Internal Politics of Climate Change - Article Example

Internal Politics of Climate Change Although the world is becoming increasingly more aware that protecting our environment and preserving its resources are detrimental to our survival on this planet, the difficulties in determining just how these resources should be protected as they cross international boundaries has been a topic of great concern and difficulty. Generally, those institutions concerned with bringing about global environmental change have had to work through policies that are drafted into documents broadly labeled international environmental agreements. These agreements, which have increased in numbers in recent years, typically define the current of environmental issues under discussion as well as the intentions held by differing nations and regional organizations regarding how they plan to address the issues. (CIESIN). Despite this, there are many obstacles preventing enforceable documents to be produced between the various nations, particularly as the corporate sector works to protect its own interests and as developing nations struggle to come to grips with the many reforms necessary to help their people. There are many so-called environmental groups in action that are actually working to promote the interests of the big corporation under the false impression that they are protecting the environment. (Beder 1997 pp. 28-29). There are several documented cases of these anti-environmental front groups within the United States, including the Global Climate Coalition, the Information Council on the Environment and the Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy. America is not the only country to house such front groups, but more of these groups have been identified in America than in other countries. (Deal, 2002) Strategies used by these front groups include outright opposition to responsible environmental policy, representing themselves as the middle ground and thereby indirectly portraying the environmental groups as extremists and/or recognizing environmental problems but promoting “superficial solutions that prevent and pre-empt the sorts of changes that are really necessary to solve the problems” (Beder 1997 p. 29). Whether operating with the organization of a front group or not, there are several groups that have learned how best to influence the policy-makers in the drafting of environmentally aware legislation. One of these methods is through grass-roots campaigns. “According to the people who staff congressional offices, grassroots campaigns are far more effective than traditional lobbying – or even monetary contributions – in persuading politicians to vote in a particular way” (Beder 1997 p. 35). Targeting the politicians who are likely to vote either way on a given bill, grassroots campaigns have been turned over to Public Relations firms to get creative with form letter presentation and to help patch through calls to legislators from those individuals who have already agreed with the favored course of action. “In his speech to the 1993 Wise Use Conference … Ross Irvine, President of the Canadian firm Public Relations Management Ltd, explained to the audience the value of computer-generated letters as a powerful way of influencing Canadian politicians” while “James Gardner … has described ‘the soaring growth in transnational lobbying by giant global corporations’ and contended that in future grassroots lobbying is likely to be used widely in many countries. He notes, for example, that there is provision for citizens to petition the European Parliament and that this ‘furnishes a framework for a grassroots lobbying campaign aimed at the Parliament and indirectly at the Commission and the Council.’” (Beder 1997 pp. 37-38). In addition to the corporate campaigns and the continued interest of some superpower governments to maintain their comfort zone despite the obvious inability to sustain it, less developed countries that have continued to struggle for survival without much success have a distinct disadvantage in trying to also address environmental goals. “Grinding poverty, hunger, malnutrition and rampant disease affect one-third of the world and are growing in absolute numbers” (Hawken, Lovins & Lovins 1999). In addition to the increased crime and anarchy these situations bring with them, the refugee populations around the world now number in the hundred millions. For many of these countries, the changes proposed to conserve the earth’s resources sound like restrictions on their ability to grow, instead condemning them and their people to endless suffering. “When the world’s nations met in Brazil at the Earth Summit in 1992 to discuss the environment and human development, some treaties and proposals proved to be highly divisive because it appeared that they put a lid on the ability of nonindustrialized countries to pursue development” (Hawken, Lovins & Lovins 1999). To understand why the governments of these countries are slow to adopt reformation measures that would force corporations to reduce the negative impacts they are having on the planet, it is important to understand how the information regarding the damage being done is being reflected to the average citizen. The big businesses know that the average citizen would have a stronger reaction to the effects of global warming if they truly believed the detrimental consequences being predicted by the environmentalists were fact. As has been discussed, public reaction in the form of grassroots campaigning is among the most influential tools a movement can use to influence the lawmakers in most countries. Therefore, if big businesses wish to stick to the status quo, they must first convince the public that there is no real danger in their conducting business in the way that they always have. In fact, if it can be proven that the proposed changes that would force businesses to conform and protect the environment would end up costing the taxpayers additional money at a time when the price of products would also skyrocket as a result of increased production costs, a large group of individuals would be willing to fight against any such measures. (Beder 2004). Unfortunately, a great deal of the information the public hears is generated directly or indirectly by the very businesses that will have to change most in order to fit within the new guidelines of an ecologically aware society. These businesses have a great deal of funding