Climate Theatre: An Evaluation of an Effective Performance

Greysen Tomlinson

Introduction

Effective science communication is important when trying to create change. Developing clear

methods of communication is a necessity, especially when science implies a present and growing danger.

A growing danger that is gaining traction within the world of art is climate change. The short explanation

of the issue is that global climates are shifting due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. This is

leading to rising sea levels, shrinking ice sheets, and shifts in arable croplands (“What Is Climate

Change?”). This is the current working theory and will be the framework for this discussion. A part of

effective scientific communication is evaluating the intended audience. By thinking about the intended

audience, pressure is put on the scientists and reporting agencies to reevaluate the simplicity of their

argument and to provide concise reporting of data. A method of scientific communication that has largely

been unexplored is performance. Performance allows for a deeper connection to a wider audience than a

report published in an academic journal written for academics. It allows for a branch to be extended to

audiences that would not have seen the research or data in the first place. Unless a news conglomerate

finds the reports in question and deems them important enough to inform their audience, scientific reports

go generally unnoticed by the average public. Using performance to inform the public about the current

state of climate change can be effective in the field of scientific communication. But climate theatre is not

a new concept by any contemporary measures and has a history of application outside of strictly science

organizations. So where did it start?

Climate theatre has branched from climate fiction or cli-fi; fiction centered around the discussion

and the speculation of climate change. Cli-fi works are all written with the acceptance that climate change

is a human-caused effect of our over-pollution and overconsumption. Climate theatre presents itself to fill

a gap in the cli-fi collection as a way of dramatizing climate stories, bringing climate change to the

mainstream consciousness in a different medium. Theatre replaces the tumultuous task of sorting through
 1

large inter-governmental reports that are riddled with jargon and hardly understandable figures, with an

emotion-driven story, informed by science that can provide more impact for an audience outside the field

of science. It fills a need for stories that can be experienced in a unique format that literature or prose

can’t compete with. “Climate fiction highlights and intensifies the present and future risks of climate

change in a way that reporting simply can’t match” (Theodora Sutcliffe).

Climate education has changed over the years, in both methodology and content. Smokey the

Bear, for example, was created in 1944 to get people involved in ecological care. There was a tagline that

stuck to his character, exclaiming that “Only you can prevent forest fires.” In 2001, this was changed to

exclusively warn against wildfires, stating "Only You Can Prevent Wildfires” (“About the Campaign”).

This change was brought about because wildfire ecologists brought more information to the table,

condemning wildfires caused by humans in accidental scenarios. Not prescribed burns, which have been

proven healthy for the environment (USDA). This change illustrates the need to continually update what

we know about the environment and climate change, to fully understand the issues we are currently facing

and the issues we will face soon. An ever-changing field of science needs a method of communication

that can mold around it. With a long history of political activism, theatre fits right into this niche.

Political theatre is an umbrella term used to cover many movement-based theatrical

performances. While not all directly attack the politics of specific groups, “[they are] plays that, if not

revolutionary in intent, were clearly critical of the status quo” (Dan Friedman). While the term political

theatre is relatively new, the ideas that evoke political theatre are not. An early instance of political

theatre can be found in some of the works of Greek drama. Aristophanes’ The Knights is the story of

Agoracritus, a humble sausage seller, who overthrows Paphlagonian, an Athenian general (Aristophanes).

The character Paphlagonian represented a real general, named Cleon, whom Aristophanes had taken issue

with due to a conflict between them. In response to Cleon’s persecutions, Aristophanes wrote him to be

the person causing all the problems that they were dealing with. Political theatre expands on that,
 2

discussing issues of political importance to the author. What is always important when discussing

political theatre is the context a play was created, mainly the historical context.

Modern Political theatre then developed as an official genre, in terms of the purpose or intent of

the composition. Political theatre then lent a hand to a new form of theatre called the ‘living newspaper’,

in which real-life events are interpreted on-stage for an audience. This form was first seen during the

Bolshevik revolution (Cosgrove) and then transitioned to the states with the creation of the Federal

Theatre Project (FTP), a short-lived experiment into the application of this idea of political theatre. The

FTP lived as a precursor to the political theatre that evolved later in the 20th century, including the

guerrilla theatre movement of the 1960s which grew out of protesting war and a growing list of economic

corruption, and the theatre of the oppressed in the 1970s which was created to expand the reality of the

audience through direct audience participation, and the presence of AIDS advocacy in the 1990s.

Climate theatre falls under this umbrella of political theatre, as a way of co-opting a stance on

climate change and challenging the status quo of ignorance that permeates the current culture around the

topic. Political theatre tends to come from an absence of an outlet, as well as an internal necessity to do

something of value. For these authors and creators, challenging the status quo provides intrinsic value.

The development of climate theatre comes from the collective consciousness of people who are aware of

climate change and its dangers but who might not be the scientists on the front lines.

Cli-fi, as well as political theatre, provide a space to play in, for a company to express their

concern that is correlated with current events and scientific reports. It’s an application of Research

theatre, outlined by Chaudhuri and Enelow in Research Theatre, Climate Change, and the Ecocide

Project (2014), as a way of asking a question like “How does one resist (in) America?” and answering it

“Suicide is the only viable mode of resistance in the face of our neo-liberal-totalitarianism-consumerist-

surveillance society.” This answer was then performed through the play Youth in Asia: A Techno-

Fantasia. Cli-fi asks the question “What would our future look like after climate change?” Climate theatre

allows for the room to explore this question and answer it in any way the playwright wants. The two plays
 3

I will be discussing, The Heretic by Richard Bean (2011) and 2071 by Chris Rapley and Duncan

Macmillan (2015), attempt to answer the questions “What does a climate skeptics life look like?” and

“Where do we go from here?” respectively. By exploring a possible answer to a question, the playwright

is encouraging the audience to challenge their ideas and preconceptions, to encourage deep discussion on

hot-button issues. Research theatre opens the door for new ideas and influential ways of thought that can

prove to be beneficial to the climate crisis. But what can theatre bring to the world of debate to encourage

this intense thought and discussion?

Theatre has many ways of portraying and influencing an audience. There can be obvious

messages in the dialogue, themes in the costumes, specific emotions in the blocking, or even cues in the

lighting and sound design. So like climate science, theatre is an intersection of many different fields.

There are conventions in the theatre that are meant to evoke emotions or ideas about a character or topic.

One example is the use of the color red in lighting, used both as a way of showing anger or love (Stage

Lighting & the Psychology of Colour). Both are associated with passion, which is a very powerful

emotion. We can include costume design in this theory of emotion . Characters in red are, depending on

the show, read as an angry or passionate character. Beyond the visual aspect, characters can be written to

emulate certain positions, with more formal types representing authority and respect, while more

emotional ones will be portrayed as weaker. Such indicators can be useful when trying to portray ideas.

