Technology and
Communication in the Environmental Movement
Kim Leeder
Albertson
College of Idaho, Caldwell, Idaho
.......................
Since
the Internet boom, there has been a continuous debate in the scholarly literature
over whether the online environment has leveled the playing field for American
politics and created a truly democratic plane. Those who praise the Internet
believe that it has opened up possibilities for small grassroots organizations
to hold their own against established, elite groups. Others argue that the same
politics have simply been transferred online with the same inequalities. Both
sides acknowledge that previous groundbreaking technologies, such as radio and
television, were similarly lauded in their times as media that would enable new
heights of democracy by educating citizens and expanding communities (Lupia & Baird, 2003). Needless to say, this did not
happen in any long-term or measurable way with radio or television, nor do we
expect it to occur on the Internet. Commercial interests, entertainment venues,
and social networking forums outpaced the educational potential of radio and
television, just as they have on the Web.
Yet
the potential for the Internet to revitalize democracy in more subtle ways
still exists. As the Internet and related technologies have developed during
the last ten years, they have created tremendous new possibilities for
activists to communicate, mobilize, and fundraise in ways that are cheaper and
easier than ever. Environmentalism in the United States and beyond has changed
dramatically due to this new medium; the days of canvassing, phone calls, and
direct mail are more or less gone, replaced by instantaneous communication,
international networks, and an overflow of information. A 1999 article in Business
Week by Pete Engardio provides an overview of the
multifarious ways that the Web has enabled activists to continue publishing and
promoting their views. He says:
By mastering the
weaponry of the Web, everyone from clandestine Beijing dissidents to
high-powered Washington lobbyists are finding that the Internet is an
extraordinary tool for mobilizing support, raising money, and exerting
influence. In the Internet Age, it's possible for a handful of Web-savvy
activists to exert pressure on policymakers working out of their homes. The
result may be a fundamental transformation of the nature of politics (p. 144).
The
promises of the Internet resulted in its rapid adoption across the United
States and around the world during the late twentieth century by individuals,
corporations, and nonprofits alike. And why not? Putting aside the Internet's
entertainment and social value-which has spurred much of this growth,
particularly in recent years-its usefulness in interactive information-sharing
and organizing is unparalleled. Studies have shown that those who participate
in political activities online are more likely to vote than those who rely on
television and newspapers (Tolbert & McNeal, 2003), while individuals who
are contacted online by political or goodwill organizations are more likely to
perform the requested action (McNeal & Fernandez, 2004).
The evidence is everywhere. Internet-related
technologies have been highly successful in enabling environmental organizations
to inform, organize, and motivate citizens to act on environmental issues -
with impressive results. As Kutner notes, "the
use of Internet-based technologies by environmental justice activists has
already been anecdotally demonstrated to be effective for access, use,
dissemination, and creation of information resources" (2000). In a 1999
survey, a full 100% of 76 environmental organizations in New Zealand and
Australia asserted that the Internet had helped them become more successful (White,
1999). London newspaper The Times reported in 2006 that, "an Internet campaign by environmentalists...forced
four companies to dump their shares in Japan's largest whaling fleet" by
promoting boycotts that caused the companies to lose contracts and profits (Parry,
2006). The potential political influence of the Web is seemingly unlimited, a
circumstance which has had a heady effect on grassroots organizations across
the board.
However, although the Internet has been
powerfully useful in some situations, it is not by any means a promised land
for activist causes. One of the major shifts in American culture that has been
brought about by the Internet is a change in the availability of information.
From a culture of relative scarcity where information was a valued commodity,
we have moved into a technologically rich environment where we are overwhelmed
by constant flows of information from a wide variety of media. As David Shenk (1997) observes, "Just as fat has replaced
starvation as this nation's number one dietary concern, information overload
has replaced information scarcity as an important new emotional, social, and
political problem" (p. 29). The availability of information has more than
surpassed the ability of human beings to process it, and those who attempt to
keep up suffer from anxiety, stress, and mental health problems such as
attention-deficit disorder. At a minimum, information overload has reduced the
effectiveness of the Internet as an information source by cluttering its
servers with an endless supply of content. Any single message offered online is
lost in the melee.