available and are able to manipulate the media to suit their own agendas. Although they don’t always directly deny the effects of global warming and other issues that have already been seen and that environmentalists point out as evidence that their case is just, these businesses have been known to fund ‘non-profit’ organizations throughout the world to help minimize the damage being reported. In addition, they are able to control the media by controlling the paychecks of each individual provided with the responsibility of reporting the facts and by becoming the ‘experts’ the media personalities turn to for the reasonable course of action between the fanatic environmentalists and the right-wing conservatives. Finally, they are more capable and experienced in knowing how to conduct and control the grassroots campaigns that influence which way politicians will vote on various policies and initiatives as they arise. (Beder 2004). In developing the front groups, corporations have learned how to spin the story to provide the greatest emphasis on how environmental measures will cost the taxpayers money and will reduce the way in which the company works, in other words, how they make their money. “Public relations strategies are often used to hide or downplay environmental problems such as global warming, to confuse the cause of the problems and downplay the problems caused by motor vehicles, and to provide perceptual rather than real solutions to environmental problems. They encourage a minimal response and avoid the paradigm changes necessary for transport innovations” (Beder 2004). These strategies are used in more than just the transport industry as mining, fishing and forestry also subscribe to this mode of operation. These so-called front groups have been identified in Canada, Australia and the United States as well as several others and are sometimes very difficult to uncover. This alone might not be enough to condemn this program to the ranks of the front groups as the organization might be said to already be taking a large degree of action in trying to bring ownership to the citizenry. However, this program has also opposed bottle deposit legislation that would have increased the number of bottles brought in for recycling and “more recently it has sought to discredit recycling with television advertisements, reports and brochures which emphasize the cost and limits of recycling” (Beder 1997 p. 30). By controlling the types of news reports that are broadcast in a country’s television channels, newspapers and other media sources, those opposed to making environmental amendments can greatly influence the public into believing the devastating news regarding the finality of resources available on planet earth are nothing more than the fanatical ravings of an extreme left-wing tree-hugging hippy type. “Media commentator and progressive columnist Norman Solomon also notes that the mainstream media in the 1990s tends to offer either experts who support the status quo or ‘populists of the right-wing variety.’” (Beder 1997 p. 197). Regardless of the expert involved, Beder indicates that most often, these news programs do not question whom these experts might be affiliated with, who their organization might be funded by or what ulterior motives they might have in discussing the issue. “This is supported by a 1993 study, which found that ‘leading newspapers overwhelmingly used pro-NAFTA sources’ when reporting on the North American Free Trade Agreement. This was despite the opposition to the Agreement from environmental and labour groups” (Beder 1997 p. 197). Another study Beder (1997) quoted was conducted by the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) group on the television show Nightline, in which it was found that 80 percent of the show’s US guests were professionals, government officials or corporate representatives. “Nightline serves as an electronic soapbox from which white, male, elite representatives of the status quo can present their case” (Beder 1997 p. 198). These same types of studies conducted on several other television programs, even down to public broadcasting shows, demonstrated the same tendency to only include experts that would toe the corporate line. More than simply replacing the experts, however, corporations are also now the owners of the big media houses, frequently owning all of the newspapers and television channels in a given area, and able to dictate what issues and what angles are covered on an individual basis. Anyone who breaks the rules is easily disposed of and blacklisted from the industry. In order to develop responsible use of the world’s resources, then, it is necessary to convince big business that the changes proposed will not only not prove to help the environment, but will create a corporate environment that is more productive and less wasteful, therefore allowing more money to be made, even while providing less developed countries with the means and incentives to participate as they see the lives of their citizenry improving to a more Western standard. Only once the big businesses are convinced that making significant changes in the way in which they conduct business can prove much more profitable in the long run than anything they’re doing now will they move out of the way of environmental change and instead work to promote it in earnest. Only when developing countries are able to see that they can improve the lives of their people by participating in these types of programs will they be happy to also take part in the global movement. And only when the movement becomes global will real change begin to take place as each nation shares the resources, the successes and the consequences of every move another makes. References Deal, Carl (December, 2002). “The Greenpeace Guide to Anti-Environmental Organizations.” Odonian press Beder, Sharon. (1997). Global Spin. Totnes, Devon: Green Books. Beder, Sharon. (November 2004). “The Public Relations Assault on Transport Sustainability.” Towards Sustainable Land Transport [CD Rom]. NZ Institute of Highway Technology. Retrieved March 19, 2009 from Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN). (1996). “Formulating International Global Environmental Change Policy.” Columbia University. Retrieved March 20, 2009 from < http://www.ciesin.org/TG/PI/POLICY/fia.html> Hawken, Paul; Lovins, Amory; & Lovins, L. Hunter. (1999). Natural Capitalism. New York: Little, Brown and Company. Read More