They encourage biases, depicting a preferred outcome/answer as the idea they most favor, or want most to

influence people to choose. Richard Bean’s The Heretic (2011) depicts climate change as confusing and

full of lobbying and jargon, which brings negative attention to climate science. On the other hand,

Duncan Macmillan & Chris Rapley’s 2071 (2015) informs about the state of the climate to evoke

urgency. Through these plays, I will examine the current state of modern climate theatre. These shows

were written at the height of the climate debate in the 21st century but for different reasons. In the

dissection of these two plays, I will discuss the benefits that they bring to the climate change debate, as

well as evaluate the effectiveness of the play in conveying their message about climate change.
 4

The Heretic

The Heretic by Richard Bean (2011) is about climate skeptics, and highlights the more comedic

elements of science bureaucracy, calling out its tendency to be bought and politicized. The Heretic was

performed in a climate theatre renaissance that the UK experienced. Climate change became a central

topic during the early 2000s. Produced in the same year as The Heretic, Greenland (2011), which was

written by Moira Buffini, Penelope Skinner, Matt Charman, and Jack Thorne, tells the story of the effects

of climate change. The year before saw Earthquakes in London (2010) by Mike Bartlett, which discusses

people's fears about the future of the climate. But amid productions exploring the impacts of climate

change and what our future might look like, The Heretic stands out from the shows mentioned by

highlighting the arguments made by skeptics in the climate debate.

The main character, Diane is targeted for her opinions on climate change. The play opens with

Diane, a paleogeologist at the York University Institute of Science and Technology, and her daughter

Phoebe, being introduced to her potential student, Ben, a climate ascetic, who advocates for and performs

a complete removal from most forms of unnecessary pollution. Diane agrees to take Ben on. She then is

sent a death threat from The Sacred Earth Militia, due to her criticism of the current state of climate

activism, as well as her decision to drive a low mileage vehicle. Geoff, a former military specialist, turned

campus security, investigates this threat. Diane argues with Kevin, her superior and colleague within the

department, over his request to delay Diane’s publication regarding sea levels not rising. Kevin’s

reasoning is that the department needs money, and they are looking at Catalan International Securities, an

insurance firm for funding. This firm has had PR troubles and does not want to be associated with an

unpopular ideology, that sea levels are not rising. Diane receives another death threat from the Sacred

Earth Militia due to her criticism of climate modeling, but her concerns are dismissed by Kevin. Diane

reveals that she published her research in a different journal, bending Kevin’s specific instructions to not

publish it in Nature, opting for a different journal. Diane goes on tv to debate someone who believes in

anthropogenic climate change and ridicules the data proposed that suggests a rise in sea level. She is then
 5

let go from the University due to this tv interview. Diane and Phoebe go for a walk during Christmas as a

tradition, and while they are away, Geoff breaks into Diane's house in a set up for a kidnapping, where it

is revealed that Geoff is a member of the Sacred Earth Militia. Kevin and Ben end up at Diane and

Phoebe's house, where they hack Hampshire University for their data on tree rings. The Sacred Earth

Militia makes a move on Diane’s home with torches and pitchforks when Phoebe has a heart attack. Geoff

reveals himself to give Phoebe CPR while Ben fights off the militia. The play ends a few months later

with Kevin and Diane leaving to attend Phoebe and Ben’s wedding.

Bean sets the reality of the play among a growing economy of climate science and the sort of

unquestioned acceptance that permeates every facet of life. The Heretic looks at many different

intersections; those of economics, science, politics, and earthly things, like the environment. This mirrors

the topic of climate science, existing as an intersection of many different areas of study. But what this

play brings to the front is the human aspect of being a public figure as well as a scientist. I’ll start first

with Diane, the main character of this play.

Diane is the paleogeophysicist. She is very clear on her position on climate change.

BEN. You’re a denier. Right?

DIANE. Holocaust or –

BEN. Tut. Anthropogenic global warming.

DIANE. I’m agnostic on AGW, but if you can prove to me there’s a god I’ll

become a nun quicker than you can say “lesbian convent orgy”. (36)

Diane has put forth the idea that she hasn’t received enough proof about anthropogenic global warming to

believe that it is real. As a scientist, her request for convincing evidence shows her strength in her beliefs

and her overall interpretation of science throughout the play. But Diane faces a lot of adversity in her
 6

work and family life due to her beliefs. When discussing a new source of funding for the university Kevin

politely requests that Diane hold off on the publication of her research involving sea levels.

DIANE. It would help if Catalan were not aware of the skeptical nature of the sea

level expert’s views.

KEVIN. And that sea level expert will agree to delay the publication of her latest

paper until after the Catalan decision. (1.2)

Kevin is Diane’s superior in the climate science department, as well as her former lover. This exchange is

not just about Diane’s beliefs on climate change, it's a recall of emotion, a once-shared love between the

two. Their relationship is developed throughout the rest of the piece, but this incident is Bean’s first

application of an emotional tactic. Using emotion as a conveyance of ideas is crucial when dramatizing

concepts, and a direct application is to involve a lowercase-r romance. Kevin hopes to gain influence over

Diane because of their former love. This parallels Kevin trying to override Diane’s ideas about climate

change with his own. Bean is attaching human concepts of love and hate to abstract concepts, like climate

change. Bean’s goal with this relationship is to show that blind acceptance will never be beneficial. This

is performed quite literally, with Diane’s constant prodding of Kevin’s temper, through the publication of

her paper and her tv appearance. The validity of some of her claims will be discussed later. Showing

human connections, and then applying those in conjunction with differing opinions shows an unresolved

tension, as well as causes the audience to become more aware of their different positions. Tension causes

the audience to scooch forward in their seat, making them more attentive to the action of t he play. Bean

substitutes climate stats and refutations of current climate understanding to make the audience pay more

attention to the dissenters on climate change, rather than the vocal and ‘emotional’.

