Environmental Activism

There is a very interesting connotation behind environmental activism. The world sees the green-loving, peaceful environmentalist who want the best from the people who roam this planet, yet somehow, environmental passion is connected to activism and violence.Why do environmental activists turn to crazy media stunts and violence? As seen with the Whale Hunters, some environmentalists will do whatever is takes to get the attention they believe their cause deserves. I believe that so much of this comes down to having a political voice. Environmental concerns are not going to surpass public concerns for taxes, jobs, and the economy very often. Environmentalist must feel as though they have no political representation that is willing, or able, to take action. So when normative politics don't work, activists turn to challenging the government to instead create policy retroactively.

However, there are positives. Activism can translate quite easily into international non-governmental organizations that take diplomatic and acceptable approaches to policy change, international negotiation, and even protesting without cause another form of damage. Wagner states that these transnational groups are able to shape policy through societies- non-state actors that have the capability to work off passion, not money or pride. I do agree with Wagner that these transnational groups are in a way "political actors in their own right." However, like governments as well, that comes with a spectrum. There are violent environmental groups, such as the Earth Liberation Front, and there are peaceful environmental organizations such as Greenpeace, just in the same way that there are legitimate governments and tyrannical regimes.

On the other hand, I question what has been more effective: non-governmental organizations and activists, or government-sponsored treaties. As per usual, government is going to move slow: it's bureaucratic. However, the power advantage is unsurpassed. Take the Montreal Treaty for example. To solve an international problem, you need international organization. Governments (who have power, control, and money) are more likely to consider agreements and proposals from other legitimate governments for the purposes of diplomatic relations. However, the topic must be highly focused in order for there to be action, hence why the Montreal Treaty worked to combat the depleting ozone layer. This is where those activist groups come in: they are focused. They pick a cause and are able to put 100% of their effort around that cause. Without that support and focus, international governments end up with a situation like the Kyoto Protocol. However, Wagner states that there is a connection between non-governmental organization power and success to their significance to state power. State approved groups create policy, making the world very difficult for those protesting against the state.

The focus of activist groups can help pass normative policy, however, I wonder how goals change for the groups that turn violent. I believe that governments act in response to legitimacy. So the Earth Liberation Front lost all of it's legitimacy when they turned from tree-sits to burning down wood plants. If you want to change policy, you have to play the games of the policy makers. This isn't the mindset I want to have, but sometimes it's a harsh reality. I absolutely support the groups who don't confirm to government standards- that's how change is made, usually for the better. But when it crosses a line, there's no turning back and unless you have a full revolution, those in power will squash the activists' dreams. With less than 15 people in the Earth Liberation Front, chances were that they would not change the  views of 300 million Americans. They thought that by turning to violence and media stunts they could, but that is too many people to convince who only care about a news story for 6 days. However, for those 6 days, these groups get the all the attention they want and desire, so the violence is worth it. There can be the decision to work all your life to maybe get a minute on the Hill with a Congressman, or, while even just for 6 days, get international attention to grow your cause, even without government legitimacy to back you up. Which is better, I don't know. I love active change, but not at the cost to someone else who may not totally be in the wrong. Which is again, highly subjective, as is much of environmental politics, and hence why policy around it is so challenging.

NGOs

In class, Professor Shirk presented us with two quotes regarding NGOs, one in support being, “NGOs appear to be the key actors in moving societies away from trends of environmental degradation and toward sustainable economies” (Princen and Finger 1994). The other being against, or having very little faith, “the environment is not going to be saved by environmentalists. Environmentalists do not hold the levers of economic power” (Maurice Strong, UNCED Secretary General). I think there is truth in both of these statements. NGOs can help to change the behaviors of a society, but also, they are not the members of the government with economic power. Their power does not come from a base of money, but rather reshaping the norms of a society.  

NGOs focus in on issues that the government isn’t helping on, and impact people on a daily basis from poverty to human rights. Because of this, they tend to have support from the people who are actually affected, to those who are in support of such issues. For example, whenever there is any kind of natural disaster where the Red Cross can step in and help, there are always commercials with various celebrities asking people to help. Here the Red Cross gains support from those impacted, the celebrities endorsing them, and the viewers of the commercial who decide to then donate or do what they can to help.

