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

1. Overview of the course topics and evaluation

2. The major environmental problems of the 21st century

3. The functions and power of media

4. Selection of environmental documentaries for the semester

3

Major environmental problems in the 21st century

1. Population growth

2. Global warming

3. Sweet water shortage, falling water tables

4. Shrinking cropland per person: food crisis

5. Collapsing fisheries -- overfishing

6. Deforestation

7. 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

Environmental documentariesWe 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 effectsMedia, politics and the environment

Lecture 2, Feb 1, 2012

Miklos Sukosd

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

8

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

9

Environmental agendas in Hong Kong media and public opinion

1. Air pollution (including urban and marine traffic, factories in mainland)

2. Waste (including communal and e-waste)

3. Water pollution and sources (sea, drinking water, underground water tables)

4. Nature conservation (NT, Lamma, Lantau, Cheung Chau)

5. Food safety (HK relies on food imports)

10

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

11

Criticism of agenda setting modelRoots 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)

12

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

13

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 powerFraming wars: conflicting and mutually exclusive frames (politicians; states in international conflict)Framing coalitions: agreement on larger framesMasterframes: incorporating elements of frames

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?

17

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?

18

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

19

20

Key concepts in political ecology

Media, Politics and the Environment (CCGL 9012)

Week 3

Structure of the presentation

1. Sustainable development

2. The ecological footprint

3. The tragedy of commons

21

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

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

27

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

28

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

29

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

30

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

31

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

32

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

33

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?

34

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%.

35

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

36

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 studies simply 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

37

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

38

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

39

Criticism 2: Trade issues

EF an argument for autarchy? EF denies the benefits of trade? EF can only be applied globally?

40

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

41

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?

42

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

43

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)

44

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

45

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

46

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

47

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

48

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)

49