As the audience, we know all of Diane’s prior positions, but when we see that she publishes her

findings against Kevin’s will, we understand what her priorities are. In this case, it's science. And maybe

the same applies to Richard Bean. In an interview, he discusses his personal opinions on climate change
 7

and from that interview, we can deduce that Bean himself is a climate denier, someone who believes that

climate change is not our fault. We can see that there might be some frustration with the scientific

community from Bean’s perspective, given that most of them agree on this issue, that the consensus

among much of the scientific community is that climate change is real (Cook et al.; Oreskes). So, to the

scientific community, climate change is a no-brainer. There is the possibility of Bean highlighting a trend

in scientists without environmental training going against the grain and denying human-based climate

change. Frederick Seitz, Fred Singer, and William Nierenberg to name a few. Merchants of Doubt by

Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway highlights these men as they were crucial in the dismantling of the fight

against the tobacco companies for their continued production even after they were aware of the health

risks. As well, these men contributed to the climate denial discussion, to delay legislative action in the

name of the free market. But because Bean is not personally convinced that climate change is as pressing

as some make it out to be, this is likely to be false. This trend, however, is real, and as economics plays

more of a factor when conducting research, the trend is only going to increase. I do want to highlight Fred

singer specifically. He was a physicist who was known for his denial of many scientific conclusions,

mainly on climate change, but Singer is also known to be a denier of the harms of secondhand smoking.

He opposed the EPA’s claim that secondhand smoke can cause lung cancer (Alexis De Tocqueville Inst;

Jeffereys, K). Singer’s education is not in health and medicine, it is in physics and electrical engineering.

There is evidence as well of funding from the Tobacco institute, a pro-tobacco think tank, supporting the

Alexis De Tocqueville institute. But Singer's work, among many others in this similar situation, has been

used many times by people advocating for the position that climate change isn’t real. Bean is highlighting

the anxiety that many people have towards science. When such obvious conflicts of interest exist within

the public eye, like that with Singer, it is no wonder that people are hesitant to support the science.

Bean is highlighting the general public’s fear when it comes to science because there is always a

fear that the results are being tampered with or funded by conflicting parties. Science has always been

idolized for its ability to speak for itself, but there is rarely a question of who is writing the speech. And
 8

with climate change, people can hold this same fear. A summary of Bean’s goals with this piece is to

think critically about where our information comes from, and who supports it. That includes listening to

skeptics, hearing every possible piece of evidence, to then making your own decisions. Going into this

show, Bean assumes that people are aware of climate change, and he does not attempt to change people’s

minds. It also is not important if the audience makes their mind up because of this play, but rather, that we

can change our minds if provided with the correct evidence. Some people are afraid of uncertainty

regarding issues like climate change, and stagnation on these issues leads to inaction. Bean actualized the

anxiety that people have toward science, allowing for a voice to be heard from skeptics, a group that is

largely ignored when discussing climate change.

What can’t be denied is that The Heretic gets people to talk about climate change. If you want to

get a discussion going, there’s nothing better than to say something that would appear too controversial or

go against the mores of society. But that comes with a price. As I will discuss, The Heretic is not the hero

that we needed in terms of science theatre. Is The Heretic effective in its scientific communication?

The validity of Diane’s claims was dissected by Julie Hudson in her article ‘If You Want to Be

Green Hold Your Breath’: Climate Change in British Theatre (2012). Hudson reveals that there are subtle

hints of cherry-picked statistics within Bean’s play. Diane and Ben have a conversation about CO2

emissions. Ben gives an example of a real-world hypothesis called ‘saturation theory’ which describes

that the atmosphere can only hold so much CO2. The premise is that there is a limit as to how much CO 2

the atmosphere can hold before any more additions will not have an effect. That the amount of CO 2

currently in the atmosphere is beyond that threshold, so there’s no need to worry about any more

emissions. But Ben calls this his ‘thermal chicken’ theory which Hudson points out is poking fun at this

theory of climate denial. (268) Hudson also points out the mirroring of climate controversies in the real

world within The Heretic. Hudson highlights a comical error by Kevin in his drafting of an IPCC paper.

Kevin admits that he deliberately included a false date, referencing a World Wild Fund (WWF) paper,

regarding the melting of Himalayan glaciers (268). A second incident plays out in the last act of the play,
 9

where Diane, Ben, Kevin, and Phoebe hack into a rival university to find falsified data. These two events

within the play refer to ‘Glaciergate’ (2010) and ‘Climategate’ (2009) which were two climate

controversies that would have been in the collective consciousness at the time of this performance. But

before the publication of this play, both events were explained, to the extent that they should not be used

as evidence for corruption or misreporting. The incident labeled ‘Glaciergate’ came about when the IPCC

published a claim that the Himalayan glaciers would have completely melted by 2035 and that we should

act now (Cruz et al.). This claim was obtained from a publication from the WWF (WWF). The IPCC

issued a statement following this publication disavowing the claim and stating that they would be more

rigorous in their reporting. What was revealed was that there was a 300-year difference from what was

reported. They expected to see this effect in 2350. This was mirrored by Kevin in the play, “—it wasn’t a

typo. I knew it wasn’t a typo. I put it in deliberately. I got the date from a WWF document.” (74). While

the intentions of the original inclusion within the fourth IPCC assessment report are unknown, there is

some question as to how or why it was included. The fallout from this conundrum resulted in a loss of

public trust in the IPCC for a period, but because it was easily written off as a mistake, they have since

gained back some of that trust. But Bean wasn’t convinced. Speaking through Diane, she said “The IPCC

is a political body and should be ignored” (54)

The ‘Climategate’ incident occurred following a hack in the University of East Anglia’s Climate

Research Unit, where emails concerning climate change were leaked. Climate deniers scoured this leak to

find instances of data manipulation and claimed that there was reason to believe that the numbers

regarding the rise in global temperature were being fudged. This was through data collected from tree

rings that were used to estimate the average temperature. This was disproven and explained that tree rings

are not an accurate way of measuring temperature and that they should not be used in lieu of other, more

accurate, methods, which do show a rise in temperature (Henig). In this piece, this event is fictionalized

through a fast-paced action movie-style sequence where the cast is trolling through the data retrieved

through a hack into a rival university, amidst an attack from the organization that was threat ening Diane
 10

at the beginning of the play. Hudson claims that an observant scientist would be able to pick out these

inconsistencies, writing this play-off as a satirization of climate skeptics. But there is no guarantee that the

average audience will have this same reception or be aware of these scenarios. Hudson points out one

reviewer who is known for their climate skepticism that liked the play for its controversial opinions and

its ability to “vastly offend a large section of its audience” (Spencer).

In The Guardian, Michael Billington (20111) gives the show 3/5 stars, as well as some positive

comments on the actor’s performances and the director's decisions when staging this show. But he does

not remark on the scientific inconsistencies that Hudson pointed out. He acknowledges that this is a

reprieve from the season of climate-focused shows, by performing the opinions of a skeptic, but there is

no mention of the cherrypicked data that Diane or Ben use in their academic bouts. Victoria Rudland

(2011) holds similar positions to that of Billington, conferring that there is a refreshing focus on that

relationships. Alison Croggon (2012) takes a negative opinion, explaining that the source material (the

script) is largely ineffective and “bourgeois theatre par excellence, bathing us in a tepid glow of pseudo-

humanist warmth.” Croggon does make note of the ‘Climategate’ and ‘Glaciergate’ incidents, adding that

the script introduces these “discredited wisdom[s]” “with nary a glimpse of counter-argument.” We see

that some people view this play and pick up on the subtle references to real pieces of climate evidence,

and some do not, viewing The Heretic as a breath of fresh air among climate doomsayers.