The
overabundance of information is a grave issue for those who have valuable
educational information to share with the public. Organizations working for
environmental causes are finding that although distributing information is
cheaper and easier than ever, getting their message heard through the cacophony
of communication and media may be more challenging. Plus, some of the current
favored strategies for online activism, such as electronic petitions and email
campaigns, are proving to be far less effective than previously hoped. At this
point, the critical questions for environmentalists to ask are: (1) how are
we using the Internet? and (2) how should we be using the Internet?
Lemire (2002) observes that there are essentially
five ways that activist organizations use the Internet at present: (i) to distribute and circulate petitions; (ii) to spark
email campaigns to political or other leaders; (iii) to "hack" into
and alter official websites; (iv) to promote ideas; and (v) to provide an
alternative media source for information. In the five years since Lemire's article, it is safe to say that the
"hacking" issue is far less prevalent, but the other four activities
are still very much relevant to the current work of online environmental
organizations. To these we can add a fifth, mobilization, as it has become
increasingly common for grassroots groups to use email and blogs to incite
rallies and local protests. Take for instance the recent controversy
surrounding the South Central Farm in Los Angeles; on the day that developers
arrived to bulldoze the beloved community farm, a notice appeared on The
Grist magazine's blog calling local activists to rallies at the farm and
the town hall. Despite the unsuccessful results, the mobilization possibilities
presented by this event are profound.
The
usefulness of the Internet for grassroots activism is extensive, but there are
significant drawbacks as well. One of the realities of online environmental
activism is competition-for attention, support, and funds. If the Internet has
leveled the political playing field, it has done so for everyone and favors
only those who can pay to get their message out more loudly and boldly than
others. This is a side effect of the information overload issue described
earlier. Small organizations who maintain a strong local presence in their
region are dwarfed on the Web by well-funded national groups. It is true that
certain small organizations have grown to major ones on the Internet by
electronic word-of-mouth, and this "lottery ticket" is what keeps
many coming back to the Web. But this type of attention is not a given, and
considering the vast number of grassroots organizations online, those that gain
national exposure are a miniscule percentage of the total. The competition
problem also encompasses competition within the environmental movement among
online organizations. The Internet pits local organizations against nationals,
and animal rights groups against land preservation associations, as they all
individually struggle to recruit members, signatures, and donations from the
same audience. Where formerly most organizations emphasized issues facing their
local area and focused on recruiting members and donations locally (while a few
national groups, such as the Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund,
addressed national issues), suddenly every group has become national and seeks
its share in a limited human resource.
Further complicating the environmental
movement's affection for the Web is the fact that some of the favored
strategies adopted by online organizations-email campaigns and online
petitions, in particular-are not proving to be terribly effective. Anyone on an
environmental listserv is sure to have seen an increase in the number of email
campaigns and petitions circulating in recent years, and this is no surprise.
The ease of responding to these petitions practically ensures a large number of
signatures for any major cause. Yet a study of political communication in
Silicon Valley found that, of all the methods of corresponding with American
leaders, email was the least effective.
Citizens should be
aware that e-mail ‘form letters' or petitions usually do not receive much attention
or carry much influence.... Even the most carefully composed, original e-mail
message may not get a serious reading, much less a reply. Letters are preferred
for their formality and perceived seriousness; phone calls and visits have the
benefit of a ‘personal touch.' The only method of political communication that
is consistently less effective than e-mail is fax (Chen, 2004).
