Environmental Justice and Legitimacy

Discussing environmental justice (or the lack thereof) is a very frustrating topic for me. Even though I grew up in a fairly clean area, many of my dearest friends have grown up in some of the direst places in America. That is one reason I have become more of an advocate than the impartial journalist. When my stance on environmental issues become known during political conversations people treat me much differently, and this exactly how the “NIMBYs” and “hysterical Hispanic housewives” must feel. I almost feel that journalists in general have been turned into “indecorous voices” as well. This is probably one reason why journalists’ credibility is always challenged when it comes to environmental science reporting.

            I honestly don’t think a group of old, fat, white, male politicians sit around in a circle discussing ways to ruin poor peoples’ lives and how to create the most pollution in poor areas. They’re simply guilty of the “not in my backyard” mentality, they don’t have to deal with the problem of pollution – and they want to keep it that way – so they don’t care about pollution in someone else’s backyard. The topics of pollution simply cannot be solved by the time reelection rolls around. Officials are simply too greedy and lazy to really give a damn (sorry for the vulgarity, but that’s just my personal opinion).

            Another thing that really causes tensions for environmental justice communication is the concept of risk assessments, what we discussed last week. When an environmental problem is not in one’s own backyard, it is easier to take a more relaxed approach to assessing the risks.

            Officials view public calls for help much differently than how they view scientific or technical resources. That is mainly because, through funding, scientific facts and studies can be manipulated in many ways. There’s no doubt that scientists play a large role in environmental communication and understanding. But just as there might be biased journalists or public figures, so too is there biased scientists and officials. I don’t think there can be any solid determination of truth until science and environmental studies (from independent sources) find their way into our nation’s form of education.

Discussion questions: How might one “violate a norm” when speaking with government officials, and how can one prepare him or herself when entering into public forums? Can they?

As communication becomes an increasing part of scientists’ job descriptions, how will they shape the form of science communication? Would this be for the better or not?

What shapes scientific culture that has made it prone to manipulation? How can this be mitigated?

 

Risk Communication

In this week’s assigned reading, the chapters discussed risk communication, or, as defined in Environmental Communication, “any public or private communication that informs individuals about the existence, nature, form, severity, or acceptability of risks” (206). It is no surprise that there are different takes from risk when it comes to technical perspectives and laymen’s perspectives. It seems that those that are directly affected by something have a much stricter concept of risk than the officials determining the acceptable risk. I have notice these different perspectives while conducting interviews for our final presentation. I am researching the bottom coal ash and its use as skid control for roads. I have spoken with Geoff Buckley, a local professor who lives on a road covered with coal ash, and a representative from the Southeast Ohio division of the Ohio EPA. Buckley is obviously much more critical of the coal ash because it affects him directly, while Burce Goff, the official from the EPA, seemed a lot less concerned about the chemical properties of bottom coal ash. As stated within the texts, risk assessment can be very different between technical perspectives and cultural ones.

                As I was reading about the parents of sick children approaching government officials about pollution and health at Love Canal and Friendly Hills, I was appalled by how little concern official showed – especially when officials wrote off the mass number of cancer cases in Friendly Hills as something “due to chance” (215). In many ways, I see risk communication being much more related to factors of environmental justice than to media studies. The presented cultural approaches to risk communication showed the many ways in which officials seem to reduce the importance of what affected people experience. I was particularly upset by the section on the assumptions of the “irrational individual.” While people may be more critical of their environments than of their own living habits (such as smoking for example), that is not enough to assume that everyone exaggerates what is happening around them.

                I am very disappointed by the quality of media coverage on risk issues. I feel that because environmental science journalists are relying so heavily on experts and officials, they are receiving a very one-sided view of risk. When the views of those affected are portrayed, the stories tend to be much more sensational than informative. I think this is where communication needs to take a “balanced” approach when reporting the issues, and that is to say that journalists really need to get both sides of the story. Once both sides have been heard, then journalists need to refer to public records to weigh in the evidence. Thankfully, alternative forms of media are emerging because, as we discussed last week, many characteristics of how the mainstream media works really influences the way environmental topics are covered, and usually for the worst.

