Frame and Blame
Social Media and the Environmental Movement
The climate change movement has been controversial since its beginning
in the 1970s and has been framed from almost every angle. Supporters and opponents have turned it
into a story of villains and victims and made it a heated debate. In Rise and Fall of Social Problems, Hillgartner
states that social problems go through an oscillating cycle of attention,[1]
and, because climate change is a slow moving process, there is less news
coverage and these oscillations tend to be slower with less drastic peaks and
valleys. There are a variety of players in this process, which Joel Best sums
up as scientists, activists, media, and politicians.[2]
The four work in tandem to shape public perception of current issues. The experts are scientists and
climatologists, of whom 97% worldwide believe in climate change while the
remaining three percent either believe that it is not anthropogenic or that it
is not occurring at all.[3]
Activists for climate change remediation believe that it is a dire situation,
while opponents argue with the validity of the science and allege proponent
alarmism. The media slant information based on their political affiliation and
funding sources. Politicians are also separated by party affiliation and are
heavily influenced by lobbyists. So, do the facts behind the framing match
up with public perception? According to a recent poll done by Yale and
George Mason Universities in May 2011, only 64% of Americans believe that
climate change is occurring, and only 47% believe that it is man-made.[4]
According to another study done at Yale, when by Anthony Leiserowitz asked citizens
how they thought scientists understood global warming, only 13 percent knew
that 97% of scientists believe that it is anthropogenic.[5] Public knowledge and sentiment is the
basis for all action taken on social problems, so it is important to
look at the framing of the environmental movement in order to understand the
origins and motivations behind public sentiment of the environmental movement.
The potential of social media is just now being recognized by framers of the
environmental movement for its infiltration into the public and should also be
examined for full potential.
It
is interesting to see how closely the media and public perception conform to
framing by scientists, activists, politicians, and lobbyists, and it is
impossible to discuss the effects of one framer without considering their
relationship with the others. Prominent
environmental advocate Christopher Stone claims that the American public is
well educated on climate change;[6]
however, in their
book Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to
Deny Global Warming, Hoggan and Littlemore argue that the scientific
process is highly misunderstood by the general public and is leveraged by
skeptics to create uncertainty.[7]
The scientific process is never one hundred percent accurate or certain. In
addition, the term theory is used to describe scientific statements that have
been sufficiently proven, while the lay definition of this word is a ‘guess’.[8]
As Bill McKibben states in his article, “Climate of Denial”, political and
industrial leaders use the uncertainty of science to their advantage,
“Cloud the issue
as much as possible so that voters, already none too eager to embrace higher
gas prices, would have no real reason to move climate change to the top of
their agendas. I mean, if the scientists aren't absolutely certain, well, why
not just wait until they get it sorted out?”[9]
Only 28% of
British news coverage depicts a human contribution to warming as significant,
and the other 72% includes a skeptic viewpoint or denies that it is
anthropogenic.[10] Many
popular news stations are sponsored by big companies that have a great deal of
money and power that pay the exorbitant prices of ads and the news stations
would not want to risk these contributions by running stories that say climate
change can be attributed to their products. CNN, for example, is funded by
“clean coal” and natural gas, making it politically difficult to do unbiased
stories on these two industries. People tend to stick to a set news
provider and are therefore presented with a slanted version of current events,
for example, the conservative Fox News and decidedly liberal New York
Times. As Mark Catoe states in his
answer to the Quora question on the passion behind the climate change skeptic
movement, people are convinced by “motivated reasoning…a brain reflex that
inclines us to believe what we already believe – in spite of new information
that comes our way.”[11] Since
acceptance of climate change is something that conditionally affects one’s
entire lifestyle, people have great subconscious incentive to continue with
what they already believe. As Chris Mooney states in his article “The Science
of Why We Don’t Believe Science,” psychology plays a large role in reasoning:
“Reasoning is
actually suffused with emotion (or what researchers often call ‘affect’). Not
only are the two inseparable, but our positive or negative feelings about
people, things, and ideas arise much more rapidly than our conscious thoughts,
in a matter of milliseconds—fast enough to detect with an EEG device, but long
before we're aware of it…We push threatening information away; we pull friendly
information close. We apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but
to data itself.”[12]
Psychology plays
a large role in people’s opinions of the environmental movement and directly
motivates them to continue with previous notions of skepticism. Motivated
reasoning limits people from opening up to pitfalls in their argument and keeps
them closed to new developments.