An important step for environmental groups in
determining how best to take action online is to understand how online political
communication works. A study put out by the Congressional Management Foundation
suggests that email messages to political leaders can be as effective as postal
mail, but form letters of any sort are unlikely to have much impact. As the
report explains, "Quality is more persuasive than quantity.... Sending a
letter to a Member of Congress is not equivalent to casting a ballot or
answering a survey, where the choice with the most responses ‘wins.' Sending a
letter to a Member of Congress is more like giving a speech at a town meeting
or writing a letter to the editor. The content matters" (Fitch &
Goldschmidt, 2005). Environmentalists would do well to learn more about how to
use technology to advance their government advocacy efforts. To this end, the Congressional
Management Foundation offers online tutorials and
training on their website, http://www.cmfweb.org,
to educate grassroots organizations on how to communicate effectively
with Congress. In essence, political communication online is the same as
political communication in person: the more personal and thoughtful a message
is, the better it will be heard.
Insofar
as many organizations rely upon the Internet to share and distribute information,
it is important to keep in mind that the quality of content on the Web varies
greatly. In a recent opinion piece, BBC News reporter Richard Ladle put it this
way: "Misrepresentation of environmental science on the Internet is
widespread.... From deforestation rates in the Amazon to climate change
statistics, nothing is necessarily how it appears" (2006). Savvy Internet
users learn to distinguish the good from the bad, but many others become
confused: they may trust information that is distorted and be skeptical of
authoritative sources. The result of this circumstance is that most Internet
users tend to rely on Internet filters and on people they know-colleagues,
friends, and family-to locate trustworthy information online. This means that
they are less likely to visit websites or review information that does not
already fit their views on any given topic. "Never before have information
providers been able to target their audience so accurately; nor have citizens
had as great an opportunity to tailor the content of information that they
receive" (Bostrom & Kingsley, 1998, p. 164).
Like other media outlets, the Internet allows users to decide what perspectives
to listen to, and which ones to shut off. The possibilities for discussion
among those with differing views-which, in theory, is the foundation of
democracy-is extremely limited.
Inclusiveness is an additional consideration
in the use of Internet technologies by environmental organizations. It is
widely acknowledged that the community of people who frequent the Web is an
uneven cross-section of U.S. citizens, not to mention international
populations. Although anyone in the United States can use the Internet for free
at a public library, those who access the Web most often are in the upper
classes of U.S. society. They are the people who are literate, who can afford a
computer and Internet access, and who have free time. The Web excludes certain
groups of people by its very nature, and any activist relying on the Internet
to communicate and mobilize individuals for a certain cause needs to be
exceptionally aware of this problem. Those who are active in environmental
justice issues, in particular, will find that many of the individuals they
would target in their efforts are simply not online. As McNeal and Fernandez
(2004) note, "One Internet organization activist stated that their members
tend to be more affluent, more educated, and more likely to be white.... The
Internet may provide a cheap way to cast a wide net, but no matter how wide the
net is, it cannot catch the fish if they are not in the water" (pp. 8-9).
As
a final consideration, those of us who remember the world before the takeover
of the Internet are aware that although communication methods have changed
dramatically in recent years, the basic characteristics of American society
have not. The great promises of how the Web would educate and enlighten
citizens to make them more engaged in the political arena were, in the end,
simply a nice story. "After a steady series of breakthroughs in information
technology, we are left with a citizenry that is certainly no more interested
or capable of supporting a healthy representative democracy than it was fifty
years ago, and may well be less capable" (Shenk,
1997, p. 68). Instead of becoming primarily an educational tool, the Internet
has become a new venue for entertainment in the form of video games, video
clips, social networking, and the like. Although many environmental
organizations anticipated new breakthroughs through their use of the Internet, they
have found that the same rules apply.
Despite
these drawbacks, the Internet can be a great friend to environmentalists. The
free exchange of information is essential to any movement that seeks to change
the dominant culture (Pickerill, 2003), and the Web
is a host to all political views without discrimination. The Internet has
served environmental organizations well in the past and will continue to be a
great resource for fundraising, communication, information and news
distribution, and mobilization of members for particular events and campaigns.