Discussion: What do the media need to do in order to communicate risk more clearly and accurately? In what ways do the different approaches to risk assessment conflict, and what can be done to achieve better understanding between officials and the public?

Reading Response to Science in Public (Ch. 5 and 10) and

            The fifth chapters of both Jane Gregory and Steve Miller’s Science in Public and Robert Cox’s Environmental Communication discuss the factors that determine media coverage of environmental issues. Miller and Gregory suggest that by relying too heavily on scientists for accuracy of facts, journalists allowed scientists to determine what is or isn’t reported. They state that studying scientific or environmental media is really about studying journalism. Most of the research referred to in this chapter came from studies based on newspaper media. Since news media is very event and timeliness-driven, it becomes very difficult for environmental journalists to find a place for their stories. Most topics of environmentalism do not circulate around an event and are usually occurrences that take place over long periods of time. Also, there is limited space in newspapers, and usually environmental issues are too complex for the typical 12-inch article. When people want to read science news, they want facts, background, and explanations, but normally there just isn’t the space. Science journalists are being expected to do more with less. 

In Environmental Communication, Cox explores the dynamic relationship between journalists and the media’s audience. Journalists are supposed to be the gatekeepers of information and agenda-setters; they filter what information reaches the audience, and while the media do not tell the public what to think, they do tell the public what to think about. Studies that Cox refers to show that people attribute importance to issues based on the amount of media coverage an issue receives. However, another study referenced states that “heavy media exposure is sometimes correlated with lower levels of environmental concern” (Cox 189).

Cox also discusses the various ways in which nature is portrayed. Those include nature as a victim, a sick patient, a problem, and as a resource. Two themes surrounding attitudes toward the environment are symbolic domestication and anthropocentric-resourcist ideology. Both of these themes look at nature by mainly focusing on its use to humans.

Another topic Cox discusses is the use of alternative media for transmitting information. In many ways the mainstream media – TV and cable news networks, entertainment programs, commercial films, newspapers, magazines, advertisements, and radio broadcasts – has limited the amount of coverage it presents on environmental issues. This can be attributed to the many aspects of journalistic style that Gregory and Miller mentioned: limitations of space, need for simplicity, concise wording, etc. However, there are forms of alternative media emerging that is starting to bridge the gap of ignorance between the general public and the scientific, environmental community. These forms of media are categorized as Internet news, Web TV, blogs, independent journalists, and environmental groups.

 

Discussion questions:

Prominent representations of nature, according to M. Meisner, include the themes of nature as a victim, as a sick patient, as a problem, as a resource. Do you think there are others? If so, how are they portrayed through the media?

 

A study, according to the Cox text, has shown that heavy media coverage of an issue actually leads to less concern about the issue. Where has this occurred within our modern issues? What should the media do to prevent this decrease of concern? Should the media do something?

 

In the conclusion of chapter 5, the authors of Science in Public argue that science media is not about science but instead is more about understanding journalism, do you agree with this statement, and why or why not?

Andrew Revkin Response

I cannot stand it when people assume that everyone from my generation was “born with a (computer) mouse in their hand.” This is certainly not the case or at least not with me. I like to believe that most of us actually grew up climbing trees and running around outside as children. I’m starting to doubt it though. For me it is always disheartening to hear about and witness everything becoming more mechanized and technological.

Sure, Email and cell phones bring us together. But why do we seem to be becoming increasingly out of touch with what is around us? We so often walk around with our cell phones or our iPod headphones attached to our ears that we hardly notice our surroundings anymore. I try to be optimistic, but I see our ways of receiving information becoming even more hi-tech than they are already, and the same will come to how we receive information about environmental issues.

