If natural systems were well understood and behaved in a predictable
way, it might be possible to calculate what would be a “safe” amount of pressure to inflict on them without endangering the basic services they provide to humankind.
Unfortunately, however, the living machinery of Earth has a tendency to move from gradual to catastrophic change with little warning. Such is the complexity of the relationships between plants, animals, and microorganisms that these “tipping points” cannot be forecast by existing science.
The millenium assessment is sobering. But so was the Warning to Humanity from 1992 by many of the worlds leading scientists and majority of the world's Nobel Laureates.
It seems Rachel Carson inspired a generation of scientists to speak out on the truth they have uncovered.
The Precautionary Principle would be exercised so well here, on planet earth.
We are lacking time as we tamper.
But I am not tampering. I am looking for answers, while I still buy burgers, cheap clothes from China, and drive my car to the grocery store.
Ironically, I feel that if I slow down enough to make these changes, I will fall out of engagement with trying to find those leverage points to help make those huge policy shifts. Though, Rex Wyler said at a talk I heard once before: All the legislation that Green Peace made 20 years before is being reversed.
This leads me to think that the policy changes are not the major leverage points, What we need is a culture shift. Take this case for example:
Women have rights! Sure, look at all your rights, your fine and quit your complaining. Now choose between working or child rearing. Because unless you make as much as your husband (which most of you don't), one of you will have to sacrifice a career (seniority, perceived experience)so you can manage. Daycare's are full - 2 year waiting list!
Unless more Curitiba's show up, we are doomed. To transition, we need people as well that are willing to listen to the fears, and respond with kindness to nurture ideas and model the possibilities. I see the value in that role more than before. Pulling the rug out from people's feel will be tough, and someone will need to help people back up. If there is a carbon tax - lets offer creative way to ammend the adverse effects on the pocket book.
It is that tipping point that we cannot be too sure with in nature, or with culture shifts. If what Blessed Unrest offers is any indication - it may be faster than we think.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Monday, August 3, 2009
Idle Free
I just wanted to show you this in case you ever wanted to make a snazzy type video presentation easily, in very short time. Took me 20 minutes to whip this lil diddy up.
http://animoto.com
Saturday, August 1, 2009
You've captured my...carbon?
The Framing of Climate Change in Canadian, American, and International Newspapers: A Media Propoganda Model Analysis, by Jennifer Ellen Good, is way cooler than the title sounds. In fact, if I was a free agent in my life, I would love to jump on board to compare these findings with the framing of climate change during both lead up and after Copenhagen.
It comforts me to know that someone is paying attention to the writing on the wall. Because at the end of the day, while we are all busy trying to decide which light bulb to buy, our government (bless their wee hearts), is investing most heavily in storing carbon. Where?? I have no clue. In the Feds plan for Turning the corner: A Framework to Expedite the Suffering and Demise of Humanity, Harper and his loyal gang of subjects offer carbon capture as a solution to the large scale operations such as, (you guessed it), The Tar Sands. The comforting notion of carbon capture can captivate your imagination with such references captured from our expert devised regulatory framework as, "The stream of carbon dioxide is also sometimes injected into older oil wells to help extract further reserves of oil." And my personal favorite, "It is a technology that is most cost-effective when it involves large volumes of carbon dioxide, such as those produced at oil sands and electricity generation facilities, and when it is built into new facilities, although it can also be applied to existing facilities."
Yes, they have figured out how to turn this climate crisis into an oilportunity.
As featured in World Environment News, courtesey of Reuters, "Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt said in a statement C$650 million has been earmarked to help pay for large-scale carbon capture and storage demonstration projects as the government looks to follow through on agreements made during U.S. President Barack Obama's February visit to Canada.
The remaining cash will be directed to paying for smaller-scale renewable and alternative energy projects and a C$150 million fund for researching clean energy technologies." - May 20, 2009.
But to get back to the article mentioned at the beginning. What is startling from Good's research is that the international community in reporting about Kyoto, tended not to highlight the US opposition to Kyoto. It seems a no brainer to me that to mention an international agreement without discussing major obstacles to its successes is a moot point. Rather than questioning if the citizens of your country can ride their bikes one day a week to work, how about a little reference to the fact that the super power of the world, and top emitter, is not getting on board?
I hope that Copenhagen can expose all the dirty secrets that countries are "capturing". But we know we can't rely on the mass media alone. It will most likely have to be the chirps and tweets of the blessed unrest. (cross fingers)
It comforts me to know that someone is paying attention to the writing on the wall. Because at the end of the day, while we are all busy trying to decide which light bulb to buy, our government (bless their wee hearts), is investing most heavily in storing carbon. Where?? I have no clue. In the Feds plan for Turning the corner: A Framework to Expedite the Suffering and Demise of Humanity, Harper and his loyal gang of subjects offer carbon capture as a solution to the large scale operations such as, (you guessed it), The Tar Sands. The comforting notion of carbon capture can captivate your imagination with such references captured from our expert devised regulatory framework as, "The stream of carbon dioxide is also sometimes injected into older oil wells to help extract further reserves of oil." And my personal favorite, "It is a technology that is most cost-effective when it involves large volumes of carbon dioxide, such as those produced at oil sands and electricity generation facilities, and when it is built into new facilities, although it can also be applied to existing facilities."
