Environmental problems and the power of media

1. Environmental problems and the power of media Media, Politics, and the Environment CCGL9012 Miklos Sukosd Lecture 1, January 18, 2012

2. Topics to discuss in class • Overview of the course topics and evaluation • The major environmental problems of the 21st century • The functions and power of media • Selection of environmental documentaries for the semester

3. Major environmental problems in the 21st century • Population growth • Global warming • Sweet water shortage, falling water tables • Shrinking cropland per person: food crisis • Collapsing fisheries -- overfishing • Deforestation • Species extinction [ + Pollution/contamination: sea/water, soil, air] - Brown, Lester R.  2000.  Challenges of the New Century.  In: State of the World 2000: A Worldwatch Institute Report.  New York: W. W. Norton and Company, pp. 3-21.

4. The power of media 1 • To provide information: news and facts • To provide frames: interpretation (causes) and evaluation (good-bad) • To set agendas: what is important? • To effect change among audience/user: media effects on attitude, behavior • To educate audience/users: new scientific findings, paradigms

5. The power of media 2 • To represent issues problems, actors, groups, interest • To mobilize (activists, supporters, donors) • To entertain: movies, tv series, celebrities/gossip • To provide forum for discussion among stakeholders • To affect public opinion—politicians—policy making

6. Environmental documentaries We will watch and discuss these critical environmental documentaries during the semester: • The Age of the Stupid (2009) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZjsJdokC0s • Plastic Planet (2009) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7X-J1DhfjE • No Impact Man (2009) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9Ctt7FGFBo • The End of the Line (2009) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bedirwk95Oc • Fuel (2008) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsP5EmMrTqk

7. Concepts in media studies: framing, agenda setting and media effects Media, politics and the environment Lecture 2, Feb 1, 2012 Miklos Sukosd

8. Structure of presentation 1. Agenda setting by the media 2. Criticism of the agenda setting approach 3. Framing in the media: the concept 4. Framing in the media: a case (urbanization in former farmland) 5. Questions regarding environmental journalism 6. Research project: environmental agenda setting and framing by Hong Kong media

9. Agenda setting • What the media present: salience of issues, topics, topic areas in media and audience perception • Causal relationship from media agenda to public agenda (audience cognition/perception) • Case 1: Lonely people (few interpersonal contacts) follow political agenda more – stronger agenda setting role of the media • Case 2: Classic Iowa referendum study: counties with newspaper and citizens’ committee: significantly different voting patterns, self-interest effect is reinforced by agenda setting

10. Environmental agendas in Hong Kong media and public opinion • Air pollution (including urban and marine traffic, factories in mainland) • Waste (including communal and e-waste) • Water pollution and sources (sea, drinking water, underground water tables) • Nature conservation (NT, Lamma, Lantau, Cheung Chau) • Food safety (HK relies on food imports)

11. Environmental agendas in Hong Kong media and public opinion (cont.) 6. Noise pollution (leads to stress; 1 million people affected by excess traffic noise; add construction work and AC/ventillation noise) 7. Light pollution (affects human lives, ecosystem, energy consumption) +8. Climate change and global warming (public concerns, disappointment with government) +9. Global population growth (leads to resource depletion; HK policy/political debates about immigration: mainland migrants, foreign domestic helpers

12. Criticism of agenda setting model Roots of media agenda are missing: policy (legislative), political, public (civic, NGO, citizen) agendas Methodological problems • Content analysis and polling • How many media sources? Research opportunities: International comparative research project regarding environmental in several countries Longitudinal research opportunities (long term media agendas)

13. Framing by media • How to present/cover? The mode of coverage. • Missing aspect of the “objectivity approach” • Each article about the same topic or story is different (journalists often call it “angles”) • Framing key features: selection and salience • Select some aspects of reality and make them salient; omit or lessen salience of other aspects • Influence over human consciousness by communication of information/text

14. Frames • - Promote particular problem definition (define problems) • - Causal interpretation (diagnose causes) • - Moral evaluation (make moral judgements) • Treatment recommendation (suggest remedies) • Frames by/in • - Communicators (sources, journalists) • - Text • - Receivers • - Cultural context

15. Framing case: Urbanization project in agricultural areas or suburbs Background: legal re-classification of agricultural lands for housing development (China: forced evictions) 1. Development/progress frame - Working opportunities subframe - Local infrastructure development subframe - China: national/regional/local economic growth 2. Critical democratic frame - Who decided and how? Transparency of decision subframe - Whose interest? subframe

16. 3. Environmental frame • - Peaceful conditions subframe • - Ecological subframe • Environmental legal subframe • 4. Real estate frame • - Prices/markets for buyers subframe • - Real estate trends and investment for professionals subframe • Framing power: cultural capital + financial power • Framing wars: conflicting and mutually exclusive frames (politicians; states in international conflict) • Framing coalitions: agreement on larger frames • Masterframes: incorporating elements of frames

17. Questions regarding environmental journalism about agenda setting and framing • How relevant are these concepts for journalists and editors? • How free are journalists to - set environmental agendas with their story? - select or define the frames of their story? • Can stories exist without frames?

