An Environmental Upbringing

How do we know what we know about the environment?

Everyone's personal understanding and meaning of the environment will differ from one person to the next. This is because — like anything else — we all have different life experiences that shape our understanding of the things we engage with throughout our lives. For some the natural environment means more to them than others, which is completely dependent on their personal experiences. Those who enjoy outdoor activities, and have participated in such events have a greater chance to place more importance on the natural environment than those who dislike the outdoors, or who have not experienced such endeavors. The people that have a 'natural' inclination to the natural environment are most likely to be motivated to engage in environmentally friendly activities to help sustain the planet. Now that we are in the midst of an era where "climate change" or "global warming" is a pressing political and social issue, we all learn about the environment through mediums like news channels, opposed to just our own personal experiences. In the information society that we live in, knowledge is being passed along to people about the natural environment at a rate like we have never seen before. The goal of this mass spreading of environmental messages is to promote an environmentally friendly society that we can eventually convert to in the future.

Communicating our way to a sustainable society

As mentioned above, the spreading of information that will persuade those who are currently indifferent to climate change is the key to converting to a sustainable society in the future. This notion of communicating our way to a greener future is echoed by the readings from this week. Eliza Griswold's New York Times Magazine article explains how Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was the ammunition needed to start the environmental movement (2012). Rachel Carson published her book Silent Spring in 1962, which examined the dangers of pesticide use to the ecosystem. Griswold discusses how Silent Spring was the first piece of literature that caused society to critically reflect upon human activity that could potentially alter the natural environment. It was of course the threat that harming the natural environment could in turn harm humans that truly caught the interest of society, but nonetheless, this is the earliest example of environmental communication proving its effectiveness. Similarly, Marla Cone's article, "Marla Cone on Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and a Question for our Times: How Safe do we Want to Be?" expresses the major impact Silent Spring had on society's understanding of the environment. Cone's work is very interesting because she does not over exaggerate the dangers of climate change, and the use of chemicals. She explains the issue as something that will not immediately and noticeable affect us, but it will rather be a toll that is felt over a long period of time. Cone raises the question of, "How safe do we want to be?" to end the article (2005). She is suggest to the audience that they should approach this issue as choice that has the option of weighing out the positive versus negative of either side of the decision.

My decision would certainly be to push for as environmentally safe of a society as we could possibly have. As I discussed in the opening sentiments, everyone's understanding of the natural environment is shaped through their personal experiences. I personally love the outdoors, and the unique activities that each of the four seasons provides us Canadians. Reflecting on my past experiences with the environment, I hope that we can one day shift to a fully sustainable society so that we do not continue to increase global temperatures. With increased temperatures, we will no longer be able to consistently enjoy winter activities that are a staple to Canadian culture such as, outdoor ice skating, skiing, tobogganing, and so on!

Above is an image of me enjoying a big blast of winter 1998, my experiences growing up have shaped my stance on climate change. I believe that we need to do everything we can to avoid the rapid increase in global temperatures.

Bibliography

Cone, M. (2005). The Unbroken Chain. Marla Cone on Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring and a Question for our Times: How Safe do we Want to Be? Columbia Journalism Review, July/August.

Griswold, E. (2012). How ‘Silent Spring’ ignited the environmental movement. New York Times Magazine, September 21. 

Where do we go next?

Much of the discussion on creating a sustainable society revolves around how we should or even could possibly have a sustainable society. The first critique against a sustainable society is, "So do we just get rid of all our technology and go back to hunting, gathering, and living in caves?" Well the answer is of course not. We must find a way to create a sustainable society without pushing the progression of humanity backwards, which is a very tall task.

Communication is Key

As we have discussed throughout the duration of this course, effective communication is essential to initiating this sustainable society that environmental scientists and activists around the globe believe we need desperately. In order to utilize effective communication, we must determine the mediums of communicating that are the most effective for create social change. This week's readings present contradicting information regarding the effectiveness of social media in this push for climate change activism. Malcolm Gladwell's article from The New Yorker discredits the use of social media in the battle for activism in climate change, as he believes that social media breeds slacktivism. Gladwell feels that social media users gain a false sense of activism (slacktivism) by sharing, retweeting, or liking, etc. a post on one of these sites. He believes that people do not actually create any true difference by being an activist online. On the other hand, Kirilenko, Molodtsova, and Stepchenkova conducted research on Americans' use of Twitter actually creates climate change awareness and furthermore a contribution to moving towards a sustainable society (2015, p.92). The findings of their study show that Americans use Twitter to share information about climate change, and that they associate climate change with unusual weather patterns (Kirilenko, Molodtsova, & Stepchenkova, 2015, p.92). Kirilenko, Molodtsova, and Stepchenkova's work acknowledges Twitter's ability to spread information at an extremely fast pace, and therefore being a good tool to spread awareness about climate change.