Yes, they have figured out how to turn this climate crisis into an oilportunity.
As featured in World Environment News, courtesey of Reuters, "Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt said in a statement C$650 million has been earmarked to help pay for large-scale carbon capture and storage demonstration projects as the government looks to follow through on agreements made during U.S. President Barack Obama's February visit to Canada.
The remaining cash will be directed to paying for smaller-scale renewable and alternative energy projects and a C$150 million fund for researching clean energy technologies." - May 20, 2009.
But to get back to the article mentioned at the beginning. What is startling from Good's research is that the international community in reporting about Kyoto, tended not to highlight the US opposition to Kyoto. It seems a no brainer to me that to mention an international agreement without discussing major obstacles to its successes is a moot point. Rather than questioning if the citizens of your country can ride their bikes one day a week to work, how about a little reference to the fact that the super power of the world, and top emitter, is not getting on board?
I hope that Copenhagen can expose all the dirty secrets that countries are "capturing". But we know we can't rely on the mass media alone. It will most likely have to be the chirps and tweets of the blessed unrest. (cross fingers)
Friday, July 31, 2009
Posted tonight: TV and the people who love it.
Hope, Happiness, Wellbeing in half hour time slots. Drama in an hour.
Interesting things are happening out there to test the effects of the television on viewers. (we are not people we are viewers, users, and consumers).
I am most surprised by the research that surveyed environmental organizations, and found that of the "environmentalists" ( identified by member affiliation to an ENGO), who responded to the survey, those with the most hour of TV viewing were the least likely to report attitudes reflective of those concerned with environmental issues.
Is the TV some magnetic force that strips you of good sense and decency? Or does the majority of us prioritize our internal lists of the world's ills by what the screen flickers?
As an anecdote, I know quite a few people who believe the TV is a mirror of the world. Ideas, current events, the whole shbang is on TV. If you are not up on TV, then you are living under a rock. But what is the TV saying that is so beguiling? I like this research (besides all the terms I don't quite understand, and the length) because it is giving us another story about what the TV is saying. And how what it is saying is changing the way you think.
If I stared out the same window every day, for 6 hours per day - what would I learn about my surroundings? TV is that window into the world for millions of people each day.
McKibben's description of that old woman, hand gripped onto the remote, as she slips off into eternal slumber scares me. I see it in my grandma. She reads, watches TV, and does cross words. But TV occupies so much of what she does when she is alone. I wish we could live together, and share meals, plan gardens. But she prefers to eat with the TV if she is not out for dinner. She learns about the environmental catastrophes and tells me about the programs. She cuts out articles for me from the Vancouver Sun. But every few months she buys me a Swiffer. Now, I am not the cleanest person. I would rather hang with my kid, then be bound to housework on my time off. But she believes, as much as she does that we need to reduce our waste, that I also need the convenience of a Swiffer.
One day, my 10 year old neighbor came by to borrow something for his parents. He saw the swiffer #15 that my grandma just brought me sitting to the side of my kitchen. He gleefully asked if he could try my swiffer, as if it was a shiny new skateboard. I told him to go for it, and delightfully he cleaned the floor for about 10 minutes before announcing 'this sucks' and left. At least the swiffer got out for a spin.
If something as simple as a stick with some fuzzy paper on the bottom can get people this excited in this day and age of ipods and ATV's, TV has got to be more powerful than we anticipated. Or maybe the dust bunnies are clogging up my brain.
Interesting things are happening out there to test the effects of the television on viewers. (we are not people we are viewers, users, and consumers).
I am most surprised by the research that surveyed environmental organizations, and found that of the "environmentalists" ( identified by member affiliation to an ENGO), who responded to the survey, those with the most hour of TV viewing were the least likely to report attitudes reflective of those concerned with environmental issues.
Is the TV some magnetic force that strips you of good sense and decency? Or does the majority of us prioritize our internal lists of the world's ills by what the screen flickers?
As an anecdote, I know quite a few people who believe the TV is a mirror of the world. Ideas, current events, the whole shbang is on TV. If you are not up on TV, then you are living under a rock. But what is the TV saying that is so beguiling? I like this research (besides all the terms I don't quite understand, and the length) because it is giving us another story about what the TV is saying. And how what it is saying is changing the way you think.
If I stared out the same window every day, for 6 hours per day - what would I learn about my surroundings? TV is that window into the world for millions of people each day.