18. Environmental frames in the media • As an environmental problem • As an environmental policy/political issue • As a historical trend • As a health issue • As an issue of environmental activism • As an educational issue • As a matter of public attitudes • As an emotional issue (humans or animals) • Other frames?

19. Research project: environmental agenda setting and framing by Hong Kong media 1. List of all Hong Kong media • Traditional media: television, radio, print press, online news portals • Social media: Facebook, Weibo, Twitter, YouTube, online discussion forums etc. 2. Conduct content analysis 3. Conduct framing analysis 4. Conduct public opinion polls to measure public perceptions of environmental issues 5. Compare media coverage and public perceptions to establish agenda setting and framing effects

20. Key concepts in political ecology Media, Politics and the Environment (CCGL 9012) Week 3

21. Structure of the presentation • Sustainable development • The ecological footprint • The tragedy of commons

22. 1. Sustainable development • SD: Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable -- to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without comprimising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (1987:8). • Origins: Report by Brundtland Commission (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987) • UN report to concile environmental and development issues (environmental damage, population, peace and security, social justice both within and across generations) that had been competitive or antagonistic

23. In essence, SD is a process of change in which exploitation of resources, the direction of investment, the orientation of technological development, and industrial change are all in harmony and enhance both current and future potential to meet human needs and aspirations” (1987:46). • Deeper history: resource management concept in maximum sustainable yield (fishery, forest, game animals that can be sustained indefinitely) • Intelligent operation of natural systems and human systems in combination

24. What are the needs of future generations? Problems with the concept of SD • Elasticity of concept: different meanings and interpretations • Environmentalists: intrinsic notions of nature are missing • Developing countries: stress on global redistribution • Western countries: developing countries cannot follow same path of industrialization • Business: sustained economic growth + ”green-painting” • Contestation over essence of SD

25. Sustainability: summary • Central concept in environmental discourses + bandwagon effect • Actors: many agents at many levels, international (IGO + global civil society) and subnational (NGO) • SD never an accomplished fact, except in small hunter-gatherer and agricultural societies with low level of economic and technological development

26. Discourse: no limits to growth, capitalist economy (competition de-emphasized though), anthropocentric, ”think globally, act locally”, self-conscious improvement, open-ended learning of humankind (like lifetime learning), progress in the environmental era • Real life results? Small compared to liberalization of global trade and capital

27. 2. Ecological footprint: the concept • EF measures human demand on the Earth's ecosystems • Compares human demand with the Earth’s ecological capacity to regenerate • Calculates the amount of biologically productive land and sea area needed to regenerate the resources a human population consumes, and to absorb waste and make it harmless • EF make possible to estimate how much of the Earth (or how many Earths) it would take to support humanity with a given consumption rate

28. For 2006, humanity's total ecological footprint was estimated at 1.4 planet Earths (lag due to availability of statistics) • This means that humanity uses ecological services 1.4 times as fast as Earth can renew them • EF calculated every year • Methods of measurement differ • Calculation standards are emerging to make results more comparable and consistent

29. Ecological footprint: origins • Originator of academic concept of EF William Rees (environmental policy/sustainability expert, University of British Columbia, Canada), 1992 • Co-developer of EF concept and calculation method Mathis Wackernagel (currently President of Global Footprint Network) • Rees first formulation: "appropriated carrying capacity" • Rees: term EF "inspired by a computer technician who praised his new computer's small footprint on the desk” • Wackernagel and Rees book Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth.1996

30. EF compares human demand on nature with the biosphere's ability to regenerate resources and provide services • New EF: the methods are converging • Footprint 2.0 (2003 by a team of researchers) • Footprint 2.0 theoretical and methodological improvements to the standard EF approach • Include the entire surface of the Earth in biocapacity estimates, allocate space for other (non-human) species, change the basis of equivalence factors from agricultural land to net primary productivity (NPP), and change the carbon component of the footprint, based on global carbon models • Well received by teachers, researchers, and advocacy organizations

31. Ecological footprint: methods • EF assesses biologically productive land and marine area required to produce the resources a population consumes, and absorb the corresponding waste, using present technology • Biological capacity or biocapacity: capacity of ecosystems to produce useful biological materials and to absorb waste materials generated by humans, using current technologies. Biocapacity is usually expressed in units of global hectares • Global hectare: the average productivity of biologically productive land and water in a given year • A global hectare of cropland, would occupy a smaller physical area than the much less productive marshland

32. Biologically productive land and water: the land and water (both marine and inland waters) area that supports photosynthetic activity and biomass accumulation used by humans. Non-productive areas not included. Biomass not of use to humans is also not included. • The total biologically productive area on land and water was approximately 13.4 billion hectares in 2005 on the planet • Biological capacity available per person: Dividing by the number of people alive in that year, 6.5 billion, gives 2.1 global hectares per person . This assumes no land is set aside for other species that consume the same biological material as humans. • http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/glossary/ - biologicallyproductivelandandwater

33. Ecological footprint: uses • Per capita EF is a means of comparing consumption and lifestyles • Checking this against nature's ability to provide for this consumption • Goal: altering personal behavior • EF informs the public and policy makers by examining to what extent a nation uses more or less than is available within its territory

34. To what extent the nation's lifestyle could be replicable worldwide? • EF can educate people about carrying capacity and over-consumption • Can also be applied to an activity such as manufacturing a product or driving of a car • EF in Hong Kong, China, US? • EF within HKU?