In this rapidly globalizing world, and with technological advances helping to transmit information, people will be able to learn about the controversy surrounding Three Gorges Dam in China and the rapid and high-polluting industrialization in India. However, will people remember to look into their own backyard? As environmentalists stress the need to “act locally” – buy from local farmers, support local businesses, etc. – I hope people start to communicate information a little more locally as well. It would be nice to see a revival of traditional forms of communication such as word-of-mouth, because I believe that people won’t start really caring about nature and the environment until they are instilled with appreciation for the area around them.

Reading Response to Science in Public

                In the third and fourth chapters of Science in Public by Jane Gregory and Steve Miller, the authors discuss the popularization of science and the various ways in which science can be transferred to the public. The third question starts off by asking: Is making science publically assessable harmful to the scientific community and understanding, or is it beneficial? Scientific knowledge has been used as both a means for political power and social control. It is true that knowledge is power. That is why I think the popularization of scientific knowledge is an important part of becoming informed citizens. I understand there are a lot of dangers to popularization; the book uses TV shows such as The X-Files that misguide people from scientific fact. But falsities about all walks of life permeate through the media. If false facts are going to find their way into tabloid media, then it is even more important that the “truth” is covered as well.

                Having science in the public discourse is vital to making informed decisions; however, it is also very important for people to know where their facts are coming from. People using science for their own agendas has become a dangerous trend, especially in American politics. An example: I remember getting into an argument with my friend about abortion. She is an avid pro-life supporter while I am on the opposite side of the issue. She tried to argue with me that abortion should not be allowed in any case, even in rape. Her argument was that women cannot become pregnant when they are being raped because their bodies produce too much adrenaline for their eggs to become fertilized. As our discussion was taking place, I kept in mind how strongly tied my friend’s beliefs were to Christianity. I received “the talk” properly from my medical parents and was well aware that anytime there is a penis and vagina intermingling, babies become possible. Where am I going with this? I asked my friend to show me where she received her scientific facts and she showed me a Web site run by a very extremist Evangelical organization. It was “quack science” very effectively portrayed as objective, practical scientific research. My friend still doesn’t belief me – however this is still a perfect example of how the popularization of science has lead to the circulation of misinformation.

                Gregory and Miller also address this topic in the fourth chapter of Science in Public: is the general public capable of understanding science in its entirety? Many think not, and that people can acquire a sense of “scientific literacy,” but this doesn’t mean that people always fully understand science. While the general public might not fully understand scientific phenomenon (I certainly don’t consider myself scientifically knowledgeable) I think people are aware of the possibilities of mistakes in research, which may be why a kind of “anti-science” movement has developed. For the most part – people like my friend as an exception – people don’t believe everything they hear right away.

                Presenting scientific knowledge to the public should be continued, both by scientists and the media alike, because the people have a right to know what goes on in America’s science labs. Scientific research – while beyond the realm of most people’s aptitude – should not be regarded as something so “high class” that it can’t be shared with anyone who’s curious. It is the responsibility of everyone to make sure the passing of knowledge provides an accurate portrayal of what’s being presented. Scientists need to be open and clear about what they are doing, media personnel need to be precise, concise, and thorough in their research and writing, and the public receiving this information need to educate themselves about having a proper media diet.

 

Discussion questions:

How do Marxist and feminist views of scientific knowledge differ, and how does using the words “Marxist” and “feminist” shape the way people receive these theories?

How has A Brief History of Time and Science in History shaped the public’s attitude toward science? What about The Golem?

Reading Response to Environmental Communication

I’ve never really understood the concept of owning property. Apart of attaining a piece of paper that says, “This land is yours,” I don’t envision land as something one can claim. Land belongs to everyone – which is why peoples’ right to know is so important when it comes to environmental issues. In the third chapter of Environmental Communication, writer Robert Cox addresses the legal rights people have and how they can directly participate in the decision-making process with environmental decisions. As Cox described the right to know, the right to comment on proposals, and the right of standing in court, I couldn’t help but feel that these rights are not being practiced to their full potential. Either journalists are not doing their job of informing the public or corporations and businesses are not being upfront about planned proposals because it seems that public participation only occurs once a decision has been made. I can be completely wrong; this is just the impression I get from my observations. The book discusses how there should be transparency and accountability, but this doesn’t seem to show up until it’s too late.