McKibben's description of that old woman, hand gripped onto the remote, as she slips off into eternal slumber scares me. I see it in my grandma. She reads, watches TV, and does cross words. But TV occupies so much of what she does when she is alone. I wish we could live together, and share meals, plan gardens. But she prefers to eat with the TV if she is not out for dinner. She learns about the environmental catastrophes and tells me about the programs. She cuts out articles for me from the Vancouver Sun. But every few months she buys me a Swiffer. Now, I am not the cleanest person. I would rather hang with my kid, then be bound to housework on my time off. But she believes, as much as she does that we need to reduce our waste, that I also need the convenience of a Swiffer.
One day, my 10 year old neighbor came by to borrow something for his parents. He saw the swiffer #15 that my grandma just brought me sitting to the side of my kitchen. He gleefully asked if he could try my swiffer, as if it was a shiny new skateboard. I told him to go for it, and delightfully he cleaned the floor for about 10 minutes before announcing 'this sucks' and left. At least the swiffer got out for a spin.
If something as simple as a stick with some fuzzy paper on the bottom can get people this excited in this day and age of ipods and ATV's, TV has got to be more powerful than we anticipated. Or maybe the dust bunnies are clogging up my brain.
Counterfeit Communities
The environmental movement is using the internet to mobilize communities and…should we say it, dance for donors ever more. But “ To what end?” has only begun to be explored. Good tackles this question and adds some interesting context to what has been observed as “Slacktivism”.
We have all received e-mail petitions or invitations to facebook groups which vie for our attention, even if all they need is a brief moment of acknowledgement. Sometimes we click the link to sign the petition, only to notice that we have to click more and read such and such. We may be at work, at a meeting, or just surfing at home – but something else like the phone ringing will distract our attention and then ‘zap’. The site is minimized and then lost in the shuffle with the rest of the web traffic. We may join a facebook invitation to ‘save the whales’ or challenge others to make a virtual vegetable garden. But what else is the internet offering us in way of making true strides towards respecting our planet?
Some excellent questions are raised about the communities we form to help create the change. Who is the internet reaching out to? Is their a correlation between those who use the internet for various activities, and a higher positive environmental attitude?
Of the findings of the research related to the article Internet Use and Environmental Attitudes: A Social Capital Approach by Jennifer Good, there are two things that stand out for me are:
1) Those who search for news on-line are apt to have less knowledge or empathy towards the environmental concerns of today.
2) Those with a higher recognition of the environmental consequences of today use the internet for environmental purposes.
First, it is interesting to note where the news is coming from. On-line ‘news’ in the traditional sense is essentially a mirror for what we see on TV. And the research that does exist on the content of that news remarks that environmental content caps at about 10%. There are many blogs that provide commentary on news, offering environmental slant. But what are we (internet users) really learning about environmental impacts beyond just the bold facts and questioning.
It is often that we hear of people traveling to developing nations, and coming back with this eye opening experience about the way ‘the rest of the world lives’. We often hear about the devastation, hunger, starvation may people across the world experience. We see it in block buster films, and on TV commercials for World Vision. Brangelina have a collection of children from different countries, all of which are ‘less fortunate’. But at the end of the day, do we elect our government based on their support to contribute .07% of the GDP as promised by many world leaders to Make Povery History. It seems that even for some of the most compassionate and respectful people, it isn’t until we see with our own two eyes that we are not truly affected.
Do we need to see the oil spilling into our own yards, or the ground rapidly melting beneath our feet to be truly affected?
The second item I mention above seems pretty obvious. Of course those with a higher awareness of environmental issues use the internet more for environmental purposes (or report they do). It is what those purposes are that interest me. For instance, I receive World Environment News on a daily basis. I read it. But it does little to make things seem more manageable to drop by jobs, get a sitter, and fight to get the green party elected so that we can expedite the development of renewable energy. As I mentioned at the start of this post - is signing the petition and forwarding that around able to make an impact?
Avaaz. Org is a prime example of mobilizing people with use of the internet. They show up with a mass petition from around the globe, and promise ‘stunts’ to show that their actions have teeth.
I signed there petition last time around, for something related to an international conference with government heads, and I completely forget what it was for… I think I made a difference though.
I agree with the article in the way it questions where we are allocating our social capital. Are we building relationships, trust and developing community to support us through the transitions we will have to make in the reality of climate change, increasing poverty etc. etc.??? Avaaz hasn’t offered to help me with a Community Energy Plan for Mount Pleasant. Neither has the Sierra Club. I know I will need to weave a different web, if I intend to put a new spin on the possibilities we can build for the future. But I will e-mail those in my hood to find a time to hold our monthly meeting.