NGOs often resort to shady tactics to gain support, but often times end up being successful in changing behaviors that negatively impact the environment. Framing is a type of information politics tactic that they use, as we saw in the whaling pamphlet from lecture 7, that it can take 30 minutes to kill a whale, but only 3 minutes to read the pamphlet and ultimately save the whale. Whenever I see a Greenpeace member they always ask “do you have a minutes to help save the environment,” because even though they know a majority of the people they ask aren’t going to talk to them, they know that particular framing of the question is going to make people feel guilty when they respond with “no,” and is likely to make them think twice.

Another example of framing could be the term “cage-free” on cartons of eggs. If someone is looking at eggs and takes a second to read the cartons before picking one up and sees that, they are definitely more likely to pick up cage free as opposed to the other ones who must mean the chickens are locked up in cages. This sort of guilt tripping pushes people into making different decisions, like in this case, with eggs. Then, the demand for cage-free eggs increases and becomes a more popular seller, which could mean that NGOs do have some economic power, but that is not their basis. They derive their power by changing societal norms from ones that may be harmful to the environment, to those that are not harmful, or at least are less harmful.

            PETA also uses this type of guilting people into doing the “right” thing when they distribute pamphlets right outside of the student union on UMD campus. They are using information politics in hopes of persuading students away from eating meat. These pamphlets are filled with disturbing images of animals in slaughterhouses and big meat packing plants being tortured and abused for human consumption. These dramatic images are used to try and get students to stop eating meat and supporting those industries.

This can relate back to our second lecture and the constructivism theory of international relations. This is based on social constructions, norms, and that “institutions and organizations provide governance without government” (lecture 2). NGOs use their variety of tactics to shape the social constructions and norms to be beneficial to the environment and due to their influence, provide governance. Even if their power does not derive from that of money, it does not mean that environmentalists will not help save the environment. These pressures NGOs place on society to save the environment and make better decisions absolutely make a difference, even if only a small one in certain cases. 

The Downside of the IMF

                The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was created in 1944 with the goal of promoting international economic cooperation and provide its member countries with short term loans so they can trade with other countries. This idea is supposed to even the playing field so smaller countries can compete with the larger more powerful countries. The larger countries had a habit of threatening smaller countries with trade exclusions if they did not do as they said. One of the prime examples of this is when the United States refused to accept imports from Malaysia, India, and Pakistan due to the fact that the fishermen who caught the shrimp did not use turtles excluding devices (TED’s) which stops the turtles from being killed. Because of this environmental groups in the United States said that there was a moral obligation to protect these animals, and also a legal one under the Endangered Species Act. The World Trade Organization initially ruled in favor or Malaysia, India, and Pakistan, but later reversed its ruling saying the United States could ban the import of shrimp from these countries. Critics point out that this is a prime example of why organizations like the IMF and WTO should not be allowed to operate, they have policies that favor the rich and global north.

                There are many other problems that critics use as an argument against the IMF most notably the human rights group global exchange accuses the IMF of modern day colonialism, they say the bailouts offered to struggling countries come with a hidden cost that keeps already weakened countries in economic ruin. The IMF ensures debt repayment by requiring countries to cut spending on education and health; eliminate basic food and transportation subsidies; devalue national currencies to make exports cheaper; privatize national assets; and freeze wages (Global Exchange, 2011). These are the methods the IMF uses to control countries it “helps” if the countries refuse to abide by the conditions set aside the IMF will level sanctions against the country like  freezing all the countries assets and stopping international trade. A recent IMF loan package for Argentina, for example, is tied to cuts in doctors' and teachers' salaries and decreases in social security payments.

                The reason the IMF seems so global north friendly is that voting in the IMF is controlled not by a democracy but power is determined by the amount of money that each country pays into the IMF's quota system, the more money you put in the more influence you can have, and the United States controls 18% of the votes in the IMF (Global Exchange, 2011).  With this voting power the best interests of the United States and its allies are represented, and IMF sanctions rarely ever go against these countries.