The effectiveness of this piece largely comes down to the education of the audience. Not every

audience member is going to be a well-versed climate scientist. Nor are they going to be semi-aware of

the ongoing climate crisis beyond the realm of social media talking points. What The Heretic does well is

prompt the audience to do their research, in which they will stumble upon the same information that I

have cited above. It forces the audience to think, even when leaving the theatre, about what the science is

saying. But because of its cling towards science that was disproven, especially at the time of its

publication, it will also be used as a support for climate denial. In a radio interview about this play, Bean

himself clung to his skepticism, saying that “I've never seen a single scientific paper that proves that
 11

CO2 has caused 0.8°, 0.9° of warming.” (“Richard Bean and The Heretic”) The rest of this interview

makes clear that Bean himself agrees with Diane and that there is too much blind faith in scientists

regarding their claims on climate change. It would be difficult to say that this play is as effective as

Hudson makes it out to be, but because of the readily available resources regarding such issues as

‘Glaciergate’ and ‘Climategate’, there is a possibility that the audience will learn from The Heretic, if not

grow in their understanding of the climate crisis. To look at the opposite, that of complete acceptance of

the climate crisis and its causes, I want to look at 2071 by Duncan Macmillan and Chris Rapley.

2071

A show that stands out, especially in climate theatre, is 2071 by Duncan Macmillan & Chris

Rapley. Taking the form of a dramatized lecture, this show sits on the opposite end of the ‘importance of

climate change to the story’ spectrum than The Heretic. It takes the form of a fireside chat with writer,

performer, and climate scientist, Chris Rapley, who tells the audience the facts about climate change that

science currently knows. It covers almost every issue within the climate change debate, covering the CO 2

crisis, rising sea levels melting of the polar ice caps, and more.

Rapley begins by laying out the current issues we have with climate change, not from the

perspective of a denier, but things that our natural human biases will have against it. We have separate

duties to the economy, to people, and to connections; climate change threatens that, and like the concept

of political theatre that we are trying to apply, it challenges the status quo and makes people think more

about their lot in life. Rapley gives his qualifications as a scientist, “as Chair of the London Climate

Change Partnership”, “as Director of the Science Museum [London]”, and “run[ning] the British

Antarctic Survey” (15-16) as some of his qualifications. He launches into the history of climate science,

connecting his early work with satellite imagery with the project of mapping the polar regions. Describing

the feedback loop that exists with global warming, where trapped heat (due to excess greenhouse gasses)

increases the global temperature, which melts the polar ice caps, exposing more air to be warmed and heat
 12

to be absorbed, which helps the global temperature increase, melting more ice, etc. He then transitions to

the work that scientists have been doing to track data in the ocean, regarding the temperature, the salinity,

and the rise or lowering in sea level. “Over the last two decades, the rate of rise has increased to 3.3mm

per year.” (21) Rapley jumps back in time to explain the geological processes that formed our Earth, as

well as the processes that make it habitable. He then quickly develops the theory of fluctuating climate,

starting with the medieval warming period, a time of generally warmer temperatures that allowed Viking

settlements in Greenland, and the mini-ice age in the 16th-19th century. But these do not have the same rise

in sea level to accompany it. He then describes the dynamics of the ice shelves in the polar regions and

the effects that we are currently seeing due to their disappearance. He then shifts gears to discuss the

process that fuels global warming, and the reasoning for the melting ice. He describes their process of

calculating the CO2 content of history, by measuring the air pockets that are trapped in ice sheets.

In the warm phases [atmospheric CO2 content] peaked at around 300

parts per million.

Last year, the carbon dioxide concentration of the Atmosphere passed

400 parts per million.

Take a deep breath.

We’re the first human beings to breathe air with that level of CO2.

It is unprecedented in the recent record. (28)

Rapley outlines the effect that industrialization has on this value, and how we can get to such a high

carbon dioxide concentration. He states the invention of the combustion engine is our main cause for

concern because it spurred the industrial revolution. “Consequently, since the beginning of the Industrial

Revolution, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has risen by 40%.” (30) Rapley then launches into

what our current stance on science is. He says that he is part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC), whose goal is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the Atmosphere at a level
 13

that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.” (31) The first report from this

group outlines that we are currently in a climate crisis, as well as outlines the changes that we need to

make to halt global climate change. The IPCC report also concludes that all the rises in temperature since

1950 were due to anthropogenic actions. He then outlines the recommendations from the IPCC, resulting

in a complete stop in carbon emissions. He then compares this to the current effort by global powers to

achieve these goals, but the results are disappointing because it is such a large undertaking. He ends the

show with a look toward the future, mentioning the title, 2071, and why he wanted to have this

discussion.

“I look at my eldest grandchild who is now the age I was during that

world changing year.

I tell her I think she should become an Engineer.

She will reach the age I am now in 2071.

I try to imagine 2071, and then I find myself thinking what 4071 will

look like.” (41)

Rapley frames this play with hope. Beginning with his optimism as a kid towards the field of science and

ending it with an inquiry into the fate of the future, and that of his daughter.

This middle section may seem like a hurdle that the audience must navigate to seek the truth. As

well, it is unexpected if someone was overwhelmed by the content of this show. Rapley bombards the

audience with statistics and facts throughout the play, adding each piece of evidence supporting the

position that there is climate change. But to show light at the end of the tunnel, Rapley provokes an

emotional response from the audience.

But it can’t answer moral questions, value questions.

 14

Do we care about the world’s poor? Do we care about future generations? Do we see the

environment as part of the economy, or the economy as part of the environment?

The whole point about climate change is that, despite having been revealed by science, it

is not really an issue about science, it is an issue about what sort of world we want to live

in.

What kind of future do we want to create? (42)

Rapley and Macmillan are rallying the audience, provoking contemplation, and discussion on what we

want the future to look like, and that we should act accordingly. It is important to note that in this short

section, Rapley does not call for direct action. By asking if we care about the world’s poor, or future

generations, Rapley is provoking an emotional response, that of empathy and concern . By adding an

emotional response to the science, after assaulting the audience with statistics about the current state of

the global ecosystem, Rapley and Macmillan encourage the audience towards action. By challenging the

audience’s empathy, by calling out the lack of global effort towards the protection of the environment and

the lack of care for those in poverty, Rapley and Macmillan hope to achieve a shift in the opinion towards

climate change. By provoking thoughts on the future, they make the audience aware of our current

actions, and given the growing list of negative impacts that we have on the climate, the audience is

encouraged to look towards the positive. A desirable outcome is most welcomed by audiences (Bray et

al.), which goes back to the idea of hope that we should have for the future.