I agree with Kirilenko, Molodtsova, and Stepchenkova's research more so than Malcolm Gladwell's ideas put forth in his article from The New Yorker, "Small Change". Twitter is an effective tool for spreading awareness on climate change, and I do agree with Gladwell in the sense that Twitter will not be the sole cause for halting climate change. However, I do feel that Gladwell fails to acknowledge the benefits of social media, and just focuses on what it cannot do. Social media may lead to slacktivism, however, this practice of slacktivism still passes on important information. The future of environmental communication lies in the hands of those who will be motivated to push for change outside of the realm of social media. Social media can effectively transmit information, and this information can be used by motivated individuals who want to make a change. Just like any major task, it cannot be accomplished through one element. This fight to change to a sustainable society will take multiple layers of activists, pushing for change through social media, within their occupations, live protesting, and ultimately taking up this issue with federal governments. The legal systems in all nations must be on board to push big corporations away from their "designed for the dump," money driven organizational strategies with new legislation. This is an idea that is put forth in "The Story of Electronics" YouTube video that was a part of this week's readings as well.

To sum up, the answer to the question of "where do we go next?" is very complex. In order to take the next step towards a sustainable society it will require every nation around the world to buy into this concept from their government down. Due to the many layers of people, organizations, corporations, governments and so on that need to be on the same page, extremely persuasive environmental communication is necessary.

Bibliography

Gladwell, M. (2010). Small change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted. The New Yorker, October 4.

Kirilenko, A., Molodtsova, & Stepchenkova, S. (2015). People as sensors: Mass media and local temperature influence climate change discussion on Twitter. Global Environmental Change, 30, 92-100. 

“The Story of Electronics (2010)”.

Communicating Environmental Advocacy & Activism

A major aspect of creating environmental improvement is advocacy, which is necessary to persuade those who are not environmentally friendly to change. As a global society, we need motivated individuals and collective groups to advocate for a sustainable social system that will hopefully resolve the issues of climate change. As suggested in this week's readings from Liu (2011), as well as, Stewart and Clark (2011), media can be a very effective method to communicating environmental advocacy and create change. Liu examines communicating environmental advocacy through the Internet, which takes a more serious or direct approach. Stewart and Clark approach the topic through analyzing three episodes of South Park that use comedy to make light of environmental activist. While the two methods are polar opposite, they actually are effective in completing the same task of advocating for a sustainable society.

Direct Advocacy

Liu's study looks at how environmental non-government organizations in China have used the power of Internet technology to spread advocacy for improving human lifestyles to support a sustainable society. The findings of the research show that these organizations have actually made a significant impact in China, as they have produced change in the ways that businesses and government organizations operate, and they have even brought about policy changes (Liu, 2011, p.162). This is a direct form of advocacy because it takes a serious approach and communicates the message in a straight to the point matter, which is quite different than how advocacy is communicated in South Park. 

Comedic Advocacy

As Stewart and Clark explain in their analysis of three of South Park's environmental episodes, comedy is also an effective form of indirectly communicating advocacy (2011, p.324). South Park is effective at doing this because it parodies topics in popular culture (in this case environmental activists), while reinforcing the ideas of the issue being critiqued at the same time. One of the episodes Stewart and Clark analyze is called "Smug Alert", and this episode makes fun of the notion that environmentally friendly people have a sense of superiority over those who are not. Below is a montage from the episode, which blatantly makes fun of "smug" environmental activists.

People who watch South Park are clearly aware of its comedic nature, which is why the show can directly express one message, while indirectly imply another. The direct message of this episode would be that all people who support environmental activism are egotistical maniacs. However, because of the so bluntly obvious parody, the audience is unlikely to seriously leave with the idea that the directly communicated message is the one that the creators of the show want to leave with them. The message in all South Park episodes is for the audience to decide themselves. In the episode, "Smug Alert" the show leaves the audience to critically reflect on their experiences with environmental activism to decide on their own what they feel is best. The idea is that most rationally thinking adults would understand that it is important to consider becoming environmentally friendly, however, it is up to them to decide.

Bibliography 

Liu, J. (2011). Picturing a green virtual public space for social change: A study of Internet activism and Web-based environmental collective actions in China. Chinese Journal of Communication, 4(2), 137-166.