In
the future, we will no doubt face an increasingly technologically reliant
culture with a constantly expanding slate of information tools from which to
choose. Environmental organizations need to frequently reevaluate these tools
to ensure that they are being used to their best capacities without impeding
on-the-ground efforts. While using the Internet for select projects,
organizations may benefit from strategies, such as reemphasizing in-person
meetings and other types of personal contact, to counter information overload
in their membership and build more substantial relationships. As McNeal and
Fernandez (2004) point out, it is a common belief among political scientists
that political life is social in nature and often requires face-to-face
contact. A renewed focus on the local community and the development of
relationships with local members will greatly complement online projects.
Furthermore, to reduce overload and improve communication with current and
potential members, environmental groups may want to consider online
collaboration with other like-minded organizations to carry out electronic
campaigns, fundraising, and communication efforts. As Sophia Huyer (2002) notes, "[E]mail and Internet networking
are a necessary but not sufficient component of national and
international networking for change" (p. 308). Environmental organizations
will be most successful in the Information Age if they are careful to maintain
a balance between online activism and the projects that bring their minds and
bodies-and those of their members-back to the physical world.
References
Bostrom, A., & Kingsley,
G. (1998). Citizenship on the net: The case of environmentalism. In A.L. Porter
& W.H. Reed (Eds.) The information revolution: Current and future
consequences (pp. 163-181). Greenwich, CT: Ablex
Publishing Corporation.
Chen, E.
(2004, April). You've got politics! E-mail and political communication in
Silicon Valley. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest
Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
Engardio, P. (1999).
Activists without borders. Business Week, 3649, 144-149.
Fitch,
B., & Goldschmidt, K. (2005). Communicating with Congress: How Capitol
Hill is coping with the surge in citizen advocacy. Washington:
Congressional Management Foundation.
Huyer, S. (2002). Networks
for social knowledge: The anti-NAFTA challenge. In M. Pendakur
& R. Harris (Eds.), Citizenship and participation in the information age
(pp. 300-308). Aurora, Ontario: Garamond Press.
Kutner, L. A. (2000).
Environmental Activism and the Internet. Electronic Green Journal, 12.
Retrieved April 21, 2007, from http://egj.lib.uidaho.edu/egj12/kutner1.html
Ladle, R.
(2006, June 23). Blagging in the blogosphere. BBC
News. Retrieved June 23, 2006, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/5099764.stm
Lemire, M. (2002).
Globalization, information society and social movement. In M. Pendakur & R. Harris (Eds.), Citizenship and
participation in the information age (pp. 310-321). Aurora, Ontario:
Garamond Press.
Lupia, A., & Baird, C.
(2003). Can web sites change citizens? Implications of web white and blue 2000.
PS: Political Science and Politics, 36(1), 77-82.
McNeal,
R., & Fernandez, K. (2004, April). Grassroots political warriors: The
Internet and political mobilization. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
Parry, R. L. (2006,
April 5). Companies pull out of whaling; Factbox (Overseas news). The Times (London,
England), p36.
Pickerill, J. (2003). Cyberprotest: Environmental activism online.
New York: Manchester University Press.
Shenk, D. (1997). Data smog: surviving the
information glut. New York: HarperCollins.
Tolbert,
C.J., & McNeal. R. (2003). Unraveling the effects of the Internet on
political participation? Political Research Quarterly, 56, 175-185.
White, C.
(1999). Environmental Activism and the Internet. Unpublished masters
thesis, Massey University, Albany, New Zealand. Retrieved April 21, 2007, from http://arachna.co.nz/thesis/home.asp
................
Kim
Leeder <leederk@yahoo.com>,
is a librarian at N.L.Terteling Library, Albertson
College of Idaho, 2112 Cleveland Boulevard, Caldwell, Idaho 83605. TEL: (208)
345-8980. FAX: (208) 459-5299.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Green Journal,
Issue 25, 2007
ISSN: 1076-7975