At the time of 2071’s publication, climate action was focused entirely on the decisions of the

consumer. We can see this focus extend into our present, where there is a persistent social imperative to

buy green products, even ones that might not be as environmentally friendly as they claim. This

mislabeling is described as “greenwashing” and it is the application of green terms and images that may

indicate a sense of environmental awareness, but ultimately have no positive effect on the environment.

This same process is being applied to corporations that have based their entire product on non-green
 15

activities. As a part of COP27 (United Nations Conference of the Parties), there was a report released by

the UN addressing the presence of greenwashing among fossil fuel industries. This report is calling for a

re-evaluation of state entities towards non-state entities (private businesses) and their empty promises of a

net-zero emission policy. This report is addressing the disparity in action from private companies toward

meeting climate goals. Because of the optics, and the performance of activism, a fossil fuel corporation

can have a performative plan to reduce their carbon emissions and appeal to the public in a positive light

without taking any concrete actions or decisions.

But thanks to reports like these, the perspective is shifting. Climate change activism is now

calling for changes in methods of production, as opposed to user action.

“In fact, only 100 investor and state-owned fossil fuel companies are

responsible for around 70 percent of the world’s historical GHG

emissions. This contradicts the narrative pushed by fossil fuel interests

that individuals’ actions alone can combat climate change” (Hyman).

This puts pressure on fossil fuel industries and other major sources of pollution to reevaluate their

practices. Because of the PR aspect of this, that they want to appeal to public opinion, every action that

they make is going to be called into question.

This should not discourage individual-based action when it comes to reversing climate change, as

there is always a necessity in reducing personal pollution, but it is shifting the focus to the structure of our

society and our dependence on fossil fuels. “[W]e are confronted with a need to totally transform the

world’s Energy System.” (39) Because of how our current system of production was set up from the start,

there was no way that individuals’ actions would create the sweeping changes that we need to see a

difference. “Consequently, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric concentration of

CO2 has risen by 40%.” (30) Rapley is adding to the discussion a piece of context that has been was not

added at the time. Given that this discussion about who is to blame has been going on for decades now,
 16

there are moral arguments as to whether we as individuals need to take personal actions. “global warming

is such a large problem that it is not individuals who cause it or who need to fix it. Instead, governments

need to fix it, and quickly.” (Sinnott-Armstrong) This conclusion points the finger away from people and

their habits, and instead places blame on the groups that let it get to this point, that being our current state

of the climate crisis. “As a scientist I try to remain objective and dispassionate.” (27) Rapley mentions

this earlier, and like Diane from The Heretic, that is the main objective and goal. But Rapley diverges

from that, later by stating some of the quotes shared above. As well,

“I would like to see governments, investors and the engineering profession

itself, create the conditions for a massive effort of innovation and rollout of

energy technologies that will make existing fossil fuel redundant - energy which

is cheaper and cleaner than Unabated Fossil Fuels.” (41)

There is no denying that humans caused climate change, and Rapley confirms “There is evidence that

ALL the warming that has occurred since 1950 is due to human actions – due to us.” (33) Because of the

nature of this play and the role that Rapley played, there is little question of the validity of the claims

made above. But we reach a point now where we have remained stagnant. The United Nations Climate

Change Conference, or COP27 just finished on November 20, 2022, and there has been no global

announcement on changes to the energy systems that Rapley suggested. Since the publication of this play,

the IPCC is finishing up its sixth assessment report, which is expected to be completed in 2023. So far we

have gained no global effort beyond that of optics.

2071 was received with positive reviews. Michael Billington of The Guardian gave the show 5/5

stars, gushing about the convincing show that Rapley puts on, and how impressive the performance is as

it was done for memory in 75 minutes. “My only complaint about the evening is that no printed text is

available: a pity, since there is a mass of information to digest at a single hearing.” (Billington 2) I feel it is

important to point out, that Billington recognizes the emotions tied to this topic, “Rapley admits that
 17

climate change is ‘an emotive issue’, but he relies on hard scientific evidence to make his points.” For a

play that is wall-to-wall science, it is encouraging that an avid critic like Billington, whom we saw earlier

from his review of The Heretic, recognizes the issues presented and receives the information that Rapley

wanted to present. Cavendish of The Telegraph also gives a positive review but points out that the

presentation is “more Royal Society address – or TED talk – than standard Royal Court fare.” He

continues by using adjectives like “drolly” and “bleakly” to describe some of the performance. While

these are critiques of the performance and the theatricality of it, it does not diminish the message that

Rapley presents. “It could be objected that there’s nothing ground-breaking here – but if alarm-bells are to

be rung who better to ring them?” (Cavendish) There is no quantifiable rating from Cavendish, but

because of the opinions expressed, it was received positively, with some missed marks. Coveney has a

different opinion. “One of the most outrageously anti-theatrical events I've ever attended.” Giving 1/5

stars, Coveney rails into 2071,

“Had it been more interestingly presented, it could have amounted to the

starkest message on a stick ever mounted at the Royal Court. Instead, it's

probably the worst play ever seen on that hallowed stage, convincing you

that the world can't end quickly enough if this is all we can expect from

the so-called home of new writing.”

There is hope that by only critiquing the writing and presentation, Coveney did not miss the message that

Rapley and Macmillan set out to tell. But because of the different structure of this play, the message is

hindered. Hitching’s reviews 2071, giving it 3/5 stars, meeting in the middle from the earlier reviews. We

receive a mild review of the play, ending with the statement “Yet the dominant tone is glumly impersonal

— sufficient to prompt thought but not to provoke action.” It leaves a sourish note, referencing some of

the more modern thoughts on climate action to date.