Stewart, J., & Clark, T. (2011). Lessons from South Park: A comic corrective to environmental puritanism. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 5(3), 320-336. 

What is really green?

In our current consumer society that is so quick to adapt to marketing and advertising tactics that persuade buyers, it can be difficult to know when you are being duped by marketers. This is sentiment is especially applicable for products that are marketed as "green" or "eco-friendly." The growing phenomenon of selling "green" products that aren't actually as environmentally friendly as they claim to be have been labelled as greenwashing. Budinsky and Bryant's article (2013) expresses this difficulty in being truly green, as it is hard to know when you are purchasing a product that is actually as environmentally friendly as it claims to be (p.209). Their work exposes greenwashed products including Clorox Green Works, the Ford Escape, and the Toyota Prius. These are all products that appear to be completely environmentally friendly, but are actually far from it when you take the entire lifespan of the product into consideration (Budinsky & Bryant, 2013, p.222). I can personally attest to this idea, as I drive a Toyota Prius. My dad bought the car back in 2008, thinking that he was making a pro-environment choice by driving a hybrid car. Little did he know that the total lifespan of the Prius actually makes it an extremely environmentally unfriendly product. However, as Budinsky and Bryant note, you would not be able to gather this through their advertisements.

The Difficulty of Distinguishing 'Green-ness'

As noted above, it can be difficult to see through advertising to determine the true green value of a product. This idea is supported in the research of Spack, Board, Crighton, Kostka, and Ivory. Their article explores how it is relatively easy for products to get approval to be considered as "green" and advertise this on their packaging (Spack et al., 2012, p.441). The research also suggests that consumers can effectively determine products that are more green than others, however, any product with green labelling is more likely to be sold than products that don't identify as green (Spack et al., 2012, p.453). Due to this confusion that can be created with products that are advertised as green, I believe that federal governments need to step in and increase regulations for products to be considered "green."

Bibliography

Budinsky, J., & Bryant, S. (2013). It’s not easy being green: The greenwashing of discourses in advertising. The Canadian Journal of Communication, 38, 207-226.

Spack, J., Board, V., Crighton, L., Kostka, P., & Ivory, J. (2012). It’s easy being green: The effects of arguments and imagery on consumer responses to green product packaging. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 6(4), 441-458.    

   

Pictures Speak 1000 Words

Enter Environmentalism

The picture above is a part of a series of photos captured by Carleton Watkins that Kevin DeLuca and Anne Demo's article (2000) credit as "the birth of environmentalism" (p.241). These photos were taken in California in 1861, and this area now known as Yosemite National Park was shortly after named the USA's first nation park (DeLuca & Demo, 2000, p.241). This demonstrates the power of photography and art, as the era that this was named a protected national park was an era of extreme interest in expansion of industry. There was very limited knowledge in the field of environmental studies, but these images were strong enough to persuade Abraham Lincoln to create a law that would protect Yosemite as a national park. 

Art in Contemporary Environmentalism

Art continues to be a persuasive method of communicating on environmental issues to this day. In our current society, the natural environment is in crisis because of human induced climate change. Jennifer Peeples' article (2011) examines the topic of photography as a way to create awareness of our deteriorating environment (p.374). An excellent example of environmental communication through photography, is Chris Jordan's Midway project that we discussed briefly in class. Chris Jordan does a phenomenal job of using his breathtaking photography skills to capture the horrifying results of human activity that is destroying the natural environment. Below is a link to Jordan's gallery of photos he used for his documentary titled Midway.  

http://www.chrisjordan.com/gallery/midway/#CF000313%2018x24   

After looking through these devastating images of the unlucky birds that have suffered due to human pollution, it is clear that we need to make overhauling changes to the average human lifestyle. The results of climate change and pollution are without doubt our fault, and the guilt produced by Chris Jordan's photos should be felt deeply and be thought about critically. The old adage, "A picture speaks 1000 words" certainly rings true with the photos from Chris Jordan's Midway project. What I suggest through this examination is that good, persuasive environmental art is an excellent tool for communicating the dire need to change the way humans live. As a global society, we need more of this type of powerful artwork that will consistently make us critically consider our habits that negative affect the natural environment. Hopefully, over time this will lead to the emergence of a global sustainable society.

Bibliography

DeLuca, K., & Demo, A. (2000). Imaging nature: Watkins, Yosemite, and the birth of environmentalism. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 17(3), 241-260.

Peeples, J. (2011). Toxic sublime: Imagining contaminated landscapes. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 5(4), 373- 392. 

