The Real World

It is interesting to go back and look at these posts following the class discussions and reflect on how my perspectives on the readings have evolved.   Today we move away from fear and towards loss.  I can accept the notion that we need to come to grips with the fact that the world as we know it is going to change.  I’m not sure I like the description provided by McKibben (2010) who states that this is going to happen in “hideous and damaging ways,” but it is a distinct possibility.  Mckibben asserts that the first step is to “get real,” an assertion that is echoed by Moser (2012).

Is the promise of a better tomorrow an empty promise?  Perhaps it is time that we accept the mortality of our (Western Culture) way of life.  I can sort of relate to the perspective presented by Moser (2012) in that I am not the best flyer in the world, in fact I tend to adopt a rather fatalistic attitude while trapped 30 thousand feet in the air inside a thinly walled aluminium tube filled with fuel.  BUT, I think that in the unlikely event of an uncontrolled decent, I would be able to remain calm and accept the inevitable loss that was quickly approaching.  Maybe as Meadows (1997) states I would be able to remain grounded in my familiar anger and act as a positive agent of change (but would likely run out of time).

I think it’s true that we have a tendency in Western Culture to be uncomfortable with grief.  Maybe we need to soak in it for a while as a collective?  “When loss remains unspoken, neither grieved nor worked through, then change and adjustment cannot follow” (Moser 2012, p. 119).  We focus so much on fear, and that fear builds rigidity, whereas loss, according to Moser (2012), brings about a sense of acceptance and the ability to move forward.  Are we afraid to take the message all the way?  Then again, maybe Moser is overestimating our predictive powers, or maybe I’m just in denial.

The section on leaders was thought provoking.  Wouldn’t it be refreshing to hear a political leader speak to a real issue in the absence ideological clichés?

Perhaps we do not, as Gord Downie sings, “Live to survive our paradoxes,” but rather live to hold our paradoxes in tension.  The practical realities of life and the vision of systemic change (Moser, 2012) particularly resonated with me.  While on the topic of music, I agree with Klein (1940/1975) that “much creative and artistic work stems from the need for reparation.”  I have certainly found that music sounds a little richer, art looks a little more beautiful and wine tastes a little fuller when you allow yourself to come to terms with loss.

I find it hard to imagine loss; it is not an emotion that can easily be evoked in advance.  Climate change is steeped language that speaks to the future.  Randall (2009) expands on this in describing  the split off and projection into the future of fear over loss regarding climate change.  “The present continues to feel safe, but at the expense of the future becoming terrifying” (p. 120).

I enjoyed the words of Worden in the Randall (2009) paper that spoke to the necessity to accept loss, but at the same time offer hope.  “Life will never be the same again, but meaning may be restored and it may become possible to flourish once more” (p. 121).

Randall, R. (2009). Loss and climate change: the cost of parallel narratives. Ecopsychology, 1(3), 118-129.
Moser, S. (2012). Getting Real About It: Meeting the Psychological and Social Demands of a World in Distress. In Gallagher et al (eds.), Sage reference handbook of environmental leadership. Sage Publications.

Clear and Present Danger

You would think that fear is the ultimate motivator.  I used to live in a relatively sketchy neighborhood in Montreal where I would go for late night runs (due to time constraints) and would spend the majority of my run under the assumption that someone was about to jump out and attack me at any given moment.  This fear fortunately never came to fruition, but my 10km night runs were usually 10 minutes faster than the same run under the protection of daylight.  The illusion of protection provided by a consumer based urban existence in the face of climate change seems to have slowed our collective response time by far more than 10 minutes.

I found it interesting that that the O’Neill and Nicholson-Cole (2009) article began by stating that 30% of the UK thinks that “crime, health, economic concerns, and education are issues government should deal with, while just 1% stating the same about climate change” (p.357), when in fact those issues are all environmental issues.  Not really the crux of the issue, but it is important to look at what we define as environmental issues and I suppose this article is really addressing the detachment felt by the general public with regard to climate change.  As this study takes place in the UK, I’m sure there are many who would welcome global warming (although I see in the study they accounted for a relatively insignificant proportion of the sample). 

The fact that a tangible experience with the natural world is virtually impossible in many of the concrete jungles found in the United Kingdom no doubt adds to the sense of indifference towards climate change.  And a threat is not really a threat until one feels threatened, and images of polar bears floating on blocks of ice through tropical arctic waters most likely fails to resonate with individuals who has spent the majority of their lives in a sprawling industrial city.  Fearful images relating to climate change seem to be such a departure from most people’s perceived reality, that it only enhances the perception that these issues are remote and distant.

There is a place for fear, it certainly makes for an effective hook, and as a teacher I love a good hook, but I have learned that a hook for the sake of a hook does not always translate into long-term engagement.  Are we to hung up on trying to get people to shift their behavior for the “right” reasons, or should we just focus on using any means necessary to achieve the desired outcome?  As Stern (2012) alludes to, if you do choose to use fear, you better provide a means “to prevent the feared outcomes.”  There is great power in a visceral reaction to something, but fear seems like a bit of a cop-out, it’s easy to scare people, not so easy to inspire them.