We have all received e-mail petitions or invitations to facebook groups which vie for our attention, even if all they need is a brief moment of acknowledgement. Sometimes we click the link to sign the petition, only to notice that we have to click more and read such and such. We may be at work, at a meeting, or just surfing at home – but something else like the phone ringing will distract our attention and then ‘zap’. The site is minimized and then lost in the shuffle with the rest of the web traffic. We may join a facebook invitation to ‘save the whales’ or challenge others to make a virtual vegetable garden. But what else is the internet offering us in way of making true strides towards respecting our planet?
Some excellent questions are raised about the communities we form to help create the change. Who is the internet reaching out to? Is their a correlation between those who use the internet for various activities, and a higher positive environmental attitude?
Of the findings of the research related to the article Internet Use and Environmental Attitudes: A Social Capital Approach by Jennifer Good, there are two things that stand out for me are:
1) Those who search for news on-line are apt to have less knowledge or empathy towards the environmental concerns of today.
2) Those with a higher recognition of the environmental consequences of today use the internet for environmental purposes.
First, it is interesting to note where the news is coming from. On-line ‘news’ in the traditional sense is essentially a mirror for what we see on TV. And the research that does exist on the content of that news remarks that environmental content caps at about 10%. There are many blogs that provide commentary on news, offering environmental slant. But what are we (internet users) really learning about environmental impacts beyond just the bold facts and questioning.
It is often that we hear of people traveling to developing nations, and coming back with this eye opening experience about the way ‘the rest of the world lives’. We often hear about the devastation, hunger, starvation may people across the world experience. We see it in block buster films, and on TV commercials for World Vision. Brangelina have a collection of children from different countries, all of which are ‘less fortunate’. But at the end of the day, do we elect our government based on their support to contribute .07% of the GDP as promised by many world leaders to Make Povery History. It seems that even for some of the most compassionate and respectful people, it isn’t until we see with our own two eyes that we are not truly affected.
Do we need to see the oil spilling into our own yards, or the ground rapidly melting beneath our feet to be truly affected?
The second item I mention above seems pretty obvious. Of course those with a higher awareness of environmental issues use the internet more for environmental purposes (or report they do). It is what those purposes are that interest me. For instance, I receive World Environment News on a daily basis. I read it. But it does little to make things seem more manageable to drop by jobs, get a sitter, and fight to get the green party elected so that we can expedite the development of renewable energy. As I mentioned at the start of this post - is signing the petition and forwarding that around able to make an impact?
Avaaz. Org is a prime example of mobilizing people with use of the internet. They show up with a mass petition from around the globe, and promise ‘stunts’ to show that their actions have teeth.
I signed there petition last time around, for something related to an international conference with government heads, and I completely forget what it was for… I think I made a difference though.
I agree with the article in the way it questions where we are allocating our social capital. Are we building relationships, trust and developing community to support us through the transitions we will have to make in the reality of climate change, increasing poverty etc. etc.??? Avaaz hasn’t offered to help me with a Community Energy Plan for Mount Pleasant. Neither has the Sierra Club. I know I will need to weave a different web, if I intend to put a new spin on the possibilities we can build for the future. But I will e-mail those in my hood to find a time to hold our monthly meeting.
Realism meets Post Modernism
And now the election of Bush makes sense.
Richard Right’s, Slow History of Progress is verry, verrry interesting. I can’t wait to read The Inheritors By William Golding. ( Who also wrote Lord of the Flies – I didn’t know that) - that is when I feel like reading isn’t the only thing between me and a decent nights sleep.
He questions how the historical evolution of humans played out – through natural selection or genocide.
But his comment regarding the nature of the political rights motives were particularly interesting. And something that has been eating at me all day. But as few people were able to access the mp3 (it needs real player), I felt somewhat alone in my discomfort.
Project New American Century lays out exactly the type of insistence that certain society has to propagate their position on the evolutionary scale. Where many of us dream of peace, there are those who see the world as ‘eat or be eaten.’ It is a comforting notion that this ‘realist’ way of thinking may be evolutionary baggage that has been carried over by our distant past, rather that part of the wave of the future. (fingers crossed).
I think Chomsky (and you Jennifer) would like this quote I pulled:
“Human word is the power that orders chaos” (or is at least what we grab onto in an attempt)
Richard Right’s, Slow History of Progress is verry, verrry interesting. I can’t wait to read The Inheritors By William Golding. ( Who also wrote Lord of the Flies – I didn’t know that) - that is when I feel like reading isn’t the only thing between me and a decent nights sleep.
He questions how the historical evolution of humans played out – through natural selection or genocide.
But his comment regarding the nature of the political rights motives were particularly interesting. And something that has been eating at me all day. But as few people were able to access the mp3 (it needs real player), I felt somewhat alone in my discomfort.
Project New American Century lays out exactly the type of insistence that certain society has to propagate their position on the evolutionary scale. Where many of us dream of peace, there are those who see the world as ‘eat or be eaten.’ It is a comforting notion that this ‘realist’ way of thinking may be evolutionary baggage that has been carried over by our distant past, rather that part of the wave of the future. (fingers crossed).
