperation of resolving the
climate issue, especially since the climate change reduction is at the stages
of attempt, but no guaranteed action.
That being said, the participants in the
People’s Climate March are, in reality, global citizens. Superficially, the
march is characterized with a myriad of sub-identities that either associate
with the green capitalist activists or the solar commoner activists. However,
despite their difference in ideology, these groups decided to collectively act
(and cooperatively act) against climate change inaction. In other words, they
discarded their bias in the methodology to solve climate change and embraced
their identity of a global citizen instead. This action is characteristic of a
global citizen, an entity that is interested in the omnipresent problem and
will therefore act in the interest of the world, instead of his or her own.
This identity is also demonstrated in the fact that the march was not only
located in the United States; many other marches physically occurred in
international territory as well, making it an transnational event, which global
citizens typically partake in. Some international participants even flew to New
York to participate in the cause, again supporting the fact that “global
citizen[s] typically act cooperatively with others” (in this case, mostly
Americans) in solving global issues and the issue of global warming definitely
has no political boundaries (Stokes 21). This identity, in conjunction with the
historical and rhetorical context of the march, is a vital element to the
rhetoric of the People’s Climate March.
Rhetoric of the People’s Climate March
Due to the myriad of identities involved,
each with different goals and unique perspectives
on how to solve climate change,
the People’s Climate March is essentially a “decentralized
political protest” (Rosen, et al. 419). While decentralized, this protest was
still a combined effort; using the analogy of a bird, “birds of a feather…fly
together …regardless of the colors of their feathers”, and according to the
Flock Theory, this is a valid perspective on the collectivity of the march
(427). In extension, the Flock Theory examines the bird as a micro-entity and
the flock as the macro; the march is the flock and the birds, in this case, are
the various groups that are climate activists. As Ruben, et al, state, these
“decentralized groups cooperating for a common purpose…transcend traditional
norms of homophily and allow their purpose to be the tie that binds” (427). In
the context of the People’s Climate march, although there are two significant
divisions in ideology of how climate change should be addressed, as well as
diversity in the race, nationality, age, and even goals of the individual
participating organizations and individuals, the common thread that renders
their differences insignificant is their concern of the inaction against climate
change. It is this purpose that unites their collective action, the
aforementioned march. This shared mentality that surpasses their individual
beliefs characterizes the true identity of the protest; the participants are
all global citizens.
Utilizing global citizen as the
identity contributes to the rhetorical strategy of the People’s Climate March.
This identity was expressed in the slogan, “To Change Everything, We Need
Everyone”. In fact, there was a
macro-category known as “To
Change Everything, We Need Everyone”, that consisted of people such as the
LGBTQ community or even larger entities such as cities that superficially did
not traditionally seem to be activists of global warming. Furthermore, this slogan, bolded and in all
capitalized letters, was highly visible in the official website for the 2014
march as well as on the streets; people held signs at the actual event (see
fig.1). Similarly, the name of the march, which is called the People’s Climate March, also attempts to
highlight the fact that the march was for the people. “People” includes
everyone; it is inclusive of all genders, sexual orientations, races, or any
other factors that categorize people. The name of the march, as well as the
omnipresent slogan, aimed to unite every human being to fight for the cause as
a collective entity.
Unquestionably, this unifying force is in
itself a form of logos that the march heavily relied on. Historically, the
effort to mitigate the devastating effects of the climate change has been ineffective.
International cooperation has been somewhat promising, but the political action
had been placed in a standstill due to the unwillingness of certain countries
in adapting policies that would reduce the dangerous amounts of green house gas
emissions. Meanwhile, there were two camps of ideologies of how to actually
solve the problem (the solar commoners and the green capitalists) and this
division between the climate change activists (which is their combined
identity) did not help accelerate the political action. Thus, the march aimed
to galvanize these climate change activists to work together collectively and
to effectively make a grand statement that (almost) everyone is concerned about
global warming and that it does take the global cooperation of every living
entity that is contributing to the problem to work together against the issue.