                The IMF also tends to interrupt the natural economic growth of countries, the same mistakes that were made by the United States and other countries, and the incremental building blocks they developed are being ignored, while the IMF is attempting to fast track these countries and it is doing more harm then good. In many countries where the IMF is exerting an influence the focus has shifted from developing a strong domestic economy to one that is focused on exporting as many goods as possible to help pay off the loan. The United States started out as a country where most of its inhabitants were small subsistence farmers, as a result the exports were very low, it took decades of this type of living until a manufacturing revolution took over and the country became a great exporter, and in more recent years then number one importer in the world. The IMF is trying to deny countries the same experience that all developed nations have had, and used to achieve their current status and this has not been successful for any of them. Trying to have countries skip steps many seem like a good idea that it might let them achieve more faster, but knowledge given is never as good as knowledge gained.

Global Exchange website

Can IFQs Be Applied to the Whaling Controversy?

When we think of whaling, it often arouses strong emotions.  We often discuss the suffering of the whale when it is killed, the importance of conserving the whale population as an endangered species, the whale’s role in its ecosystem, and the rights of the whales to live versus the rights of humans to hunt them for traditional or survival purposes (the classic argument of intrinsic versus instrumental value).  However, these questions and issues are often considered from an ethical standpoint; for example, we answer the question “is it right to kill the whales?” in terms of anthropocentric or biocentric viewpoints; whether we value the whales because they have economic value or because they have a right to exist.  These questions, while interesting from a philosophical point of view, merely give insight about the way people value whales ethically, not monetarily.  This positive analysis lends itself to a discussion of why the world is the way it is, not how we might go about fixing the issue or monetizing how people value whales.  To fix the whale hunting issue, we must think more normatively; we must consider what solution would be best and how we can steer society and the economy in that direction.   While some may view it as morally wrong to place a monetary value on a life, my first instinct is to approach this from an economics standpoint.  While the killing of whales may be morally wrong to many people, there are clearly those countries that still have a very high willingness to pay for the ability to continue hunting whales.  Ergo, I believe that the best solution comes in the form of economic incentives; a tradable permit system for whaling similar to those that have been instituted in the commercial fishing sector to maintain fishery populations at a stable level while still allowing for profitable commercial fishing. 

As we read in class, the International Whaling Commission is currently sitting at a crossroads.  On the one hand, the majority of world powers (including the United States) desire a complete ban on whaling based on ethical ideals and public pressure.  On the other hand, Japan and Norway have a strong desire to continue their practice of whaling because of the economic benefit and the tradition.  Although a moratorium on whaling has been enacted, Norway and Japan continue to hunt whales and defy the moratorium, which weakens its credibility and can potentially induce other countries to defy the moratorium as well.  This is where the tradable permit system comes in.

Fisheries around the world are beginning to adopt systems of Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs), which act as a form of “cap and trade” for fisheries.  Each fishery has a total allowable catch based on historical numbers, which provides an incentive to improve the quality of the catch because the fishermen will want to maintain the population for future years instead of overfishing to gain the most profit.  Those vessels that would make more profit selling more of their quotas instead of using them to fish can sell those permits on the quota market, which allows every boat to operate at efficiency.  New Zealand is an incredible example of an ITQ success story; as of 2005, it was managing 93 different species of fish in 550 different quota markets.  The United States jumped on the bandwagon in 2004 with the US Ocean Action Plan, which will put IFQs in place in the US, one fishery at a time.  IFQs have been proven to improve the health of the fishery (maximum sustainable yield), create less animosity between government and fishermen, and turn fishermen into conservationists.  I believe this IFQ system, with a few alterations to account for a smaller niche market, can successfully regulate the hunting of whales.  If the willingness to pay of Japan and Norway is so high that they are willing to disregard the international moratorium to hunt whales, we should introduce an international tradable permit system for catching whales that would allow both environmental groups and whaling countries to purchase the quotas via auction.  This allows environmental groups like the Sea Shepherds in “Whaling Wars” to purchase the lives of whales to save them from being killed.  Some argue that we should not put a monetary value on life because it is unethical, but a price tag on whaling would help limit excessive whaling by making the ability to hunt whales more costly.

