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.