            In Chapter 4 Cox explains that the public starts to feel these exact frustrations with the lack of transparency. This starts a trend toward alternative forms of addressing environmental issues. As more conservative court decisions started to make it harder for the public to acquire the right of standing in court, people tried different approaches to communication. People start to collaborate with others that are more like-minded, creating partnerships among people working toward the same goal. When I first thought of what Cox was discussing, a potential problem came to mind: What if everyone is already on the same page? Groupthink is a very dangerous thing. And it doesn’t matter how effective the communication may be, if the people with the money, or in other words the ones making the decisions, aren’t at the table then the collaboration may very well be for nothing. Collaboration is also not always possible – when has someone pro-choice ever agreed with a pro-lifer on abortion?

 

Discussion Questions:

-How would environmental advocacy have been different if the Supreme Court didn’t “issue a series of conservative rulings that narrowed the basis for citizens’ standing”?

-In what ways is collaboration effective, ineffective?

The future of communication: How I hope to see it

I cannot stand it when people assume that everyone from my generation was “born with a (computer) mouse in their hand.” This is certainly not the case or at lease not with me. I like to believe that most of us actually grew up climbing trees and running around outside as children. I’m starting to doubt it. That’s why it is always disheartening to hear about and witness everything becoming more mechanized and technological. Sure, Email and cell phones bring us together. But why do we seem to be becoming increasingly out of touch with what is around us? We so often walk around with our cell phones or our iPod headphones attached to our ears that we hardly notice our surroundings anymore.

I try to be optimistic, but I see our ways of receiving information becoming even more technological than they are already. The same will come to how we receive information about environmental issues. When it comes to actually understanding the environment, however, people need to turn away from all of the technology. As environmentalists start to stress the need to “act locally,” I hope people start to communicate a little more locally as well. Whatever happened to word-of-mouth?

I know many probably think that technology helps speed up communication. I think it just creates more confusion. It would be nice if we could just skip the technology and go straight into telepathy. That way we can turn away from our screens and actually start looking at one another again.

OU students, staff tour the World of Waste in Earth Month celebrations

Written by Katherine Bercik

The average New Yorker throws out 5.5 pounds of trash each day, and most of that trash is exported to Pennsylvania and Ohio, according to Elizabeth Royte’s investigative 2005 book Garbage Land: On the Secret Trail of Trash. The book poses a serious question: Where does our trash go?

In hopes of finding the answer to this question, students and staff at Ohio University piled into three small buses to investigate, participating in the World of Waste Tour last Friday.

The tour was a part of the Earth Month 2009 festivities that were hosted by the university’s Office of Sustainability. Led by Sustainability Coordinator Sonia Marcus, the World of Waste was a sequel to last year’s Cycle of Coal tour. Participants visited the university’s composting unit, an area sludge farm, landfill and recycling center.

OU Composting Unit:

Participants first saw the university’s in-vessel composting unit, which Marcus referred to as the “gem” of the Office of Sustainability. It is the largest composting unit on any U.S. college or campus and is able to turn food and landscape waste into soil within 14 days.

 According to the Office of Sustainability’s Web site, between January and April 3, the unit has composted 16.4 tons of food waste and 10 tons of yard waste. Landscape waste is added to mix to speed up and lessen the smell of the process.

By regulating the temperature and moisture within the machine, grounds crew employees can accelerate the decomposition process. The unit is composting food waste only from OU’s Central Foods Facility, receiving 800 to 1,000 pounds a day. Marcus stated that food waste from the dining halls will be included into the program by this fall.