I think Chomsky (and you Jennifer) would like this quote I pulled:
“Human word is the power that orders chaos” (or is at least what we grab onto in an attempt)
Silent Spring for a Wealthy Winter
I have not read Silent Spring. I read was required for our readings. But I did receive it this past Christmas after talking to a friend about how I really should read it. After all, had it not been written, I wonder where we would be. (Plus it was a women who wrote it, and not the white males we see running the show everywhere – mostly).
Anyways, I will read it.
But her quote: “This is an era of specialists, each of who sees his own problem and is unaware of or intolerant of the larger frame into which it fits. It is also an era dominated by industry, in which the right to make a dollar at whatever cost is seldom challenged”
She acknowledges this and writes her book, speaking out in her profession among all the controversy and chaos that would ensue. What courage!
She is obviously brilliant as the solutions she promotes at the end of the book are far advanced, even in today’s standards as we eek our way to develop biodynamic systems of food production.
We need people charged with that kind of courage as we move forward! I want that courage. But it helped that she was specialized at something, that she had a credibility to her convictions. I see people like Naomi Klein with no formal undergrad and I think, I don’t need to be a PHD to make a go at it.
Where can I grab the courage to speak out on something.
This course has taught me a lot about speaking out. I feel much more confident that I could voice my opposition to the things that are happening which are so blatantly wrong, harmful and devastating. I have anyways, but not as often or eloquently as I would like.
I sincerely believe we have to stop helping to produce the ridiculous wealth of so few people. Exxon closed out with a 45 billion dollar profit last year.
I can tell you they are not going try and buy solar panels with that capital. They are going to explore for more oil (see link).
The Co-operative model of organizing seems like such a great way to look at how we can begin to override this crazy economic system and get to producing and consuming at levels that satisfy our needs and not the pockets of a handful of ridiculously wealthy folks.
I can hear the dissent as I write this, “All that money bought you the free medicare”. “That capital brought you the rapid development of the computer you are typing on”.
And to some degree this is true. But it will also be the exacerbation of many of the world’s already burgeoning problems if we don’t learn how to manage our progress.
We are creative people, proving to be capable or anything – even masterfully orchestrating our own demise. I have no doubt that we can find a better way to communicate and design mobility that doesn’t toxify our planet. (toxify is a new word I made up). Guy Dauncey is looking into telepathy and clairvoyance, rendering e-waste obsolete.
Anyways, I will read it.
But her quote: “This is an era of specialists, each of who sees his own problem and is unaware of or intolerant of the larger frame into which it fits. It is also an era dominated by industry, in which the right to make a dollar at whatever cost is seldom challenged”
She acknowledges this and writes her book, speaking out in her profession among all the controversy and chaos that would ensue. What courage!
She is obviously brilliant as the solutions she promotes at the end of the book are far advanced, even in today’s standards as we eek our way to develop biodynamic systems of food production.
We need people charged with that kind of courage as we move forward! I want that courage. But it helped that she was specialized at something, that she had a credibility to her convictions. I see people like Naomi Klein with no formal undergrad and I think, I don’t need to be a PHD to make a go at it.
Where can I grab the courage to speak out on something.
This course has taught me a lot about speaking out. I feel much more confident that I could voice my opposition to the things that are happening which are so blatantly wrong, harmful and devastating. I have anyways, but not as often or eloquently as I would like.
I sincerely believe we have to stop helping to produce the ridiculous wealth of so few people. Exxon closed out with a 45 billion dollar profit last year.
I can tell you they are not going try and buy solar panels with that capital. They are going to explore for more oil (see link).
The Co-operative model of organizing seems like such a great way to look at how we can begin to override this crazy economic system and get to producing and consuming at levels that satisfy our needs and not the pockets of a handful of ridiculously wealthy folks.
I can hear the dissent as I write this, “All that money bought you the free medicare”. “That capital brought you the rapid development of the computer you are typing on”.
And to some degree this is true. But it will also be the exacerbation of many of the world’s already burgeoning problems if we don’t learn how to manage our progress.
We are creative people, proving to be capable or anything – even masterfully orchestrating our own demise. I have no doubt that we can find a better way to communicate and design mobility that doesn’t toxify our planet. (toxify is a new word I made up). Guy Dauncey is looking into telepathy and clairvoyance, rendering e-waste obsolete.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
CLIMATE CHANGE TODAY!
From the Mass Communications & Society Journal, I bring your attention to the article, Are Issue-Cycles Culturally Constructed? A Comparison of French and American Coverage of Global Climate Change
To be brief, Yes! In this instance we can conclude that French and US media asserts different angles in the media to gain attention to the topic of Global Climate Change. What is particularly useful is what they find influences these different constructs.
While at first it seems sort of obvious, what’s “hot” for Americans is not necessarily “hot” for French people. Americans love controversy and the bigger the soap opera the better.