Economics
is a huge part of the climate change
debate and is used by every framer from each side of the debate. Environmental
groups argue that investing in sustainable technologies will create long term
green jobs, while conservatives believe that environmental regulations stifle
business. A great infographic from Grist portrays climate change activists’
response to skeptics and those that believe the movement is a hoax. It points
out the irony in the economic claims and reads:
“Which
makes more sense? Regional environmental groups and community activists are
spending their limited operating budgets in a massive conspiracy with 90% of
the world’s scientists to create a worldwide hoax and crash the global economy or
big oil companies are spending their obscene profits to bribe anyone they can
to protect their profits and limit any future liability their pollution may
cause.”[13]
According
to a recent poll taken on LinkedIn, money is the biggest motivation behind the
skeptic movement.[14] Big
businesses, with invested interest in unsustainable operations, invest money in
convincing the public not to move away from over-consumerist culture. Lobbyists
from large companies frequently make significant contributions to political
campaigns. Bill McKibben, a well-respected environmental activist, looks
critically at motivations behind industry that keep the U.S. far behind Europe
on climate change issues.
“But in any given
year the payoff for shifting away from fossil fuel is incremental and
essentially invisible. The costs, however, are concentrated: If you own a coal
mine, an oil well, or an assembly line churning out gas-guzzlers, you have a
very strong incentive for making sure no one starts charging you for emitting
carbon.”[15]
Many companies
fail to look at big picture costs such as health effects and irreparable
degradation of the environment and, instead, only focus on profits for the
current quarter. As Michael
Eisner, former CEO of Disney once said, “We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make
history. We have no obligation to make a statement. We are here to make money.”[16]
Businesses reap monetary benefits from denying climate change and convincing
their customers to do the same. On the other side is the green jobs market,
which claims that jobs can be created from investments in sustainable products,
energy, and resources.
However, the unique American culture of freedom of choice makes the
population resistant to behavior change recommendations. The authors of Dead Heat describe our history with
pollution and the evolution of our materialistic economy, recounting the
cultural foundations of industries. For example,
“…coal burning
took hold in England in the 1600s after the widespread clearing of forests…In
America, however, abundant forests provided both pioneer and city dweller with
all the wood they needed for decades after others had turned to coal…This sort
of excessive energy use still prevails in America today.”[17]
As McKibben
states, “We had the single hardest habit to break, which was thinking of
energy as something cheap.”[18]
In addition to our freedom of choice ideology, the United States is also deeply
driven by consumerism. Americans simply do not like being told what to
do. One example is Human
Achievement Hour, countermovement to the annual global action of powering down
for one hour on the last Saturday of March for the awareness of climate
change. According to their
website, “Human Achievement Hour is an annual event meant to recognize and
celebrate the fact that this is the greatest time to be alive, and that the
reason we have come so far is that people have been free to use their minds and
the resources in their environment to experiment, create, and innovate.”[19]
They also highlight that “future solutions require individual freedom not
government coercion.”[20]
The American culture was founded on the idea of consumerism. The colonists’
final straw with the British was based on taxes. From this has sprung the idea
that prices should be driven continuously lower and that the economy should
grow infinitely. However, infinite growth is not possible on a finite planet.
Two
other commons ways of framing the environmental movement from the supporters’
standpoint are global versus local and top down versus bottom up. These two
frames refer to the way that climate change should be mitigated. Who is
responsible and where should the motivation come from? Should grassroots
organizations motivate people to practice behavior change? Will this have a big
enough impact? Most environmentalists would argue for top down change with
pressure generated from local grassroots organizations. Durkheim would have also been
interested in this because he thought about social order over the individual
and about the concept of mechanical versus organic solidarity.[21]
Social
media provides unique solutions for the environmental movement. It has
significant reach into the general public and has great power to infiltrate
everyday life, which can have a large impact on a company or organization.
Donors are more likely to give when they can see the direct impact their money
creates and the transparent inner workings of the group. In addition, people
who might not otherwise be reached might see the group or see that their friend
had recently interacted with its social media content. Peer to peer
recommendation is the most valuable type for consumers, viewers, and company
officials, because people trust their family and friends over anyone else. An increased
fan base can also be used to show constituent support to government officials,
increasing their incentive for grant funding to non-profit organizations. Not only do social media give positive reinforcement
between peers, but it can also be used to create an Internet form of peer
pressure. If one sees that all of their friends believe in climate change from
postings or “likes,” that person is more likely to believe in it themselves,
despite actual knowledge of the topic. In addition, solutions to climate change
are rooted in innovation, which is sparked by informed discussion, debate, and
collaboration, something that social media has the power to generate, organize,
and disseminate.
