Group Summary

housewithoutplanet

In our research we found that the coverage of on the environment in society is more ubiquitous among social media than the more traditional media outlets. When we researched “solar AND wind” among four major newspapers in the past 3 months, only 9 stories came up in the results. Whereas we also found that people were actively commenting on Wal-Mart’s Facebook page concerning their sustainability initiative. Books and academic journals generally had good information, but sometimes it was difficult to find stories that were up-to-date.

What does this mass media trend say about our society and the environment?

We would like to suggest that this denotes a marked difference between how mass media channels and individuals view the environment. The trend within social media indicates that individuals see that the environment is important, and that the way we utilize our natural ecosystems has a direct effect on society. On the contrary, mass media outlets seem to brush over certain environmental debates. This is despite the fact that, as we have shown, the way in which we understand and care for the environment is very pertinent to the more covered healthcare, energy, global warming, affordable housing, and food discussions.

Whether or not this phenomenon is actual in practice or purposeful on the part of traditional mass media outlets remains to be seen. However, our observations do have an interesting application to the ideas we have been discussing in class. First, the comparative increase of environmentalism among social media outlets over traditional media channels supports the active user theory. If users are creating media of a different variety than the traditional media, clearly, they are filtering out certain elements and engaging media critically.

Also inherent when discussing mass media and the environment are the issues of political controversy and the media’s “watch dog” role. By cutting corners on certain environmental issues the media has certainly ceased to function as a watch dog. When our blog focused on food, it was clear to see that there are problems with our system, but very few media outlets focus on this. This failure is closely tied with political controversy. A large degree of political change would have to occur in order for our society to become better in tune with the environment and reap more of its benefits. Presently, more traditional media outlets are obviously not ready to incite this change.

But why? Fear of advertising revenues? It could be that conglomerates, which own other companies that engage in environmentally irresponsible business practices, own certain mass media channels. Perhaps it could be explained by demographics. Newspapers might run fewer stories about the environment and more stories on health care, because there readers are generally elderly. Similarly, different television news channels may present skewed view of environmental issues that are more in line with their average users’ political idealology. That being said, more coverage is needed on how our society and the environment can mutually benefit, rather than hurt, one another.

Sustained Renewability?

wind-turbines-370-x-283

So what’s the word on the sustainability of renewable energy?

The New York Times ran an article earlier this year discussing some of the perks and costs associated with solar and wind.

  • While they are renewable, solar and wind alone do not produce enough energy alone because it is not always windy or sunny.
  • Instead of waiting on better solar and wind technology, in Florida they are trying to hybridize solar with coal to make up for this deficiency.

An article In the Washington Post reported on the perks of geothermal

  • For every kilowatt used to run the geothermal pump 5 kilowatts are yielded
  • Because of federal and stat tax credits, the system is not very expensive (~$10,000) and will pay for itself back in about 4 years.
  • Unfortunately, lots of drilling and piping leaves a footprint on the soil and the surrounding environment.

Despite the mostly positive long-term sustainability of renewable energy sources, their implementation have been and continue to be sacrificed for the short-term comforts of consumers and businesses alike. In an April 5th article, the Wall Street Journal reported on a current example of this in Los Angeles:

  • L.A. city council wants to increase dependence on renewables to 40% by 2020.
  • Energy utilities claim that they need to increase that rate charged per kW hour in order to compensate for the costlier nature of solar, wind, and geothermal.
  • The city and local businesses aren’t budging, saying that increased rates will turn away business and new “green” jobs.

The answers for renewable energy are obviously unclear. Maybe less government subsidies should be given to the consumer so that more money can be available to encourage the power companies to switch over. Whatever the case, clearly big newspaper outlets and other mass media have a role to play in the political controversy.

Affordable Green Homes

So we are talking about building green homes. That is, constructing living spaces that use less energy, conserve more water, and foster a more desirable sense of place. Well, I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone who wouldn’t want such a house. The problem is not everyone can get one because:plastic-bottle-igloo

  1. As Sarah alluded to, solar panels are expensive, but so are other “green” measures such as certain building materials and insulation.
  2. Much of the population can’t afford a home and not much is has been done considering green apartment buildings.
  3. Most green home rating systems only cater to richer homeowners. In fact, the U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC) LEED for Homes certification system only targets the upper 25% of homes.

There are ways to make your home greener by replacing old fixtures and appliances with Energy Star ones. In fact an Energy Star rated compact fluorescent bulb can save upwards of $45 over the lifetime of the bulb. As for purchasing a green living space, it’s tough picken’s:

  1. The USGBC has begun to partner with The Home Depot to offer green affordable housing.
  2. Certain people have gone to more extreme measures, building houses out of bottles or other “trash”. But without knowledge of home building or the money to pay someone who does, these type of homes a rare to come by.

Trash house builder Mike Reynolds talks on affordability and government

By and large, if you’re not rich enough to buy a new home, you won’t have a very green one. But whose problem is this? Should the government step in? Affordability is one of the big issues in the green building sector. However, major mass media outlets rarely discuss whether the right to affordable green living should be given to all regardless of money.

A Warming Economy

“The politicization of science is tantamount to killing it.” – Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham.

As my fellow writers have noted, there is a lot of media attention concerning global warming/climate change initiatives at the policy level. Carbon emission regulations, mandated offset programs, etc. the list goes on. But, is forcing companies and peoples alike to change by way of law the quickest, best solution?