In discussing this article with my fellow Cohort at MEEC, one person offered an explanation to the French scheme of reporting, which the articles identifies as more inclined to be relayed in context with international agreements, in consideration of France bargaining for power and co-operation within the European Union.
I would tend to sum up my impression and what I found particularly valuable, by picking up the reference in the first part of the conclusion that states “journalistic culture can be a major influence on the coverage of an international environmental issue such as global warming”. Within the study, the limitations placed on both the French and US journalist practices were noted and it was interpreted that French journalists have “less autonomy from power elites in France than the US.”
I would question here who and what we consider to be the “powerful elites” in both nations. On one hand it is implied that French government is tied to that elite. In the United States, the role corporations play in the development of domestic and international policy poses significant questions when we consider who is behind the scenes, pulling the strings at the puppetry of reporting.
I would be more interested to explore how it is that investigative journalism is supposed to represent both sides, despite the fact that the body of evidence weighs heavier on one side than the other. Such is the case with the IPCC. Here we have a international community of scientists who are dedicated to investigating the various life supporting mechanisms of planet, and consolidating these finding to present a comprehensive, and comprehensible report. On the other side, you have a few “maverick” scientists funded by corporations raising dissent. How is that representative of popular opinion? If the air waves were a country under the parliamentary system, they would not even have a seat in house – they would be the Green Party of Canada!
What I would really like to know, is what journalistic conditions are ideal for reporting global catastrophes?
To this before mentioned articles credit, I think it is an important part of the puzzle in understanding the big picture question posted above.
Interesting Stuff...
Brossard, D., Shanahan, J., & McComas, K. (2004). Are issue-cycles culturally constructed? A comparison of French and American coverage of global climate change. Mass Communication & Society, 7(3), 359-377.
To be brief, Yes! In this instance we can conclude that French and US media asserts different angles in the media to gain attention to the topic of Global Climate Change. What is particularly useful is what they find influences these different constructs.
While at first it seems sort of obvious, what’s “hot” for Americans is not necessarily “hot” for French people. Americans love controversy and the bigger the soap opera the better.
In discussing this article with my fellow Cohort at MEEC, one person offered an explanation to the French scheme of reporting, which the articles identifies as more inclined to be relayed in context with international agreements, in consideration of France bargaining for power and co-operation within the European Union.
I would tend to sum up my impression and what I found particularly valuable, by picking up the reference in the first part of the conclusion that states “journalistic culture can be a major influence on the coverage of an international environmental issue such as global warming”. Within the study, the limitations placed on both the French and US journalist practices were noted and it was interpreted that French journalists have “less autonomy from power elites in France than the US.”
I would question here who and what we consider to be the “powerful elites” in both nations. On one hand it is implied that French government is tied to that elite. In the United States, the role corporations play in the development of domestic and international policy poses significant questions when we consider who is behind the scenes, pulling the strings at the puppetry of reporting.
I would be more interested to explore how it is that investigative journalism is supposed to represent both sides, despite the fact that the body of evidence weighs heavier on one side than the other. Such is the case with the IPCC. Here we have a international community of scientists who are dedicated to investigating the various life supporting mechanisms of planet, and consolidating these finding to present a comprehensive, and comprehensible report. On the other side, you have a few “maverick” scientists funded by corporations raising dissent. How is that representative of popular opinion? If the air waves were a country under the parliamentary system, they would not even have a seat in house – they would be the Green Party of Canada!
What I would really like to know, is what journalistic conditions are ideal for reporting global catastrophes?
To this before mentioned articles credit, I think it is an important part of the puzzle in understanding the big picture question posted above.
Interesting Stuff...
Brossard, D., Shanahan, J., & McComas, K. (2004). Are issue-cycles culturally constructed? A comparison of French and American coverage of global climate change. Mass Communication & Society, 7(3), 359-377.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Environmental Communication Research - Will a journal aid the journey?
I would have taken for granted that a journal specifically dedicated to debating and testing hypothesis related to Environmental Communication Research exists.
It just seems like such an obvious piece to analyze. What will bridge the gap between environmental science and environmental policy?
(and in flies comes Al Gore with his red cape)
I assumed the article, The literature of environmental communication, from the Public Understanding of Science magazine was about how the story of Environmental Communications is pervading (judging by the title). I assumed it would look more specifically at the international reaction of the IPCC reports, as this paper is following the third assessment (now that I have noted the date of the article publications at 2002).
As a Canadian I feel constantly alerted and warned about the increasing likelihood of the impending consequences of climate change, (droughts, floods, rising sea levels and loss of shoreline property). How is the story being told beyond the impact reports?? How are people receiving and responding to these stories?
As this article is 7 years old, I hope to discover that there is in fact a journal dedicated to the peer review study of how the world is absorbing climate change information. Oh, whatever, I will just google it.