O’Neill, S., & Nicholson-Cole, S. (2009). Fear Won’t Do It: Promoting Positive Engagement With Climate Change Through Visual and Iconic Representations. Science Communication, 30(3), 355-379.

Stern, P. (2012). Fear and Hope in Climate Messages. Nature Climate Change.

Hope against Hope

This Blog is now shifting gears, moving from thoughts and reflections on the EECO 586 course to thoughts and reflections on EECO 509: Psychology of Environmental Education and Communication.  It will be interesting to explore new topics, and revisit some recurring themes through this new lens.

We begin with a topic that while in the readings is focussed on conservation biologists, is a source of discussion that permeates the entire environmental movement.  How do we resolve the tension that exists between the despair that inevitably comes from immersion in the field of conservation, and the hope that is necessary for people to actively seek out solutions and alter behaviours. 

I think I tend to fall on the side of hope, and would agree with most of the arguments put forward by Swaisgood, Sheppard and James (2010); in that despair is perhaps not the best emotion to evoke when attempting to communicate a message.  I recognise the dangers associated with false hope (Patten, Smith-Patten & Brenda, 2011), and the fear that uninformed optimism might lead us back to unsustainable behaviours, but I’m not sure if false hope is worse than no hope at all.  A plan is better than no plan at all, and maybe false hope is better than no hope at all, unless, I suppose that plan is destructive, and that hope leads to a misguided faith in the power of innovation and technology to overcome all our problems.  That being said, in the end what’s the point of doing anything without hope.  I wonder what meaningful advances have come out of feelings of despair?  Maybe a desire to tear down the existing infrastructure that led to feelings of despair, but you would hope that those actions would be followed by a re-building process.  Perhaps I am existing in a state of denial, fueled by an unrealistic belief in the inherent good of humanity.  I think I wrote in an earlier blog that I would classify myself as a Catastrophist, so can you be a hopeful catastrophist?  I hope that the existing system collapses, a paradigm shift occurs, and new sustainable systems emerge out of the chaos.

I think that despair can arise out of a deep attachment to the existing structures that hold our failing systems in place.  Those who despair over the prospect of a collapsed economic system are deeply invested in the values that perpetuate that system, and fail to see the long-term benefits associated with the re-distribution of wealth and the localized economies that might arise out of such a collapse.  Altering our perceptions of time, and re-orienting our desire for stability might lead us away from feelings of despair and invoke hope.  I’m not trying to say that we should just sit back and do nothing, just that it is possible to find hope, however, you might have to expand your search beyond the traditional boundaries of space and time.

The emotions being discussed are not superficial nor are they fleeting, and require approaches that go beyond hopeful language, approaches that are steeped in values will be necessary if a real shift is to occur.  I would imagine that many people are somewhat pre-disposed to either message, or maybe they find themselves somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.

Patten, Michael A. & Smith-Patten, Brenda D. (2011). “As If” Philosophy: Conservation Biology's Real Hope. BioScience, 61(6), 425-426.

Swaisgood, Ronald R. & Sheppard, James K. (2010). The Culture of Conservation Biologists: Show me the hope! BioScience, 60(8), 626–630.

Bottoms up

A brief voyage into the world of polycentric systems was a nice way to tie together the major ideas from this course as well as the entire online portion of this program.  It’s easy to get lost in the world of wordy academic vernacular and lose sight of the big picture, or better yet the local picture.  As Ostrom (2010) alludes to, people seem to be waiting for some agreement at a global level to validate or motivate them to alter their values or shift their behaviour in a more sustainable direction, when in truth, this change, in order to be effective, needs to start at a local level.  As was mentioned in the group discussions on Moodle, centralized authority can result in fast changes, but it usually precludes any local knowledge,  undermines adaptability, and in the end results in the alienation of local stakeholders.

Change needs to come from everywhere, cascading vertically, laterally and diagonally.  Values oriented approaches have the capacity to motivate change that can build resilience at local levels and in the end create the paradigm shift necessary to address global concerns.  Ostrom (2010) mentions that there is perhaps no better catch phrase than “think global, act local,” and it is at this level that change can and must begin.  In the words of Margret Mead: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world.  Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

  Ostrom, E. (2010). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 550-557.