Harrison
Rainie and Barry Wellman’s Networked: The
New Social Operating System is important for social media’s applications to
the environmental movement. It states that the social network revolution gives
more opportunities to reach beyond traditional social world of tight groups and
small communities. It is easier to be in touch with more people than ever
before, and the Internet revolution increases people’s power to gather
information and communicate.
“Although people
often view the world in terms of groups, they mostly function in networks. In
networked societies, boundaries are more permeable, interactions are more
diverse than others, connections shift between multiple networks, and
hierarchies tend to be flatter and more recursive.”[22]
They also argue
that the network revolution creates a shift in the basis of achievement from
individual to societal. Technology is part of broader social change.[23]
Many people fear that the Internet has alienated people from each other and the
environment, but social networking sites challenge that. Meetup.com is “the
world’s largest network of local groups” that meet in person regularly, and it has
the goal of “using the Internet to get off the Internet.”[24] As Durkheim argued, the biggest problem
for modern society is size, complexity, and diversity. The success of
Meetup.com contrasts with Putnam’s Bowling
Alone, which shows that communities have become disconnected. Communities
are now centered about much more abstract things rather than crops and nature.
This is a large part of apathy toward the climate change movement and social
media can be one of the solutions. [25]
When
the experienced environmental bloggers of Experts’ Opinions on Sustainability were
asked about their opinions on the role of social media in the environmental
movement, the overall response was a significant one. Although the sample is
biased, their career choice and the rapid expansion of the environmental
blogosphere can attest to the true growth of the field. Among answers were the ideas of
heightened transparency (Brendan Seale, The Interconectedness of Things[26]),
which increasing awareness for the interconnectedness of the world and thus how
actions have wide reaching effect. Meris Michaels, of Towards Better Health[27]
emphasized calls to action, and Celesa Horvath succinctly said,
“In a nutshell,
social media and emerging technologies effectively democratize knowledge and
information, causing a shift in the patterns of communication between and among
stakeholders, and driving increased transparency and accountability. In effect,
social media facilitate advocacy and action.”
There
are, however, some setbacks to the abundant use of social media. There is now
an overload of information and there are dozens of examples of this type of
misleading advertising mostly involving large companies and their PR
departments. The challenge of a
plethora of information can be overcome with weeding technologies such as feeds
and categorically divided news, but the misleading information aspect is much
more challenging. Jessica Reeder, of Love and Trash[28],
writes,
“One of the biggest roadblocks
for the environmental movement has always been disinformation, which often
comes from hearsay and punditry…Social media allows experts and brands to
develop a trusted voice that people feel they can rely on. By offering
consistency and good information, by being reasonable and trustworthy,
environmental activists are better able to dispel rumors and spread knowledge
on important issues. Unfortunately, this works the other way as well.”
Social media can
be used to improve a brand’s image over time. Many companies now use their CSR
(corporate social responsibility) campaigns as a direct form of marketing to
the conscious consumer, a path that environmental organizations are starting to
pick up on as well. Social media are used by environmental organizations and large
corporations alike to improve public sentiment. The flipside ‘greenwashing’ which the FTC defines as
“unqualified general environment benefit claims – such as calling products
‘green.’”[29]
One notable examples of this is the Levi’s Water<Less Jean advertisement,
which would make one think that the jeans, made from water-intensive cotton, no
longer take any water to produce. In
reality, the brand means that the jeans take less than average amounts of water
to produce. But the campaign is
flawed in many ways: which part of the supply chain are they starting at? What
is their comparison point? Another
example along the lines of environmental deception is the advertising by BP after
their catastrophic oil spill, claiming that the gulf had been returned to
previous conditions. The three pronged recycling symbol stands for collection,
processing, and marketing development, and emphasizes that green products need
to not only be produced responsibly, but must also used and disposed of in an
environmental conscious way. The
FTC is currently looking to regulate green claims and third party certifiers
like the Rainforest Alliance Certification and Fair Trade Certifications have
been independently created to validate claims. Many times, companies will think about how they can claim
that they are green and pick the smallest actions that will have he biggest PR
impact. However, including their shortcomings can help build trust between the
advertiser and the consumer. Social media creates the ultimate amount of
transparency and allows consumers to see through these shallow campaigns.