Discussion
 18

There are scores of people who believe that humans changed the climate, 89% of those surveyed

in 2009 (Reynolds et al.). As well, the scientific community has consistently agreed on the existence of

climate change (Cook et al.; Oreskes). But do these plays remain effective in their environmental

communication? To reviewers, there seem to be some mixed perspectives. The Heretic garnered positive

reviews for its writing and dramatic effects, “The Heretic is a play on the side of life and optimism, with a

faith in humanity that goes markedly against the grain of current thinking” and “[the] production is

blessed with an infectious exuberance,” while critiquing the science from the position of climate deniers

“which will vastly offend a large section of its audience.” (Spencer) But 2071 received the opposite

position, “Had it been more interestingly presented, it could have amounted to the starkest message on a

stick ever mounted at the Royal Court.” (Coveney) There is no middle ground here between these two

performances, either the reviewer is adamant about the preachiness, or they critique the presentation. This

does not leave a lot of room to develop the new state of climate theatre. What we have gathered from

these two plays, is that there needs to be aspects of comedy with real human emotions, which as Croggon

described as “pseudo-humanist warmth,” but as well, there needs to be concrete pieces of evidence that

confer with what the science is saying. The Heretic provided this science, albeit somewhat cherry-picked

due to the nature of the ‘Climategate’ and ‘Glaciergate” incidences, but 2071 provided an overabundance

of science, to the point that it hindered the performance. There is a happy medium that needs to be

presented, both on the aspects of human emotion, and scientific fact. So, what can we as science

communicators do to get there, that happy medium?

Listening to what reviewers had to say about plays like these is important. Works that focus on

topics that have the public interest in mind, jumping back to political theatre, require open reception of

their message They represent what the audience's perspectives could be. While not completely

representative, they have made their profession informing people about what is currently onstage and if it

is worth the cost of admission. That is how they made their careers. There is currently no effective way of

gauging actual public opinions on plays, we can use the opinions of reviewers to represent what the
 19

general public is going to receive after watching a play. The professional theatre reviewer is not going to

be an expert in the field of climate science, so their opinions on these pieces will represent the public,

who share this same lack of expertise. Translating science into fiction helps both the public in

understanding and scientists in communicating (Gough), so it is important that with a behemoth of

scientific thought (climate change) communication needs to be effective down to the last syllable. There

appears to be little research on the public understanding of science when it becomes fictionalized, and as

that is an abstract concept, this is understandable. But it presents a challenge because, without public

opinion, we have no way of gauging how effective certain pieces of scientific communication are. I am

not qualified to draft these guidelines, or ways of effectively communicating through performance, but

there are some key factors that I want to discuss that would make climate theatre effective.

First, the plays need to remain accessible. As seen in The Heretic, the comedic effect reigns

supreme. By using dark humor, like making jokes about women’s rights and God, The Heretic sets itself

apart by not remaining dark and gloomy when discussing climate change. And while 2071 provides hope,

its use of pure scientific fact brings emotion down due to the reality of the situation. Interspersing the

comedy with emotions, playing on the relationships between Diane and those around her, breaks that

topic up even further. The audience has little time to ruminate on the science presented before they get

turned around with a joke, or a play on romance. The play ends with a wedding and a baby, with the

possibility of another wedding. Bean is hoping to distract from some of the opinions that he presented, by

showing that in the end, we are still human. And while you can’t deny that these values are important,

there is a sense of urgency that 2071 has that The Heretic does not in terms of the climate crisis. By

utilizing emotions, like love, and comedy, Bean opens the theatre up to a wider audience. They enter the

theatre expecting something funny and ultimately human, with some form of climate propaganda tossed

in with the rest. I would agree with Hudson “[t]his play is likely to leave a divided audience in its wake.”

Because of this unusual meeting of sincerity and false information, there is much room for confusion. The

Heretic does gain points for its honesty, especially from Diane with her line “the planet doesn’t need
 20

saving. The planet will be fine. You mean you’d like to save the human race.” (36) While climate change

affects all living things around the globe, there is an emphasis among climate activists on making sure

humanity continues. Bean is blatantly honest in terms of that humans came late to the planet relative to

everything else, and as such we will be outlasted. With the rate we have increased the global CO 2

emissions (see figure 1 for a visual representation) compared to the total emissions since Earth's forming,

there is no denying that it is a human-caused issue. How we fix that or if we should fix that is entirely up

to debate, but that is an argument that Bean presents. This position is sometimes labeled as eco-fascism

which is defined as “—an emphasis on the preservation of nature that disregards human life” (Brown).

While Bean does not outrightly condone this belief system, the inclusion of Diane’s remark does bring

worry. But that is traveling too far down the rabbit hole. Bean’s application of comedy and emotion to

The Heretic provides a more memorable experience. Even after analyzing both performances, I can recall

more details from The Heretic over 2071. The fictionalization of the discussion allowed me to connect

with it on a deeper level. It leaves a good message that humans are important, and we only have now, and

I think that Bean intended to have the audience leave with said message.

The second trait that should be expressed is consistency in the science presented. As analyzed

earlier, The Heretic falls short on many avenues of scientific communication. Using debunked statistics

and false interpretations, the arguments that Bean makes are not as convincing as he intended them to be.

I believe that within the vacuum of performance, especially in 2011 when it was originally staged, access

to the correct information was limited and Bean’s message rang more strongly then. But in the following

year, Hudson published her article detailing the science that Bean got wrong. This was mislabeled as

Bean’s attempt to present how ridiculous some of these claims were, but the information regarding Bean’s

personal opinions was only expressed in the radio interview he took part in. I do not fault Hudson for this

interpretation. 2071 is on the opposite side of this coin. Rapley cites multiple sources, including the IPCC,

United Nations Environment Programme, and the Paris Climate Accords to name a few. These are

international groups that have collected and peer-reviewed information before release, to ensure that what
 21

is being reported is factual. As Bean would point out, the instance of the ‘Glaciergate’ incident shows that

the IPCC can’t be trusted and that they are willing to report information that is false or lifted from

untrustworthy sources. But what I feel that Bean and others like him fail to mention, is every other

statistic reported before and since the incident has provided factual evidence. In their official statement,

the problem was noted, and the organization was not aware of how the report was included in the first

place. There was no malicious intent from the IPCC or the scientists in the working group. I believe

Bean’s inclusion stresses how important, effective, scientific communication is. Incidents like this one are

likely to be championed as the ‘smoking gun’ that would invalidate any reporting agency, regardless of

any prior research or discoveries. Given the vastness of scientific knowledge, there are no real grounds

where these specific issues should be taken with sincerity. I want to avoid a soapbox, but within 2071, the

science agreed with the information that Rapley is presenting. It’s important that when using the scientific

fact within a performance context, it is not removed from said context, and remains important to the

argument that is being presented.

Thirdly, the performance needs to make an impact. I think both plays took their role seriously, as

communicators of science. And from the reports of reviewers, they thought this as well. Rapley and

Macmillan provided a very informative piece that remains factually dense. Multiple reviewers

commented on the feel of being in a lecture, as opposed to a night of theatre. While this may seem

negative, as a night of theatre should feel like theatre, it does make the piece memorable. It stands out in

comparison to the other pieces of climate theatre that the UK circuit experienced from 2010-2015. This

play becomes a talking point, one that leaves the theatre with the audience, to be discussed with others.