Path to our future

Last night I found myself in front of the T.V watching the final fleeting moments of what seems like an endless hockey playoff season, contemplating meaningless questions relating to les Canadiens de Montreal when I was suddenly awoken from my slumber by three successive advertisements on the CBC.  The first one was a message from our darling Federal Conservative party, reminding us how important jobs are to all Canadians (not to be confused with les Canadiens), the second was sponsored by Enbridge, promoting the Northern gateway pipeline as a path to prosperity for all Canadians, and the third was a message from the oil sands producers, praising the oil sands as the savior of Canadian Industry (I’ll post the links below).   AHHH!! So much green washing and values washing!  The advertisements were filled with beautiful images of natural landscapes and “working families.” The Enbridge add took the cake with its “path to our future" slogan, complete with a green oil tanker (see link below).  Just made me think, as I read through Leichenko, O’Brien, and Solecki (2010), that we are a very long way from grasping the complexity of interactions between global environmental and economic changes, at least the people with money are.  They do however provide great learning opportunities for the development of critical media skills.

Enbridge Path to our Future: http://www.youtube.com/user/enbridgepipelines?feature=results_main

Point of no Return

In the midst of this week’s discussion of a values oriented approach to climate change, on the front page of the news paper today (ok, it was actually the front cover of the B section- Vancouver Sun) I found this title jumping up at me: Earth near point of no return, scientists warn: Effects of civilization on planet threaten collapse of ecosystems in 50 years- with no going back.  Inspiring stuff!!  This may very well be our reality, but if the intention of this article is to bring about change (It is the Vancouver Sun, so I doubt this was their goal), I imagine the words read as relative white noise on the backdrop of what appears on the actual front page (immanent economic and ecological collapse).  After some initial intrigue and a brief hope that Bridget Fonda would reprise her 1993 role as Maggie Hayward, I fell into a haze of statistics and doomsday predictions. 

Shore, R. (2012, Thursday June 7th). Earth near point of no return, scientists warn, Vancouver Sun, p. 1.

What if?

I seem to be falling a little behind with these, it’s now Tuesday June 5^th, and I have just returned from a great week down in San Francisco, as well as a beautiful trek through California’s redwood forests and the Oregon coast.  I am going to comment on some of the readings from week 7, as well as my own reflections on the emergence of the International environmental movement.

It seemed that everyone in the group enjoyed the Jansanoff (2010) article, in particular the discussion on the difficulty in creating meaningful communications strategies that are based in climate facts.  “The work of science tends to erase specificity and remove traces of the human mind and hand” (Jansanoff, 2010,p. 234).  If people are to buy into the narrative (it’s more than a narrative, but sounds better for this line of reasoning) being communicated by the environmental movement, then it will need to be a narrative that the general public can attach meaning to, nothing groundbreaking there. We’ve spent a great deal of time looking at framing (Lakoff, 2010) and conceptualizing the importance of messages that speak to values.  However, it’s always refreshing to read a new perspective on an old problem.  The language of science itself seems to be a limiting factor in sharing our experiences with nature, and fails to capture the true essence of the symbiotic relationship that humans share with the natural world.

Jansanoff (2010) speaks of the need for change on four fronts: community, politically, space and time. I think that our concepts of time are one of the great obstacles in addressing climate issues.  “Climate change occurs over spans of time” (Jansanoff, 2010, p. 237) that don’t necessarily resonate with our typical standards of time, but perhaps even more challenging is our willingness as environmental communicators to accept the duration of time it will take to reverse the negative consequences of our industrial development.  I know we are running out of “time,” and while scientists like James Hansen are arguing that it is already too late, it is going to take “time” to reframe the human/nature relationship.

Political change is an interesting topic to grapple with, especially in Canada as our current administration seems to be headed in the opposite direction of our desired paradigm shift, as they wage war on “radical” environmental groups in their on-going quest to turn Canada into an “energy superpower” (O'Neil, 2012).  In the United States I doubt if the environment will ever be mentioned in the lead up to the November election as Mitt and Barack make empty job promises, likely at the expense of future generations.  It is interesting to consider where we would be if people in the United States had taken the words of Jimmy Carter seriously in the late 1970’s as he tried to promote alternative forms of energy and supported conservation, unfortunately his popularity was undone through a series of foreign policy mishaps, and his replacement led America down a different path (one propagated on limitless growth).  What if the 2000 election had swung in a different direction, what path would Al Gore have chosen, would his attempts to warn the world of the dangers associated with global warming have taken center stage had he held the presidency.  The answers to these questions are irrelevant now, here we are, with Harper in Canada, likely a republican as the next American president, as the fall of the European economy will no doubt be blamed on the current U.S administration.  Will the future leaders be bold and lead their nations down a new path, or will they look romantically to failed policies of the past for answers.

I think that at least some of the answers will come out of increasingly autonomous localized economies that seek to separate themselves from the failing global markets.  Nice thought, should be interesting to see how it plays out!!

References

Lakoff, G. (2010). Why it Matters How We Frame the Environment. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 4(1), 70-81.

O'Neil, P. (2012). Pipelines, protests and recession collide in B.C., Vancouver Sun, pp. A1,A6.

Jasanoff, S. (2010). A new climate for society. Theory, Culture & Society 27(2-3), 233-253.