Eco-Tainment #4: Michael Bird-Boy

So far, all of the Eco-Tainment reviews I've done have been for movies and TV shows. but there's a lot more to the world of fiction than that. So today, I'm going to review something very different. It's a book that I read as a child, which I feel manages to tell a very realistic and nuanced explanation of environmental issues without falling into the same traps as Captain Planet did. It was written by Tomie dePaola, and its name is Michael Bird-Boy.
The plot of the book is simple. The titular Michael, who inexplicably dresses in a bird costume, notices a black cloud over the green valley where he lives. The plants wilt, the animals choke. Michael sets out on a journey to find out where the mysterious cloud is coming from. The source turns out to be a factory that produces artificial honey-flavored syrup. Michael brings up his grievances with the CEO, who is both willing to listen and shocked by the (implied) destruction she has caused. He suggests that the company convert itself to producing real honey, which would not pollute.
The beauty of Michael Bird-Boy is that it has no true villain. The boss of the syrup company is not malicious--she does not pollute out of a hatred for nature or a single-minded obsession with money. In other words, Michael Bird-Boy reflects a simplified version of the role real life corporations play in environmentalism. This is both unusual and refreshing for an environmental-themed work aimed at children.
As a final note of comparison between the two, Captain Planet creator Ted Turner once said that he made his villains exaggerated caricatures because otherwise "children might believe that if their parents worked in a polluting industry they were somehow villainous." But as Michael Bird-Boy proves, this is not necessarily the case. Children's stories are capable of depicting environmentalism in various shades of grey, and we will see more examples of this in later reviews.

Despite being a scant 32 pages long, Michael Bird-Boy is a masterpiece of environmental fiction. 

A Pause from "Jaws"

In the past month, seven people swimming in the ocean off North Carolina alone have been attacked by sharks--a huge increase from the normal rate. Worrying as this is for the beach tourism industry, it is even more so for the sharks. Few animals have as double-edged a relationship with humans as sharks do. On the one hand, we revere sharks for there perceived ferociousness--they become symbols of aggression, power, and destruction. But at the same time, they are not valued in the same way that other predators like big cats and birds of prey are, and they are often killed out of fear.

Most sharks, it cannot be emphasized enough, are harmless to humans, and even those that could theoretically hurt a person rarely do. This does not, of course, mean that one should voluntarily swim in waters where large sharks have been sighted, but it does mean that they are not to be considered natural enemies of humans. In fact, it is estimated that the majority of shark attacks on humans are committed by only four species--the great white shark, the tiger shark, the bull shark, and the oceanic white-tip, or white pointer, shark. All of these are apex predators that live in the open ocean and prey on marine mammals such as seals and porpoises. Attacks on humans, then, are usually the result of curiosity or investigative behavior on the behalf of the shark. 

Unfortunately, even the educational media has done little to inform the public of the truth about sharks. The Discovery Channel's annual Shark Week, which will air this year starting this week, was originally intended to do this, but has since devolved into a festering heap of pseudoscience and exaggeration. Last year's Shark Week was especially terrible, featuring only one truly educational program ("Alien Sharks", about deep-sea sharks) and no less than six pseudoscientific ones.

Fortunately there is a lot that an ordinary citizen can do to help sharks. One solution is to only buy fish that was not caught in gill nets. This fishing technique involves laying huge nets over wide areas of ocean, and these often unintentionally trap other animals such as sharks. If your local zoo, aquarium, or natural history museum has a sea life conservation fund, donate to it as well. 

And for goodness sake, if there's a sign that says to stay out of the water, read it!

Birds and Bills

First drafted in 1918, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act was a landmark law that declared it illegal to kill, capture, or export various species of birds native to the United States. For over 80 years afterwards, this law has formed the cornerstone of American bird conservation, and has succeeded in preserving a number of species that might otherwise have become extinct, such as the snowy egret, the bald eagle, and the swamp sparrow.
Today, however, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is under attack. In June Republican representative Jeff Duncan, of South Carolina, added a "rider" amendment to the budget for commence, Justice, and Science that would essentially prevent the Act from being enforced by federal prosecutors. This is not the first time that has happened. Many energy companies have accused the US Fish and Wildlife Service of selectively targeting them, and Duncan himself once suggested that the Fish and Wildlife Service should lower its fines to these companies.
In a stereotypical black-and-white morality tale, Duncan and the energy companies would be the unambiguous villains, to be brought to justice at the end. Yet it must be said that they, too, have a point to make. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act is strict and uncompromising. If you hurt a native bird, you will be prosecuted, no exceptions.
However, if the energy companies are not held responsible for their actions in some way, they will almost certainly continue to exploit and destroy their natural surroundings to an even greater degree than before. Millions of birds--and other animals--will die as a result of this. Surely there is some way for both parties to be satisfied?

A bald eagle, a species that owes its survival to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Despite being the symbol of the United States, this and other birds may face a threat from a new American law.