The system employs other sustainable functions. The unit is powered by a 10-kilowatt solar photovoltaic array. Rainwater harvested through the pole barn roof is used for the unit’s moisture. The building that houses the unit is built for day lighting, the use of sunlight for lighting, and is insulated by silver panels. Even the pavement leading to the unit was reclaimed from old parking lots.

Sludge Farm:

The next World of Waste stop was a location that also tries to put waste to good use, though it may not be as appealing in sound, or theory. Ron Lucas, who works for the Athens City Street Maintenance Department, showed visitors a sludge farm near the Hocking River.

On sludge farms raw sewage waste – the sediment that settles within wastewater – is injected into the soil. The solid waste comes from the area’s wastewater treatment plant and is brought to the farm in a large tanker, where the sludge is pumped into the ground through a hose-like device. 

Lucas insisted that the process produces a “nice fertile soil,” but many of the World or Waste visitors did not appear convinced. The farm is used to grow corn and soybeans used in dog and cat food. Nothing produced on the farm is for human consumption.

Lucas stated that people would never eat anything grown from a sludge farm. This may be because the main ingredient for the fertilizer is human waste, and anything else that gets flushed down the toilet.

Athens Hocking Reclamation Landfill:

The third site visited was the landfill to which OU’s trash is transported – the Athens Hocking Reclamation Landfill. Site manager Mark Ruof showed visitors the landfill from both faraway and up close. One of the first things visitors noticed was the smell, which is caused by hydrogen sulfite emissions.

Ruof considered the landfill, which used to be an old strip mine, to be a small-medium size site. He stated that the area receives 200,000 tons of garbage annually during a “good year.” With the economic recession, the garbage collectors have not been gathering as much waste, Ruof said. As of now, the site is home to 3-4 million tons of waste.

It is important that people do not think of landfills as open dumps. Open dumps are large piles of trash above the land’s surface, landfills are places where trash is compressed and then buried underneath layers of sand, clay and dirt. Although a little safer than open dumps, there are still many environmental problems surrounding landfills.

The site does not produce enough methane for collection, and it has also experienced problems with leachate, which is a by-product of material decomposition that enters into the site’s groundwater. Ruof attributed this leachate to large layers of plastic within the landfill.

When visitors went down to the actual site, they were able to see a wide assortment of materials, from plastic bottles to old lawn mowers. One of the disheartening aspects about the landfill was how many materials there were that could have been recycled. This takes the World of Waste tour to its last stop.

Athens Hocking Recycling Center:

Of the material recovered at the Athens Hocking Recycling Center 98 percent of it is resold into the commodity market, said Roger Bails, the center’s manager. Although most of the material is sold back into the community, the center does not generate a large profit. The center is funded by OU and the city of Athens.

“You don’t go into (recycling) to make money,” Bails said.

The center collects regular materials such as aluminum, tin and steel cans, newspaper, cardboard and paperboard, but there are some restrictions on the types of plastics and glass collected. The center collects No. 1 and 2 plastic and clear, green or brown glass only.

Reading Response: Environmental Communication (Ch. 1-2)

                In the first two chapters of his book, Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere, writer Robert Cox discusses the field of communication and how it influences the way people view the environment. Cox argues that over the decades environmental communication has become its own particular field. He defines environmental communication as “the pragmatic and constitutive vehicle for our understanding of the environment as well as our relationships to the natural world; it is the symbol medium that we use in constructing environmental problems and in negotiating society’s different responses to them” (Cox 29).

                In the first chapter of his book, Cox introduces various types of groups that normally engage in environmental communication. They are citizens and community groups, environmental groups, scientists, corporations and business lobbyists, anti-environmental groups, and media and environmental journalists. The group that really caught my attention was the anti-environmental groups. Cox states that there has been a “green backlash” based on the idea that environmental regulations obstructs economic growth. The names of these various groups were very misleading – examples include Oregon Lands Coalition and National Wetlands Coalition. Had I not been provided with descriptions of these groups, I would have assumed that they advocated environmental conservation and preservation.