This jounal is brand spankin’ new and looking for submissions to its 3rd volume.
Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture
I cannot really think of a more appropriate title.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Global Convenience Store
"Just another tequila sunrise..."
Sherese: "What do you feel like eating tonight"
Lydia: "Macaroni - but I want to put in the cheese."
Sherese: "How about we go for sushi. You like the seaweed snack from Super Store. Do you want to try sushi? We can practice using chopsticks."
Lydia: "No, how about we go have butter chicken."
Sherese: done.
The dialogue above I have written to illustrate the title of this post, global convenience store. Back in the 80's my mom would just throw some veggies and beef in the electric wok if we were going to get exotic. Now I simply walk out the front door and can sample a variety of foods from a plethora of countries. True, I now live in the city opposed to the small town of CR. But most of us are (The mill in CR closed down last November).
I like the comparison McKibben makes from the term Global Village to reveal what it certainly seems to be - A Global Convenience Store. I think of Sun Quest holidays and how for one week of every year, the resort beaches of Cuba are as much nature as most of my friends have seen in that fiscal year. FOR $1500 DOLLARS YOU CAN DO PRETTY MUCH ANYTHING YOU COULD WANT TO ON A BEACH. (Or as my daughter told me, "Mama if we go to Mexico, we can have free drinks) I have never been on an all inclusive, and I imagine I am far too tainted in my consideration of the various ways I have come to understand how this pastime is depleting the earths resources. As righteous as that sounds, it is true. The industrially developed nations comprise 20% of the worlds population, but consume %80 of the worlds resources. After a few more mojitos, I might even tell start quizzing you on whether you think men or women have the largest carbon footprint, and you better not get it wrong. (Although when I was asked this question, I thought it women because of the Soccer Mom image -SUV, driving kids around here and there). But men flying business class *slap head in wake up motion* of course.
Point being, and what I think he gets at, is how the electronic environment supplants our interaction with the places we inhabit. Now of course, I find this fascinating right now because of the emergence of internet, googling, on-line communities, chats, networking and second life. (a virtual world where people have avatars and can act out many many scenarios). But McKibben himself is now organizing a global campaign on the internet to bring the "global village' to a consensus that this planet needs desperate action to reduce out current 450 plus ppm of CO2 to 350. McKibben, what is that all about?
Monday, July 20, 2009
What do time and bats have in common?
Cyclical vs. linear time. Interesting, interesting. I don't get it. Can we have both?? That would be a spiral I suppose.
McKibben talks about Economists who are worried about building sustainable societies that revolve around a finite amount of goods, using the same amount of resources year after year. He mentions that this can only happen when we change the parameters of the game of growth, that is measured in relation to how it progress with time.
I had the please of meeting with a past cohort from the MAEEC course who does a lot of work in the area of sustainable transportation, mainly with youth. When talking with him about the cycle of my program and the grant duration, he began to shift the programming into seasons, rather than talk of "quarters". By changing the language of how the program would be developed and delivered, it became more about the people I was trying to reach rather then how to designate funding.
I like how McKibben brings this into the book "The Missing Age of Information", and challenges us to think about an electronic environment of time. I look at this blog post and can see the date stamp, and how I have the ability to post ideas and thoughts from today as if they were from my past. How can this medium distort our historical records I wonder??
McKibben talks about Economists who are worried about building sustainable societies that revolve around a finite amount of goods, using the same amount of resources year after year. He mentions that this can only happen when we change the parameters of the game of growth, that is measured in relation to how it progress with time.
I had the please of meeting with a past cohort from the MAEEC course who does a lot of work in the area of sustainable transportation, mainly with youth. When talking with him about the cycle of my program and the grant duration, he began to shift the programming into seasons, rather than talk of "quarters". By changing the language of how the program would be developed and delivered, it became more about the people I was trying to reach rather then how to designate funding.
I like how McKibben brings this into the book "The Missing Age of Information", and challenges us to think about an electronic environment of time. I look at this blog post and can see the date stamp, and how I have the ability to post ideas and thoughts from today as if they were from my past. How can this medium distort our historical records I wonder??
Sunday, July 19, 2009
We are All prey
A new favorite short clip for me these days is "Target Women". Sarah Haskin does an excellent job of exposing the type of messages that assume a certain stereotype of women, even today.
The Age of Missing Information, written in the early 90's is interesting in that in depicts just how far the content on the air waves will go to convince you of adopting a reality they want you to have. Where have things gone in the past 17 years? Now when we go to the washroom at the local White Spot I stare at the Pantene Pro V commercial that I probably saw watching "Wake Up Vancouver" and in the Daily newspaper on my way to work. Before I go to bed, I might watch CSI and see an ad for that same product 3 times. My capacity to deal with various needs is crippled under the abundance of stuff that I am told I need. Better hair, better job, better family, better butt...the list goes on. Amidst this all, and the pressure to operate in an urbanized society, do I really need to go outside??