35. Global inequalities vs. environmental justice • EF: current lifestyles are not sustainable • Global comparison: inequalities of resource use on the planet • In 2006, average biologically productive area per person worldwide cca. 1.8 global hectares (gha) per capita. • US footprint per capita was 9.0 gha • Switzerland 5.6 gha per person • China 1.8 gha per person • WWF claims EF has exceeded the biocapacity (the available supply of natural resources) of the planet by 20%.

36. EF measures and sustainability • NGO websites allow estimation of one's EF • EF widely used around the globe as an indicator of environmental sustainability • EF to explore the sustainability of individual lifestyles, goods and services, organizations, industry sectors, neighborhoods, cities, regions and nations • Since 2006, EF standards exist that define details of calculation procedures • Ecological Footprint Standards 2009, Global Footprint Network www.footprintstandards.org

37. EF accounting method at the national level is described in the Living Planet Report (WWF and GFN) • Differences in the methodology used by various EF studies • Examples: how sea area should be counted, how to account for fossil fuels, how to account for nuclear power (many studiessimply consider it to have the same ecological footprint as fossil fuels),which data sources used, how space for biodiversity should be included, and how imports/exports should be accounted for

38. EF criticisms and debates • Complete review commissioned by the Directorate-General for the Environment (European Commission) in June 2008 provides most updated independent assessment of the method

39. Criticism 1: Parasitic cities? • Calculating EF for densely populated areas, such as a city or small country with a comparatively large population — e.g. New York and Singapore respectively —perception as "parasitic" • These communities have little intrinsic biocapacity • Critics: dubious characterization since mechanized rural farmers in developed nations may easily consume more resources than urban inhabitants, due to transportation

40. Criticism 2: Trade issues • EF an argument for autarchy? • EF denies the benefits of trade? • EF can only be applied globally?

41. Criticism 3:Pro-Monocultures? • Replacing woodlands or tropical forests with monoculture forests or plantations may improve EF • EF rewards the replacement of original ecosystems with high-productivity agricultural monocultures by assigning a higher biocapacity to such regions? • If organic farming yields lower than those with conventional methods larger EF

42. Criticism 4: Nuclear power • Nuclear power: pre-2008 treated same manner as coal power • Carbon dioxide per KW-Hr of produced power differs • Problems of nuclear vs. fossil fuel waste?

43. WHO: “3 million people are killed worldwide by outdoor air pollution annually from vehicles and industrial emissions, and 1.6 million indoors through using solid fuel." (BBC report 2004) Alex Kirby (13 December 2004,). "Pollution: A life and death issue". BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4086809.stm. • Coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage. Alex Gabbard. "Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger". Oak Ridge National Laboratory. http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html. • Fossil fuel waste causes global warming, which leads to hurricanes, flooding, and other weather changes

44. Counter-arguments • Limits of EF • Don’t use EF as only metric • Complement with other indicators, e.g., on biodiversity • Living Planet Report complements the biennial Footprint calculations with the Living Planet Index of biodiversity • Modified EF that takes biodiversity into account in Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint - cite_note-26 (Manfred Lenzen and Shauna Murray)

45. EF calculators • Personal calculators • http://www.earthday.org/footprint-calculator (or the same here: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/calculators) • http://www.ecologicalfootprint.com • http://www.myfootprint.org • Personal, school and event calculators • http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/ecologicalfootprint/calculators/default.asp • Interactive site with global rankings and listings • http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/?840 • Calculator for kids • http://www.zerofootprintkids.com/kids_home.aspx

46. Overuse of resources vs. "rights of future generations" • http://www.cousteau.org/about-us/futuregen • http://www.intergenerationaljustice.org/ • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#Future_generations • http://gadfly.igc.org/papers/orfg.htm • http://www.sehn.org/pdf/Model_Provisions_Mod1E7275.pdf

47. 3. The Tragedy of Commons • Concept by Garrett Hardin 1968 • Many rational individuals want to use available commons • This leads to overuse and tragedy of commons • In the long run, this is no one’s interest • Tension between individual self-interest and community interest

48. The Tragedy of Commons: examples • Pastureland and herdsmen • Herdsmen: as many animals as possible • Rational individual calculation: personal gain maximization • ALL THINK THIS WAY • Community loss: each animal degrades the common land • Result: less grass, no grass, erosion, weed domination • National parks: overuse by visitors vs. limitation of entry

49. The Tragedy of Commons: applications • Pollution of the commons: sewage, chemicals, radioactive, heat • Individual rationality to let out pollutants as cleaning is expensive • Result: the common land, water, air is polluted • In the long run, no one’s interest • Solutions: regulation  (law, positive and negative taxes)