                This reminded me of an essay entitled “The Death of Environmentalism.” In this essay the writer stressed the need for clearer communication when trying to talk to people about the environment. For instance, some might not respond to “climate change” because change is generally accepted as a good thing. It’s the same with “global warming” – warming is also seen as something positive. This, along with what Cox wrote in his book, made me think about how important it is that people are precise with their word choice, especially when communicating environmental and scientific issues.

                In the second chapter of his book, Cox addressed the topic of using rhetoric as a form of communication. Rhetoric is a style of expression designed for persuasion. As people’s thoughts on the natural world changed, so did their ways of expressing the need for environmental protection. At first, people regarded the wilderness as a place to fear or loathe. With the help of artists and writers and John Muir (founder of the Audubon Society), people soon received a different picture of nature and started to see a need for preservation. After a while, the view of the natural world and people’s life within it changed from the need for preservation to the need for conservation – the sustainable use of the land’s resources. (This is another example of where there needs to be clarity with words; I thought conservation and preservation were synonyms.) As people began to view the environment as “not apart” from humanity, environmental health and environmental justice also became prominent topics of discussion and rhetoric. Environmental issues have gradually become more incorporated into our lives.

                This is just one reason why the need for clear, accurate communication is so vital to people’s understanding of the natural world. Cox discussed briefly the role of the media in agenda-setting, stressing the fact that visualization is beginning to play a bigger role in environmental communication.

Reading response No. 2: Ideas into Words

In the first three chapters of her book, Ideas into Words, science writer Elise Hancock discusses various techniques for interacting with and acquiring information from scientists. In the four following chapters, she addresses the science writing process, offering structural tips, editing methods, and ways to overcome writer’s block.

            In Chapter 4 Hancock mentioned different story arrangements, recommending that writers visualize a story as an organic structure. Possible story “shapes” include spirals, meanders, seedpods, and deltas. Spirals are usually when a story, or a topic, loops in and out of a narrative. Meanders describe a back-and-forth story structure; for example, covering a political issue and switching between a conservative and liberal source. Seedpods are a great structure for stories that might require a lot of explanations or include many anecdotes. Finally, deltas are effective story “shapes” when trying to describe a new phenomenon; the story spreads out as new fields of study and technologies accompany this phenomenon.

            Hancock included additional advice for tackling a writing assignment. This included having a clear opener, an interesting body, and a short closer. Hancock also recommended that writers envision the audience as one particular reader surrounded by a cluster of readers. Find out the information needs of the main reader; there is one character trait that will bring these readers together: curiosity.

            In the fifth and sixth chapters, Hancock addresses the actual writing and editing process. For both actions, Hancock recommended approaching the task with fresh eyes. This includes reading your work on printed paper or taking periodic breaks. Hancock does not recommend editing on the computer screen because it causes the writer to make back-and-forth changes. I certainly have this problem. The recommendations Hancock presented really made me think about my own process and how embarrassingly inefficient it is. I have a tendency to become married to certain sentences, quotes, and phrases, which also affects my writing method. I plan to try applying the “bone heap” technique and see if it works. I also plan to try noting the emotions I feel while reading my drafts. I usually only write fixes, but maybe I’ll find this approach more effective for me.

            The major tip that Hancock really seemed to emphasize was approaching each stage of the writing process with fresh eyes, a fresh perspective. She suggested jumping into the minds of the readers and editor.

            The last chapter of Hancock’s book was also full of reasonable advice. This section of the book discussed ways of approaching writer’s block. Hancock presented a series of questions writers should ask themselves. In my opinion I feel that the most important questions will be: What is the main idea of this story and why should readers care? I find these two questions always help me get back on track when I write.

            My overall impression of Hancock’s Idea into Words is for the most part positive. She certainly offered many tips that I will try applying in the future.

 

Questions: Do certain “organic shapes” work better for writing about specific fields of science (biology versus physics)? What should writers do in order to gage their readers’ needs?