Glorifying Nature: The Case of Tourism

New Trends in Tourism

Aligned with the increased attention on climate change and protecting our natural environment is tourism. The article from Dorsey, Steeves, and Porras (2004) echoes the concept that the tourism industry has utilized this increased global awareness on climate change to generate interest for traveling to locations where the primary activity is experiencing the natural environment (p.753). For example, the video below promotes traveling through Africa, with the main commodity being the attraction of exploring the natural environment.  

   

A Deeper Analysis of this Trend

From the first glance, this trend that advocates for traveling to experience the beauty of the natural world seems like a good way to have fun and support the global economy. However, as Adams' article (2013) points out, there are some issues within this trend that must not be overlooked. Adams' work demonstrates how the public's growing interest and awareness in the natural environment, is being used to create unrealistic expectations of nature (2013, p.430). Since there is a growing interest in the environment, there are a increasing number of exhibits to experience a simulated version of nature, like zoos and aquariums. However, what customers of these environmental representations receive, is a commercialized version of the real thing (Adams, 2013, p.430). What this means is that when people go to these nature exhibits such as zoos and aquariums, they are not experiencing nature as it is in the world. They are experiencing a glorified version of this environment that is strategically constructed by people to create the most aesthetically pleasing version of nature. This type of misleading information can elicit a disappointing affect when people actually experience nature in the real world. The first image below is a simulated coral reef in an aquarium, while the second photo is a coral reef in the ocean. As you can see, the one in the aquarium is much more colourful and diverse in shapes than the natural one. 

  

Although the idea that nature is being glorified and misrepresented in exhibits has its negative repercussions, it is not all bad. Despite, the fact that the owners of these zoos and aquariums are clearly in this line of business to make money, their facilities still do engage their customers in an educational experience. It gives people who do not have the resources to travel and see these phenomena in their most natural state an opportunity to have a simulated experience. A simulation can never be as fulfilling or educating than the true experience, it is still an avenue for a growing number of people to engage with the environment.

Bibliography

Adams, T. (2013). A complicated reef: The relationship between the representation and the represented phenomenon. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 7(3), 427-433.

Dorsey, E., Steeves, H., & Porras, L. (2004). Advertising ecotourism on the internet: Commodifying environment and culture. New Media & Society, 6(4), 753-778. 

Extreme Communicating on Climate Change

Does the Al Gore Method Work?

As many people already know and have heard of, Al Gore is certainly a supporter of climate change. His tactics however, have been criticized as overly extreme environmental communication. Some do not like the idea of being scared into action, but nonetheless, The Inconvenient Truth has had many people talking about it for years now. Below is a clip of Al Gore explaining his theory of climate change — you decide if you agree with him or not. 

I personally believe in his message and feel as though he communicates his ideas about climate change well, and I also agree that a change needs to be made. For this reason, I believe the Al Gore method does work. People need motivation to change, and if that motivation is created through the fears of our future, then that is a good way to go forward. The reality is that if we do not make swift changes to how the human race operates, we may damage our planet beyond the limits of its ability to repair itself. 

Why Resist Climate Change?

As illustrated in Jennifer Good's article on the framing of climate change in Canadian, American, and international newspapers, many social structures within the media attempt to downplay the idea that human activity is destroying the planet (Good, 2008, p.238). In Good's findings, she explains that this phenomenon is especially prevalent in the United States, in comparison to Canadian, and international newspapers (Good, 2008, p.241). When they do cover environmental issues, American newspapers use specific language that downplays the seriousness of these problems. For example, in Good's paper, she discovers that American newspapers use the term "global warming" at a much higher rate, compared to Canadian and other international newspapers because terms like "climate change" and "the greenhouse effect" have an increasingly negative ring to them (Good, 2008, p.241). The question is, why downplay climate change? I feel that the answer to this question is that people are naturally resistant to change, along with the fact that much of the economic structure we are currently familiar with will have to be remodeled. This will cost a lot of money and many people will lose their jobs before new "green" jobs will be created to replace these vacancies. Due to this reluctancy to change, I believe extreme communication — as exemplified by a figure like Al Gore — is necessary to move people enough to actually make changes in their daily lives.

Below is an example of extreme climate change communication, it is not ridiculous in the sense that it is created with an educational tone. However, it does present the scary potential outcomes of climate change that will dominate and eventually threaten the human existence. This is the kind of communication that can make a difference, but now it is time we start to see real change.

Bibliography

The Framing of Climate Change in Canadian, American, and International Newspapers: A Media Propaganda Model Analysis. (2008). Canadian Journal of Communication, 33(2), 233-255.

Climate Change: Fact or Fiction?