Everyone includes business corporations, governments, and countries, as well as
the smaller entities that these larger establishments consist of. Ultimately, this large aggregation of climate
change activists would highlight that climate change is an issue that needs to
addressed promptly and would thereby pressure countries to actually and
actively act against the changing climate.
The meaning behind the sign is just the
beginning of the massive amounts of logos that the march used as a rhetorical
device. Many other signs displayed also aimed at the same strategy. For
example, there were signs that stated “There Is No Planet B” and “Forests Not
for Sale” to emphasize that by allowing the current circumstance to proceed,
the planet is headed towards doom (Archdeacon). The first statement says that
in case planet Earth becomes inhabitable, there is not another planet that
humans can permanently reside in. The other statement asserts that forests are
equally not replaceable; once the biodiversity that characterizes these forests
disappear due to the effects of global warming, they are permanently gone and
no sum of money that can undo the harm. Complementing this notion, according to
the ice sculpture prominently exhibited at the march, this climate change is
steadily harming the climate and consequently, our future. The sculpture, as
seen in figure 2, spells “The Future” and it is melting away and this process
is exacerbated by the fact that the global temperature is even higher than
before. The message: if people allow do not take action, then the future will
be gone exceptionally quickly. This concern of the effects of global warming is
reinstated in Ki Ban Moon’s statement at the People’s Climate March, “there
is no plan B because we don’t have planet B”. With his support to the notion,
the logos is complemented by ethos.
Ethos
was also another rhetorical strategy that was used. Many scientists that conducted
research on this subject and medical doctors confirmed the effects of global
warming; as stated by an activist
who is also a pediatrician at the march,
“Carbon pollution directly
results in asthma, heart disease and cancer,” and thus, “climate change is a
global health issue”, (Foderaro).
Al gore, who was a former vice president and an avid environmentalist, as well
as the mayor of New York City also endorsed the event (Foderaro). Unquestionably, Ban Ki Moon, the U.N.
Secretory General also supported the march and even stated, “I hope that this power and
heat will help cool the global temperature rise” (Alter). With the attendance
and advocate of so many leaders that were notorious for their investment in the
environment, the march, although supported by many common civilians – a proudly
advertised fact – was grounded with ethos.
The last rhetorical
strategy was kairos. The People’s Climate March conveniently occurred two days
prior to the United Nations Climate Summit that was organized by Ban Ki Moon to
discuss plans of international collective action. The intention of the
meeting was, in Moon’s words, “to mobilize political will for a universal and
meaningful climate agreement” and “to generate ambitious steps to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and strengthen resilience” ("Press Conference"). The march occurred at an opportune time and
place, especially since the UN summit was going to occur in New York City.
Furthermore, due to the sheer size of the march, this protest would have a high
probability of attracting attention, and thus, would deliver the message even
more powerfully to the guests that would attend the U.N. event. Not so obvious,
however, is the fact that this grand protest also occurred at a crucial moment
with respect to the history of the climate change movement. As mentioned
earlier, the movement was extremely slow and, as a result, provided
discouraging results. However, the movement took a slightly better turn when
Ban Ki Moon became the secretary-general; he strived to gain momentum in the
movement, as witnessed by his efforts of organizing the 2014 UN Climate Summit.
Thus, for the protest, the People’s Climate March occurring at this moment in
time is very fitting. What better time to inform the world of the climate
change concern than on September 21, 2014, when a political leader was
passionate about catalyzing the slow action?
