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?