The Heretic does this also, but in an opposite way. From my research, The Heretic was the only example

of a play that embraced denialism. That itself creates an impact. The inclusion of a memorable story

deepens this impact. The condescending nature that Diane embodies when educating Ben provides a

different viewpoint on higher education, one that states, ‘this shouldn’t be easy, you have to work for

what you want.’ This resonates with people of an older generation, as well as those within right -leaning
 22

political ideologies. “96% of Republicans ages 65 and older who think higher education is headed in the

wrong direction” (Mitchell) citing that unpreparedness and professors pushing ideologies are the driving

factors. While The Heretic is not a play about the problems with academia, it does highlight that there are

problems within science as a whole regarding economic biases. Being a researcher is a job, and as such, it

requires payment. Whether this is from a governmental agency or higher education is not important in t his

context, but being a scientist is a lot of work. Catalan’s proposition to fund Diane’s University is

important to Kevin because it guarantees a job, but Diane is unwilling to shift her beliefs in the name of

keeping a job. While this stoicism should be applauded, it does highlight that research can’t get done

unless some entity pays for it. This message is not noted by the reviewers of The Heretic, but it does have

an impact on scientific communities, as they are the ones faced with this same moral dilemma. Should I

betray my beliefs for the sake of keeping food on the table? This can make the case for those exposed in

Merchants of doubt, as the evidence piled against them showcases their willingness to support large

industries that know what they’re doing is wrong. While the impact is not a quantifiable system of

evaluation, it is important to consider when creating pieces meant to inform. Each piece will leave an

audience with multiple topics to think about, and as a writer, it should be the goal of a performance to

make an audience think. In the case of 2071 that might have caused a bit too much thinking in terms of its

content. The Heretic, too little, in terms of their adoption of disproven science. The audience leaving the

theatre should reflect on the performance, and the opinions it expressed, and then evaluate their own

biases and beliefs. This is the goal of political theatre, to bring to light current issues and the different

positions within them. Especially with climate theatre, the writers wan t to discuss climate change as a

topic of interest, and they should engage with the audience to help inform them

The last point I want to touch on is engagement. This is slightly connected to impact but focuses

on a combination of ideas. To correctly engage with the audience, the audience needs to feel welcomed

into the story. This does not mean that direct communication with the audience is necessary, breaking the

fourth wall. But it does stress the importance of considering the audience. The purpose of scientific
 23

communication is to communicate a difficult topic correctly and effectively to a larger audience. And as a

medium, performance is an easily accessible method of conveying that information. Reiterating a point

that was made earlier, scientific journals are written to be digested by other scientists, and people within

the field. There are very few people that are outside of these fields that peruse academic journals. But

science used in policy should be available to all, especially understandable by all, including available to

all. This would require massive changes in academic journals regarding payment for access, but that’s

reaching beyond the scope of this discussion. It should be the goal of communicators to explain science in

terms that the average person will understand. The Heretic paid close attention to what it was

communicating, going over topics multiple times to make sure that the audience was aware of what was

being presented. 2071 provided some clarification, including putting science into context for what it

would mean in the grand scheme. Because of the language of The Heretic, the ideas and points that it

presents are easily digestible. The interweaving of story elements with science is what allows The Heretic

to convey its divergence from the norm. It makes the experience enjoyable and allows for itself to be

taken at face value because the fictionalized elements are charming. 2071 weaves a story, but not one that

is as accessible to the audience as its counterpart. Rapley addresses his beginnings in the field, but that as

well is littered with jargon, and more closely related to science than the emotional attachments that Diane

has with her immediate surroundings. The engagement between these pieces shows opposite ends of the

spectrum. The Heretic engages too much, hiding its true intentions behind emotions. 2071 engages too

little, distancing the audience like a student at a desk would be from their professor. To properly engage

with the audience, there needs to be a meeting on the audience’s terms. This should not require a

complete dumbing down of the science to base explanations, but because an audience can come from a

wide range of academic backgrounds, it's important to keep in mind that not everybody is going to get it.

To spread the message as far as possible, the science should be as easy to understand as possible, fully

engaging every audience member.

 24

There is room for improvement in terms of this list, but this should be the starting point for

creating new works of climate theater. These works must engage with the audience, to help them in their

journey into this field of science beyond the confines of a theatre. They should make an impact, providing

a story that they can take with them and connect with on an emotional level. Scientists are generally

labeled as emotionless because of the objectivity of the field, but Diane is a great example of how

scientists have lives beyond their field and should be able to express emotions that do not affect their

work. The work should be consistent with the current reporting on climate change. Science is always

changing and evolving, and as a playwright, it might be daunting to make a statement about an issue that

could change the next day. Since 2071’s publishing, the sixth installment of the IPCC assessment report is

finishing up its publishing. The information available will grow, and as such, the show should translate

beyond the confines of time. The Heretic dated itself with the inclusion of ‘Glaciergate’ and ‘Climategate’

due to the recency of the events towards publishing. But because of the reports following both

controversies, Bean's statements on climate change are no longer consistent. And finally, climate theatre

should be accessible. This can be prescribed to many aspects of the art form, including the availability of

disability accommodations, the inclusion of diverse audiences and performers, the pricing of tickets and

performances, and the general outreach that involves marketing and advertisements. But this also

combines with the engagement portion. The audience needs to understand what is being presented to

them. Again, this does not constitute a talking down approach, viewing the audience as someone who is

naïve, but it emphasizes that even in a performative setting, not everyone can engage with works the same

way others can. The presenters must maintain vigilance in their audiences and adapt to meet the

educational needs. This can be changing the script, changing the style of the performance, or adapting

new ways of communicating. This is especially important when presenting to younger audiences. Their

way of learning is going to be different than what the previous age groups were, and as such, we should

conform to them, not force them to conform to us. If we were to be not accommodating in the

performances, the audience will be turned off by the message, and refuse to connect with other forms of
 25

climate theatre, even climate activism itself. Alienating the audience ruins the experience, and the point of

the message, that it takes everybody to change systems.