The
reputation of a movement is crucial to progress in solving the social problem. While Stone believes that the
environmental movement is strong[30]
and concludes, “Thus, while the environmentalists might do well to keep image
in mind, I doubt they have an image they need to run away from, or for that
matter could run away from…,”[31]
many would disagree. The war of activists is stereotypically seen as hippies
versus capitalists. The power of the people is to pressure corporations and the
government. An all too common sentiment is that the general public just cannot
make a significant difference when it comes to climate change, but their
demands on companies and politicians are enough to make a big splash. Collaboration
is the only hope for finding solutions to the environmental movement and social
media is the ultimate tool for this. The potential for the climate change movement in social media
is vast.
Bibliography
"Why Is
the Climate Change Movement so Passionate?" LinkedIn. Ed. Sara B.
Allan. LinkedIn, 20 Nov. 2011. Web. 7 Dec. 2011.
<http://linkd.in/vxOK4x>.
Best, Joel. Social
Problems. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2008. Print.
Catoe, Mark.
"Why Is the Climate Change Denier Movement so Passionate?" Quora.
22 Oct. 2011. Web. 07 Nov. 2011.
<http://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-climate-change-denier-movement-so-passionate>.
Randall Collins and Michael Makowsky, The Discovery of Society, Chapter 6. New York: McGraw Hll, 2005.
Glover, Matthew. "Global
Warming - The Debate." Renegade Conservatory Guy. 30 July 2010.
Web. 26 Apr. 2012.
<http://renegadeconservatoryguy.co.uk/global-warming-the-debate/>.
Heiferman,
Scott. "Scott Heiferman Professional Biography." Meetup.com. Web. 27
Apr. 2012.
<https://sites.google.com/a/meetup.com/scott-heiferman-professional-biography/>.
Hilgartner, Stephen, and Charles
L. Bosk. "The Rise and Fall of Social Problems: A Public Arenas
Model." American Journal of Sociology 94.1 (1988): 53-78. Print.
Hoggan, James, and Richard D.
Littlemore. Climate Cover-up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming.
Vancouver: Greystone, 2009. Print.
"Human Achievement Hour
2012." Competitive Enterprise Institute: Free Markets and Limited
Government. Competitive Enterprise Institute, Mar. 2012. Web. 27 Apr. 2012.
<http://cei.org/hah>.
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., & Smith, N. (2011) Climate
change in the American Mind: Americans’ global warming beliefs and attitudes in
May 2011. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale
Project on Climate Change Communication. http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/ClimateBeliefsMay2011.pdf
Anthony Leiserowitz in Harris, Richard. "Climate
Change: Public Skeptical, Scientists Sure : NPR." NPR : National Public
Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR. NPR, 21
June 2011. Web. 07 Nov. 2011.
<http://www.npr.org/2011/06/21/137309964/climate-change-public-skeptical-scientists-sure>.
McKibben,
Bill. "Climate of Denial." Mother Jones. The Foundation for
National Progress, May-June 2005. Web. 1 Apr. 2012. <http://motherjones.com/politics/2005/05/climate-denial>.
McCright,
Aaron M. and Riley E. Dunlap. 2000. “Challenging Global Warming as a Social
Problem: An Analysis of the Conservative Movement’s Counter Claims.” Social
Problems 47(4): 499-522.
Mooney, Christopher. "The Science
of Why We Don't Believe Science." Mother Jones. The Foundation for
National Progress, May-June 2011. Web. 26 Mar. 2012.
<http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney>.
Nelson, Gabriel, and Amanda
Peterka. "FTC Proposes Crackdown on 'Greenwashing'" The New York
Times - Energy and Environment. The New York Times, 06 Oct. 2010. Web. 26
Apr. 2012.
<http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/10/06/06greenwire-ftc-proposes-crackdown-on-greenwashing-42606.html?pagewanted=all>.
Oppenheimer, Michael, and Robert
H. Boyle. Dead Heat: The Race against the Greenhouse Effect. New York:
Basic, 1990. Print.
Putnam, Robert D. Bowling
Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon
& Schuster, 2000. Print.
Rainie,
Harrison, and Barry Wellman. Networked: The New Social Operating System.
Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2012. Print.
Stewart,
James B. Disney War. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2005. Print.
Stone,
Christopher D., and Garrett James Hardin. Should Trees Have Standing?:
Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects. Los Altos, CA: W. Kaufmann, 1974.
Print, 157.
Zimmerman, Jess.
"Infographic: The Idea of a Climate Change Hoax Makes No
$)%*@ sense." Grist. Grist Magazine, Inc., 27 Feb. 2012. Web.