Conclusion
The People’s Climate March efficiently responded
to the historically slow action of climate change mitigation by taking
advantage of the similarity between different identities. It soundly orchestrated
ethos, logos, and kairos and these rhetorical elements also nicely contributed
to its legibility; the inspiration behind the large gathering of activists was
clear. Overall, these elements synchronously caused the march to be an effective
protest. Furthermore, the march was a communal artifact of the Climate Change
movement because it provided a unifying force for the cooperation of global
citizens. Despite this successful collaborative effort of global citizens in
the protest, nevertheless, climate change is an issue that stems from fossil
fuel emissions that (practically) everyone contributes to. Similarly, it is a
change that affects everyone inhabiting this planet. Accordingly, the sole teamwork
between global citizens is insufficient because the changing climate concerns all
citizens of the Earth. Ideally, everyone should contribute to reducing the harmful
emissions.
Works cited:
Alter, Charlotte. “Hundreds of Thousands Converge on
New York to Demand Climate-Change Action.” Time,
21 Sept. 2014,
time.com/3415162/peoples-climate-march-new-york-manhattan-demonstration/.
Accessed 25 Oct. 2016.
Birch,
Eugenie. “A Review of ‘Climate Change 2014: Impacts,
Adaptation, and Vulnerability’ and ‘Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate
Change’.” Journal of American Planning
Association, vol. 80, no. 2, 2014, doi: 10.1080/01944363.2014.954464. Accessed 25 Oct. 2016.
Burch, Sarah, and
Harris, Sara. “Climate Change in the Public Sphere.” Understanding Climate Change : Science, Policy, and Practice,
University of Toronto Press, 2014, pp. 3-23.
Carlassare,
Elizabeth. "Socialist and Cultural Ecofeminism: Allies in
Resistance." Ethics and the Environment, vol. 5, no. 1, 2000, pp. 89-106, www.jstor.org/stable/27766057. Accessed 24 Oct. 2016
Flemming, James. “Climate, Change,
History.” Environment and History,
vol. 20, no.4, 2014, pp. 577-586, doi: 10.3197/096734014X14091313617442.
Accessed 23 October 2016.
Giacomini, Terran, and Terisa Turner.
“The 2014 People’s Climate March and Flood Wall Street Civil Disobedience:
Making the Transition to a Post-Fossil Capitalist, Commoning Civilization.” Capitalism Nature Socialism, vol. 26,
no. 2 , 2015, pp. 27–45, doi: 10.1080/10455752.2014.1002804. Accessed 18 Oct.
2016.
Neira, Maria. "The 2014 WHO Conference on Health and
Climate." Bulletin of the World Health Organization, vol. 92, no.
8, 2014, pp. 546,
doi: 10.2471/BLT.14.143891. Accessed 25 Oct. 2016.
People’s Climate March. 2014.peoplesclimate.org/. Accessed 10
November 2016.
Randalls,
Samuel. "Optimal Climate Change: Economics and Climate Science Policy
Histories (from Heuristic to Normative)." Osiris, vol. 26, no. 1, 2011, pp. 224-242,
doi:
10.1086/661273. Accessed 18 Oct. 2016.
Rhodes, Christopher. “The 2015 Paris
Climate Change Conference: COP21.” Science
Progress, vol. 99, no. 1, 2016, pp. 97-104, doi:10.3184/003685016X14528569315192.
Rosen, D., Kim, J. H., & Nam, Y. “Birds of a feather protest together: Theorizing self-organizing
political protests with flock theory.” Systemic Practice and Action Research, vol.
23, no. 5, 2010, pp. 419-441, doi:
10.1007/s11213-010-9167-3. Accessed 24 October 2016.
Stokes, Geoffrey. “Global citizenship.” Ethos, vol. 12, no. 1, March 2004, pp.
19-23,
ezproxy.library.arizona.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=12795590&site=ehost-live.
Accessed 30 Oct. 2016.
Turner, E, and Leigh Brownhill.
“Ecofeminism and the Global Movement of Social Movements.” Capitalism Nature Socialism, vol. 21, no. 2 ,2010, pp. 102–106,
doi: 10.1080/10455752.2010.489681. Accessed 23 Oct. 2016.