These permits would clearly require an economic analysis of both the maximum sustainable yield of whales every year and the cost of a whale’s life so that the permits can be allocated and priced accordingly before auction.  The system will also require the cooperation of both pro and anti-whaling countries to aid in the construction of a new environmental regime that would regulate the tradable permit system.  I believe that one solution for increased cooperation is to guarantee a certain number of whaling permits for Japan and Norway that could decrease over time given the potential changes in the willingness to pay for whaling in pro-whaling countries.  While there is no easy solution to the whaling issue, I believe that if the anti-whaling groups can compromise and allow whales to be hunted with regulation, pro-whaling countries will be more interested in cooperating, compromising, and instituting a system of economic incentives to regulate the hunting of whales in a sustainable and ethical manner.

Civic Activism's True Goal

As I briefly mentioned in the last class discussion on Thursday (the 20^th), I see the Wapner reading as a fundamental debate between the “chicken-and-the-egg in environmental activism.” While Wapner sees civic engagement with the regime as a key element missing from the debate, I see it as mainly an engine to create or influence political change, particularly in the developed/industrialized world.

Wapner seems keener on public change as an endpoint for civic activism, and this is where I particularly disagree with his philosophy. I do believe civic activism has merit outside of the political arena. Passion for the cause and widespread support of environmentally-friendly changes are necessary to facilitate a reduction in damage to the environment. Without this, an environmental law would not succeed in amending the problem because most environmental restrictions lack teeth. Teeth are not necessary, however, if the public is informed and welcoming of the necessary changes. I believe, however, that this process is ultimately meant to influence high-level decisions by governments and corporate channels.

Thus, in the developed world, public opinion and willingness to change daily habits and influence corporate change is paramount. This is easily facilitated, however, by strong linkages provided by modern technology. Without dramatic social media campaigns (i.e. the KONY movement), such atrocities would not become “viral” and appealing to the public as an issue of importance. Similar tactics can and should be used for environmental regimes. One of the most powerful media assets I have seen throughout college is the Story of Stuff. Sometimes the public is not in opposition of policies that would better the environment, but are simply uninformed about the issues at hand. Informational campaigns published through social media platforms can be one of the most important tools of modern environmental activists. While I do not agree with the specific methods of “Whale Wars,” I do believe that their focus on publicizing injustice is useful.

The story changes, however, when discussing the environmental changes needed in the developing world. While technological advances are spreading rapidly, internet usage and television access are not as what is found in industrialized countries. Thus, in this case, legal remedies could be more effective than the simple dissemination of information. Environmental laws and their enforcement would be seen as more legitimate than simple informational campaigns that cannot reach the majority of the people. They would also give teeth to the fight. Developing nations need such teeth to make changes in the corporate and industrial world. An angry, environmentally-conscious populace is less likely to make significant change in a developing country because they do not hold much market incentive for the polluting company to shift behaviors. In developed countries, the power of the purse is stronger and, in some cases, can make a case for shifts in corporate policies. I do not see this as a viable means of change for poorer countries. Additionally, the power of the electorate, in general, is weaker in developing countries (due to instances of corruption, lower educational attainment, and poverty) meaning that civic activism is less likely to make an impact on the way the government operates.

Publicizing the issues and priorities of environmental regimes can be used in developed nations to influence political decision-making. Most developed nations have a democratic system that includes the power to remove leaders from office (by vote or impeachment) if they do not live up to the electorate’s expectations. In turn, political decisions more heavily rely upon the wishes of the electorate in developed countries than in industrializing nations.

Thus, I do not see civic activism in developing countries as a viable method for significant environmental policy reform. The environment could be better served by focusing international pressures on the government a specific developing state to incentivize meaningful change. In the case of developed nations equipped with a large presence on social media, civic activism can function in a positive manner, but ultimately the goal will be political change. 

- Katie