3 Apr. 2012. <http://grist.org/list/infographic-the-idea-of-a-climate-change-hoax-makes-no-sense/>.
[1] Hilgartner,
Stephen, and Charles L. Bosk. "The Rise and Fall of Social Problems: A
Public Arenas Model." American Journal of Sociology 94.1 (1988):
53-78. Print.
[3] Glover,
Matthew. "Global Warming - The Debate." Renegade Conservatory Guy.
30 July 2010. Web. 26 Apr. 2012.
<http://renegadeconservatoryguy.co.uk/global-warming-the-debate/>.
[4] Leiserowitz, A., Maibach,
E., Roser-Renouf, C., & Smith, N. (2011) Climate change in the American
Mind: Americans’ global warming beliefs and attitudes in May 2011. Yale
University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate
Change Communication. http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/ClimateBeliefsMay2011.pdf
[5] Anthony Leiserowitz in Harris,
Richard. "Climate Change: Public Skeptical, Scientists Sure : NPR." NPR
: National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts :
NPR. NPR, 21 June 2011. Web. 07 Nov. 2011.
<http://www.npr.org/2011/06/21/137309964/climate-change-public-skeptical-scientists-sure>.
[6] Stone,
Christopher D., and Garrett James Hardin. Should Trees Have Standing?:
Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects. Los Altos, CA: W. Kaufmann, 1974.
Print, 157.
[7] Hoggan,
James, and Richard D. Littlemore. Climate Cover-up: The Crusade to Deny
Global Warming. Vancouver: Greystone, 2009. Print.
[8] Hoggan and Littlemore.
[10] Glover, “Global Warming –
The Debate.”
[11] Catoe,
Mark. "Why Is the Climate Change Denier Movement so Passionate?" Quora.
22 Oct. 2011. Web. 07 Nov. 2011.
<http://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-climate-change-denier-movement-so-passionate>.
[12] Mooney,
Christopher. "The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science." Mother
Jones. The Foundation for National Progress, May-June 2011. Web. 26 Mar.
2012.
<http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney>.
[13] Zimmerman,
Jess. "Infographic: The Idea of a Climate Change Hoax Makes No
$)%*@ sense." Grist. Grist Magazine, Inc., 27 Feb. 2012. Web.
3 Apr. 2012.
<http://grist.org/list/infographic-the-idea-of-a-climate-change-hoax-makes-no-sense/>.
[14] "Why
Is the Climate Change Movement so Passionate?" LinkedIn. Ed. Sara
B. Allan. LinkedIn, 20 Nov. 2011. Web. 7 Dec. 2011.
<http://linkd.in/vxOK4x>.
[15] McKibben,
Bill. "Climate of Denial." Mother Jones. The Foundation for
National Progress, May-June 2005. Web. 1 Apr. 2012. <http://motherjones.com/politics/2005/05/climate-denial>.
[15] Glover, “Global Warming –
The Debate.”
[17] Oppenheimer,
Michael, and Robert H. Boyle. Dead Heat: The Race against the Greenhouse
Effect. New York: Basic, 1990. Print.
[18] McKibben, “Climate of
Denial.”
[19] "Human
Achievement Hour 2012." Competitive Enterprise Institute: Free Markets
and Limited Government. Competitive Enterprise Institute, Mar. 2012. Web.
27 Apr. 2012. <http://cei.org/hah>.
[20] Human Achievement Hour
2012.
[21] Collins, Randall and
Michael Makowsky, The Discovery of
Society, Chapter 6. New York: McGraw Hll, 2005.
[22] Rainie,
Harrison, and Barry Wellman. Networked: The New Social Operating System.
Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2012. Print.
[23] Collins, Randall and
Michael Makowsky, The Discovery of
Society, Chapter 6. New York: McGraw Hll, 2005.
[24] Heiferman,
Scott. "Scott Heiferman Professional Biography." Meetup.com. Web. 27
Apr. 2012. <https://sites.google.com/a/meetup.com/scott-heiferman-professional-biography/>.
[25] Putnam,
Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.
New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000. Print.
[26]
http://brendanseale.wordpress.com/
[27] http://www.mieuxprevenir.blogspot.com/
[28] www.LoveandTrash.com
[29] Nelson,
Gabriel, and Amanda Peterka. "FTC Proposes Crackdown on
'Greenwashing'" The New York Times - Energy and Environment. The
New York Times, 06 Oct. 2010. Web. 26 Apr. 2012.
<http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/10/06/06greenwire-ftc-proposes-crackdown-on-greenwashing-42606.html?pagewanted=all>.
[30] Stone, 147.
[31] Stone, 156.
No comments:
Post a Comment