Climate Change: Fact or Fiction?

When we look around, it is easy to find messages on climate change. However, we do not always find that these messages stand for the same position, as some will support the idea of climate change, while others protest it. Specifically, in this post I would like to compare the ideas presented by Bill McKibben and John Coleman from our class readings. McKibben is a strong supporter of global warming, while Coleman explains in his interview with Megyn Kelly from Fox News, that it is a hoax. I will also take some time to examine my show and tell example of the Toyota 'Prius Family' commercial from 2014.

After watching the conversation between David Letterman and Bill McKibben, it is clear that McKibben has a strong stance on stopping the effects of global warming. McKibben alludes to the fact that he has written multiple on the issue spanning from the 1980s until now, which shows he obviously believes that global warming is a concerning matter. On the other hand, John Coleman's interview with Fox News' Megyn Kelly completely slams the concept of global warming. Coleman believes that global warming is a complete hoax created by politicians to be utilized as another revenue stream. He backs his argument with research that he and others in the scientific community support because they feel that carbon is not a harmful enough greenhouse gas to create a concerning issue.

The last piece of environmental communication that I will examine is my show and tell example, which is the Toyota 'Prius Family' commercial. In the video, the original Toyota Prius model is driving through a beautifully animated green, hilly landscape with a upbeat jingle in the background. Towards the end of the commercial, three new Prius models are introduced into the 'Prius Family' — a larger Prius as family vehicle (Prius V), a smaller Prius as a city car (Prius C), and an electrically rechargeable version (Prius Plug-in Hybrid). The whole concept is that these new versions of the Prius provide "a Prius for everyone," as the slogan goes. It is clear that this example is also in favour of global warming as a real threat to the Earth and human life because Toyota is producing vehicles that reduce carbon emissions. 

To put a cap on this post, I would like to say that I am not a scientist so I do not have a valid voice in the argument of global warming as fact or fiction from a scientific standpoint. However, from the standpoint of logic and common sense, I do hold a valid opinion. The facts of our recent global temperatures show that they are consistently increasing. Year after year we continue to break records of the hottest calendar year on record http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/2015-unambiguously-the-hottest-year-on-record-says-report/62357/. From looking at the information, which shows that temperatures have consistently increased since the start of the industrial revolution, it is hard to believe that global warming and climate change is a hoax. My perspective is that global warming is real and we must slow down the rate in which we contribute to the issue. Before humans began burning fossil fuels at extremely high rates, climate change did not seem to be an issue. It is our responsibility as the most prominent contributors to global warming to stop the changing climate.        

Bibliography

McKibben, B. (2012). Global Warming's Terrifying New Math: Three simple numbers that add up to global catastrophe — and that make clear who the real enemy is. Rolling Stone, July 19. 

My Favourite Winter Activity

Above is an image of my friends Nicholas and Alex hitting the slopes with me (left to right as written) at Holiday Valley in Ellicottville, New York this week. Skiing is by far my favourite winter activity, and for that reason I love cold, snowy weather in the winter months. When I come across powerful pieces of environmental communication, like Pope Francis' Encyclical on the ongoing destruction of the natural environment, and the YouTube video, "Extreme Weather - Signs of the End Time - November 2014" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRBM077AanQ), it grabs my attention. Pope Francis' Encyclical is a call to all of humanity to make a change in their lifestyles to help protect the natural environment. The text explains that a major part of the duty as a Christian is to preserve our planet in the condition in which God gave it to us. Pope Francis illustrates that the Earth is God's greatest gift to mankind, and that we have been disregarding the delicacy of this gift through our destructive practices over the past 100 years. This piece of environmental communication leaves the audience with the understanding that humans must use their gift knowledge to create innovative ways to protect the planet, while maintaining human development. The YouTube video follows suit by implementing a religious spin on the extreme global weather patterns from November 7-28, 2014, by referencing Judgment Day (i.e. the end of the world according to the bible). This shocking video recaps the bizarre weather that impacted many areas around the world in November 2014, in the form of titanic snowstorms, flooding, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and seawater appearing blood red, among many other disastrous events. It was absolutely an eye opening experience to watch the video, as it brings the issue of climate change to the forefront by highlighting extreme weather events that took place in just 22 days. Both texts force the viewers to broaden their perspectives, as they tackle a serious global issue. In my case, these pieces of environmental communication made me realize how secondary my passion for skiing truly is, when compared to an issue such as the deaths these extreme weather events have caused and will continue to cause. My most immediate concern with climate change was that it may impact the skiing season, and these texts have urged me to consider increasingly widespread and important issues.