Free-market Philosophies:
Interestingly enough, most of the Constitution framers were libertarians, free-market thinkers. However, there is a problem with that old mindset. As the book Natural Capitalism notes: Up until very recently, capitalism has not recognized that our natural resources are limited. Fortunately, that mindset is changing, and people have begun adopting new, more sustainable ideas for living and business.

9780316353007_388X586

Government regulation issues:
Free markets rely on people being convinced of the importance of an issue and using their creativity to fix it. Wedding science to politics not only makes people frustrated; as Cunningham suggests, it causes science to lose credibility when people look to it to solve all their problems. Gerard Baker reports for TimesOnline that policies forcing change on the issue will “allow enterprise to be choked to death in a panic of suffocating regulations.”

What are the solutions?
Some have adopted trading Carbon Credits like money. In such a market, companies either gain credits by lowering carbon emissions, or they pay other companies to decrease their emissions (carbon offsets). Clearly, programs like this require some government setup – but not micromanagement. Take for example the offset issue in Europe. The U.N. wants to force companies to be less dependent on offsets, but Italian energy giant Fulvio Conti argues that $100 dollars spent on carbon dioxide abatement technologies in China is much more economic than doing so in Europe.

Government or Free-market? You decide.

The Cycles of Recycling

The History of Recycling, especially its relationship with the media is a story that is full of changing perceptions. Recycling has progressed significantly since the Chang Dynasty of China began recycling bronze into weapons in 200 B.C., then again, so has the mass media. Here are some of the highlights of their rocky relationship during the last 100 years:

Phase 1: Recycle or Bust!

In 1907 Cosmopolitan Magazine ran an article extolling the manner in which “even/ possible substances we use and throw away come back as new and different material – a wonderful cycle of transformation.

1916-1918: Due to shortages of raw materials during World War I, the federal government creates the Waste Reclamation Service with the motto “Don’t Waste Waste – Save It.”

Phase 2: Use it or Lose It

1955: Life magazine ran a two-page article glorifying the idea that single-use items are necessities of a modern lifestyle. Ease and convenience become the two most desirable qualities in product marketing. A negative side-effect: parks, forests. and highways are littered with trash.

1961: Sam Yorty successfully runs for mayor Los Angeles, promising the eradication of recycling

Phase 3: A Re-commitment

1970: In response to the excess trash being accumulated from plastics, the first Earth Day focuses attention on environmental concerns. Also, recycling’s chasing arrows logo is introduced and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is created.

1980: Per capita production of waste reaches 8 pounds per day, up from 5 pounds in 1970

1990’s: More stringent standards for waste use are adopted by governments.

Phase 4?: Re-Design-cycles?

Biological and Technical Cycles

More recently, the book Cradle2Cradle argues that our current philosophy is flawed because our industrial processes produce hybrid “monsters” of man-made and biological goods which don’t actually recycle but down-cycle into less useful materials.

The authors suggest implementing technical and biological production cycles in which a material is either completely biodegradable or completely man-made for industry.

The Big Food Chain

What is the industrial food chain?harvesting

It is the cycle of food production and distribution that follows the assembly line method first made famous during the industrial revolution. It’s when a farmer in California grows oranges and ships them to a regional plant to be processed and packaged. From there, the oranges go to the far reaches of the country, and possibly the globe. This manner of food production is the prominent method in the United States and it is becoming more and more prevalent as industrialization of the world continues. The trend began with the Green Revolution in the 1960’s when fertilizer and pesticides became readily available, and it has continued to this day, allowing for unprecedented levels of food to be available for consumption. While this revolution in agriculture has been largely accepted as a good thing by the masses, there are some very negative effects that have been described in the media of late.

Matson et al. 1997 describes many of the negative environmental effects of this type of food production.

  • Degradation of soil due to farming practices such as tilling, heavy fertilizer and pesticide load, heavy farming equipment
  • Decrease in pest resistance of plants as a result of mono-cropping (decreased biodiversity) – genetic diversity allows for plants to evolve pest defenses
  • Increased pollution of water bodies and the atmosphere as a result of increased pesticide/fertilizer use and the Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO’s)

Along with these environmental effects, there are many societal costs to this type of food production. Michael Pollan in his book The Omnivore’s Dilemma lays out many of the negative social effects of industrial food including:

  • Increase in obesity as a result of a high corn diet from processed foods and meat which has more fat
  • Increased outbreak of diseases (ex. E. coli) as a result of the decreased pest resistance of food, dirty industrial factories, and non-natural diet feed to cattle and chickens
  • Increased dependency on oil – it takes 208 gallons of oil to raise a feedlot steer to slaughter Not to mention the gas used for the large agricultural machinery and the global transportation of both food.

FoxNews.com reports that this type of food production is needed to support the growing world population and that scientific advances in technology can reduce the harmful environmental effects (2008). However, the fact that the number of obese people in the world rivals the number of individuals stricken with hunger shows that it is more a matter of food distribution, not production (WorldWatch Institute 2000).

In another Pollan book, The Botany of Desire, farmer Mike Heath prescribes a very different process, a system of farming that helps the land. A system that combines new advances in scientific understanding to old agricultural practices. What results is a farm that:

  1. Creates biodiversity through poly-culture instead of destroying it
  2. Reduces pesticide and chemical use to almost none
  3. Produces the equivalent amount of food per area as an industrial farm but on a smaller scale
  4. Adds to the overall health of both the environment and society

Could/should this be face of the future for agriculture?