My Ecological Identity tells me that I do, that we all do. The strongest bonds I have made with people have occurred in the outdoors. That point of reference for building enduring relationships has been irreplaceable. I suspect that if most activists spent as much time together outdoors as they do brainstorming campaign strategies in the boardroom, much more would be accomplished in the long run.
Friday, July 17, 2009
The Alter of Television
I love this book! It speaks so much to how much of my life experience has been related to others. (Sad and unoriginal, but true). “TV the great reference.” Recently my father (who never had an issue with expressing himself to say the least) made reference to Howie Mandel. While the name sounded familiar, I couldn’t put a face or context to him at all. His response was, “Where the hell have you been? You are so frign’ out of touch.” Granted he had knocked a few whiskey down, which always seems to make for a livelier conversation, but his comment is representative of what I have experienced much of my life.
Not identifying with television, either through popular phrases like Bart Simpson’s “Don’t have a cow man!” or as McKibben talk about wit the Brady Bunch theme song is a huge offence to people. Not sharing in these experiences can lead youth to be ostracized, and adults left out around the water cooler. A television saaviness is akin to a Christian or Muslims ability to pick-up on parables from the bible or Koran.
I learned to look convincingly disappointed and inquire with sincerity "Who did get voted off the island, I go to yoga on Thursday nights." (really I don't but whatever. This ability has protected my social capital in most instances. Especially in new workplaces. Thankfully I now know how to pull off a don't give a damn attitude by spicing it up with some self deprecating humour. I don't have cable, and now feel disturbed watching most of what is on. Though I do appreciate South Park, American Dad, Futorama, and The Simpsons (But as a good friend says, "Simpson's should bow out gracefully and let the offspring take over.")
Why do we like these animations? I always thought it interesting to witness how these shows who so obviously, (and to some degree less obviously), point fun at our cultural nuances are so mainstream, accepted, and continue to evolve. We like that satire I suppose, because of the truth associated with much of the commentary. Honesty is just so refreshing! After bombardments by Adds claiming we are not good enough unless our hair nestles like silk on our peaches and cream body, the raw humour these satirical animations provides allows us to catch our breath and think, "Everyone is F@#$C*d, it is not just me." Now please excuse me, I have to catch the Daily show with John Stewart to bone up on my American politics.
Not identifying with television, either through popular phrases like Bart Simpson’s “Don’t have a cow man!” or as McKibben talk about wit the Brady Bunch theme song is a huge offence to people. Not sharing in these experiences can lead youth to be ostracized, and adults left out around the water cooler. A television saaviness is akin to a Christian or Muslims ability to pick-up on parables from the bible or Koran.
I learned to look convincingly disappointed and inquire with sincerity "Who did get voted off the island, I go to yoga on Thursday nights." (really I don't but whatever. This ability has protected my social capital in most instances. Especially in new workplaces. Thankfully I now know how to pull off a don't give a damn attitude by spicing it up with some self deprecating humour. I don't have cable, and now feel disturbed watching most of what is on. Though I do appreciate South Park, American Dad, Futorama, and The Simpsons (But as a good friend says, "Simpson's should bow out gracefully and let the offspring take over.")
Why do we like these animations? I always thought it interesting to witness how these shows who so obviously, (and to some degree less obviously), point fun at our cultural nuances are so mainstream, accepted, and continue to evolve. We like that satire I suppose, because of the truth associated with much of the commentary. Honesty is just so refreshing! After bombardments by Adds claiming we are not good enough unless our hair nestles like silk on our peaches and cream body, the raw humour these satirical animations provides allows us to catch our breath and think, "Everyone is F@#$C*d, it is not just me." Now please excuse me, I have to catch the Daily show with John Stewart to bone up on my American politics.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Customer Appreciation
July 15th
Just bought my copy of McKibben today…finally. Bizarre to note that when I checked my e-mail later I received an e-mail from McKibben himself. Not because I was his one millionth customer. He is lead on the global campaign www.350.org. 350 is the ‘safe’ level of carbon to exist in our atmosphere without boiling the planet. Not many Canadians have heard of it though (not surprising as we are not the quickest to pick up trends). I think this messaging will be promising to pressure the politically privileged. I can’t say exactly why yet, but I hope to get into that when I get to RRU.
Just bought my copy of McKibben today…finally. Bizarre to note that when I checked my e-mail later I received an e-mail from McKibben himself. Not because I was his one millionth customer. He is lead on the global campaign www.350.org. 350 is the ‘safe’ level of carbon to exist in our atmosphere without boiling the planet. Not many Canadians have heard of it though (not surprising as we are not the quickest to pick up trends). I think this messaging will be promising to pressure the politically privileged. I can’t say exactly why yet, but I hope to get into that when I get to RRU.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)