Conclusions

Climate theatre is an emerging section of the performance sphere, and as time goes on, more

entries into the genre will appear, bringing new ideas and perspectives that we are currently missing. The

goal of this project was to analyze the current state of climate theatre, to evaluate what are its pitfalls and

what it is doing right. These aspects of performance to keep in mind when creating new pieces of climate

theatre, that of accommodation, consistency, impact, and engagement, are issues that were addressed or

present with 2071 and The Heretic. Because climate theatre is an ever-changing field, and the constant

threat of climate change itself, communication efforts need to evolve to provide the best message they

can. It is important as artists and as communicators, we remember the position that we have, as the

reporter of science. While we can provide our biases in the form of issues we co-opt when composing, the

public will be consuming the products we create. If the performance does not land in terms of audience

enjoyment, the message originally conceived will be lost. Ensuring that the intended message lands

should be the goal of any playwright. And there are more aspects beyond what I have outlined, as climate

theatre is growing in the total collection of works, these should suffice as startin g points when you

inevitably ask the research question for your piece. Whom am I writing for? What do I want them to

learn? What will impact them the most? And how can I engage them to think beyond the audience seat?
 26

Figures

Figure 1: Annual CO2 emissions from fossil fuel industries. Obtained from Ritchie et al.
 27

References

“About the Campaign.” Smokey Bear, 22 Mar. 2021, https://smokeybear.com/en/smokeys-

history/about-the-campaign.

Alexis De Tocqueville Inst; Jeffereys, K. Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A

Critical Examination. Aug. 1994,

https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/gryg0089.

Aristophanes. The Knights. 424 BC

Bartlett, Mike. Earthquakes in London London: Methuen Drama, 2010.

Bean, Richard. The Heretic. Oberon Books, 2011.

Billington 1, Michael. “The Heretic - Review.” The Guardian, 11 Feb. 2011. The Guardian,

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2011/feb/11/the-heretic-review.

Billington 2, Michael. “2071 Five-Star Review – Urgent Call for the Greatest Collective Action in

History.” The Guardian, 7 Nov. 2014. The Guardian,

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2014/nov/07/2071-review-urgent-call-history-royal-

court-theatre.

Bray, Belinda, et al. “Identifying the Essential Elements of Effective Science Communication:

What Do the Experts Say?” International Journal of Science Education, Part B, vol. 2,

no. 1, Mar. 2012, pp. 23–41.

Brown, Sherronda. Humans Are Not The Virus—Don’t Be An Eco-Fascist. 7 Aug. 2021,

https://web.archive.org/web/20210807163647/https://wearyourvoicemag.com/humans-

are-not-the-virus-eco-fascist/.
 28

Cavendish, Dominic. 2071, Royal Court, Review: “As Powerful as Any Play.” 7 Nov. 2014,

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/theatre-reviews/11212665/2071-Royal-

Court-review.html.

Chaudhuri, Una, and Shonni Enelow. Research Theatre, Climate Change, and the Ecocide

Project. Palgrave Macmillan US, 2014. DOI.org (Crossref),

https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137396624.

Cosgrove, Stuart. The Living Newspaper : History, Production and Form. Department of Drama,

The University of Hull, 1982. hydra.hull.ac.uk,

https://hydra.hull.ac.uk/resources/hull:4643.

Croggon, Alison. Review: The Heretic. 18 May 2012,

http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com/2012/05/review-heretic.html.

Cruz, R.V., H. Harasawa, M. Lal, S. Wu, Y. Anokhin, B. Punsalmaa, Y. Honda, M. Jafari, C. Li

and N. Huu Ninh, 2007: Asia. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and

Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof,

P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK,

469-506.

Dan Friedman. “The Changing Nature of Political Theatre.” Dan Friedman, 2005,

https://www.danfriedmannyc.org/the-changing-nature-of-political-theatre.

Gough, N. (1993). Environmental education, narrative complexity and postmodern

science/fiction. International Journal of Science Education, 15(5), 607–625.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069930150512

Macmillan, Duncan & Rapley, Chris. (2015). 2071 Playtext.

 29

McKie, Robin. “Glaciergate Was a Blunder, but It’s the Sceptics Who Dissemble.” The Observer,

24 Jan. 2010. The Guardian,

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jan/24/climate-change-glaciergate-

mckie.

Mitchell, Travis. “The Growing Partisan Divide in Views of Higher Education.” Pew Research

Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project, 19 Aug. 2019,

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/08/19/the-growing-partisan-divide-in-

views-of-higher-education-2/.

“Prescribed Fire.” US Forest Service, 6 Dec. 2016, https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-

land/prescribed-fire.

Oreskes, Naomi, and Erik M. Conway. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists

Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. 1st U.S. ed,

Bloomsbury Press, 2010.

Oreskes, Naomi. “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.” Science, vol. 306, no. 5702,

Dec. 2004, pp. 1686–1686. science.org (Atypon),

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1103618.

Reynolds, Travis William, et al. “Now What Do People Know About Global Climate Ch ange?

Survey Studies of Educated Laypeople.” Risk Analysis, vol. 30, no. 10, 2010, pp. 1520–

38. Wiley Online Library.

Ritchie, Hannah, et al. “CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Our World in Data, May 2020.

ourworldindata.org, https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions.
 30

“Richard Bean and The Heretic.” ABC Radio National, directed by Michael Cathcart, 1 May

2012, https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/archived/booksandarts/richard-

bean-and-the-heretic/3981790.

Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter. “It’s Not My Fault: Global Warming and Individual Moral

Obligations.” Advances in the Economics of Environmental Resources, vol. 5, Emerald

(MCB UP ), 2005, pp. 285–307. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1016/S1569-

3740(05)05013-3.

Spencer, Charles. The Heretic, Royal Court, Review. 11 Feb. 2011,

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/theatre-reviews/8318442/The-Heretic-Royal-

Court-review.html.

Stage Lighting & the Psychology of Colour. https://www.stage-electrics.co.uk/stage-lighting-the-

psychology-of-colour.

Stephens, Simon. ‘Wastwater’ in Wastwater and T5. London: Methuen Drama, 2011.

Theodora Sutcliffe. “A Brief History of Cli-Fi: Fiction That’s Hooking Readers on Climate

Activism.” Means and Matters,

https://meansandmatters.bankofthewest.com/article/sustainable-living/arts-and-

culture/brief-history-of-cli-fi-fiction-thats-hooking-readers-on-climate-action/. Accessed

13 Oct. 2022.

United Nations (UN). “High-Level Expert Group on the Net-Zero Emissions Commitments of

Non-State Entities.”, 2022, https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/high-level-expert-

group.

Victoria Rudland. Theatre Review: The Heretic @ Royal Court | Londonist. 12 Feb. 2011,

https://londonist.com/2011/02/theatre-review-the-heretic-royal-court.
 31

WWF, 2005: An overview of glaciers, glacier retreat, and subsequent impacts in Nepal, India and
China. World Wildlife Fund Nepal Program.
http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/himalayaglaciersreport2005.pdf

“What Is Climate Change?” NASA Climate Kids, https://climatekids.nasa.gov/climate-change-

meaning/.