The Bra that Hides the Forest
"The sea levels are rising. The ice sheets are shrinking. I'm not a scientist, but I do believe everyone can use their skill set to do their part," said Kim Kardashian.
As a result, she decided to launch this new product:
SKIMS/Instagram
Thanks to this bra with integrated nipples, "so no matter how hot it is, you'll always look cold", says the Californian. Global warming will be invisible to breast examiners, and those who wear this underwear will finally be able to pretend they're cold. It would probably be simpler to turn down the heat or, if you want to pretend you're cold, to wear a cap with a pompom. But that would be missing out on a great humanitarian cause, as Kim Kardashian has decided to donate 10% of her sales to 1% for the Planet.
There's something slightly acrobatic about putting a bra on the back of global warming. But the star is neither the first nor the worst, and we should ask ourselves about the immense place this issue is taking in public debate.
A worrying rise
The graph below, based on the recurrence of the term "climate change" in a vast collection of books, documents and other textual sources, shows that concern for pollution has declined almost in proportion to the emergence of the climate issue.
Yet every year, over 13 million deaths are caused by environmental pollutants, and it is estimated that 24% of the illnesses they cause could be prevented. In just a few years, pollution has killed more people than the Second World War.
And global warming?
It is estimated to cause around 150,000 deaths a year. The annual difference in victims is therefore 8567%.
So why does climate change get more media coverage? It's a bit as if, at the height of the Second World War, the entire media had been panicking about road accidents.
Of course, it will be said that there will be victims in the future, and the numbers will increase. No doubt. But does preventing these prevent us from dealing with the cataclysm unfolding before our eyes?
Who benefits from the crime?
The question to be asked is: who is benefiting from all this? Obviously, industries They’re not affected by pollution. But they would suffer a great deal if it were forbidden. It is therefore in the interests of a great many players to steer the global and political discourse towards the climate "crisis". Firstly, because this crisis affects them. Secondly, because we can, just like Kim Kardashian, put a lot on its back. And finally, because it avoids the societal debate on widespread pollution, for which many of these industries are responsible. It wouldn't be the first time, nor would it be beyond the reach of spin doctors [i]: wasn't Coca-Cola, the world champion in plastic pollution, one of the main sponsors of the UN's Cop27 climate summit?
Let's take care not to repeat in chorus the speeches that the communicators want to put in our mouths, and let's get out of the frame they impose on us: we need to demand clean air, pure water, clean earth. We can't build a better world on a nauseating Earth.
[i] See the examples I cited in Réconcilier, Nullius in Verba, 2023.
Hubert Mansion is the cofounder of l’Université dans la Nature.
Philosopher and writer, he is notably the author of Réconcilier, vers une identité environnementale (Nullius in Verba, 2023) and presents the series La nature et les mots (Youtube).
