Yum... Nothing Like Mama's Shark Fin Soup!

On the Dot Earth blog, Andrew Revkin mentioned Palau (a Pacific country) has declared its waters a shark refuge. Celebrated by biologists for its marine life diversity, it is also harmed by an increase in illegal fishing of sharks to satisfy the appetites of some Chinese for fins. This is a tragedy not only for these large fish but also for Palau itself, as reef diving is a primary source of income there.

In brief, President Johnson Toribiong of Palau announced to the U.N. General Assembly his idea to ban all commercial shark fishing in his nation. This is supported by Carl Safina (marine biologist), who informed that Palau has actually recovered from reef bleaching – in other words, it is heaven for many aquatic species. But here's the problem with stopping shark fishing there: Palau only has one enforcement vessel to watch a zone nearly the size of Texas. Turning idealism into realism is a challenge indeed.

The issue gets juicier with the comments to the blog entry. Most of the responses were on topic, although some strayed onto that of clearcutting in the Pacific Northwest. Respondent #8 noted that only 5% of America's old growth forest remains, although we do have more forests than it did in previous years due to national parks.

Respondent #1 typed about the gorey photos in the article and is amazed that shark finning has not been made illegal across the globe. He feels shark fishermen should be “thrown in prison and confiscate their boats.” His point is emotional, not logical. Imprisoning shark fishermen is not the solution to the problem. Also, Respondent #5 stated that the Chinese and Japanese lack the desire change their palates due to their culture, and Respondent #7 feels the Chinese should aid in world biodiversity. These two people have logical, sound points, and to a extent civil (I agree with them, believe me). Many sharks are threatened or endangered or are key species in aquatic ecosystems. For these reasons alone they should be protected, as these are based on science.

As environmentalists, it is important that we do not fall off-topic and above all base our opinions on science before emotions. Emotions can always be countered. And remember, old growth forests are irrelevant when speaking of sharks!

(Article available here.)

A Healthy Respect

Today I went to the supermarket to buy tea for myself and my boyfriend who is coming down with a cold. He requested echinacea(harvested from the purple coneflower at right) tea, to help boost his immune system. While looking for the tea in the organic isle of the store, I noticed another tea called kombucha. Immediatly I had a flashback to when I used to live at home, and my mother made kombucha tea from the mushroom. Kombucha aids the immune and digestive system. It also detoxifies the body and fights fatigue.

All of a sudden as I am standing in the organic isle of the store looking at these teas, I realized that we have to buy vitamins and dietary supplements because the food that we eat doesn't provide enough of these things for us anymore. I recently had to start taking an iron (increases red blood cell count and aids on carrying oxygen through the body) supplement because there was none left in my systsem. I personally think I eat plenty of green, leafy vegetables (an excellent source of iron), but why then was there not any in my system?

It used to be that when you walked into a helath food store, it was more common to see elderly people standing in the supplement isle possibly looking for calcium supplements to offset osteopetrosis. But now people of all ages are seen in these stores looking for health supplements to "keep their bodies happy". I suppose that because we are in college and eating preprocessed food that there are no more vitamins left in the food. Thank goodness they feed us some local organic food, otherwise our bodies wouldn't know how to ingest the vitamins and minerals we need to stay healthy. Of course, going to an environmental college, we tend to be more aware of what our bodies need to stay healthy than someone who is studying to be a lawyer at Harvard, and eats fast food along with the cafeteria food.

Is this information accurate? Some of it is, some of it isn't. Like the clip we watched in class last night of Glenn Beck's derogatory, sarcastic comments towards the earth poster teachers have put in their classrooms. This poster reads "I pledge allegiance to the earth and all life it supports." One of the students in class last night mentioned how allegiance could simply relate to respect. Therefore this poster could be interepreted to mean "I respect the earth and all life it supports."

Well, couldn't teachers put up posters that read "I pledge allegiance to a healthy body and mind, and understand the potential I have to be beautiful..." ? Because this poster would simply be intrepreted as saying "I respect my body and mind, and understand that it could have the potential to be healthy....". It's all in the underlying message and "reading between the lines". We all interpret things differently as they apply individualy to us. It only takes a little analyzation from different views to find the true meaning of things.

P.S. Keep yourselves healthy!

Beck versus Gore: Frame Off Smack Down I

Al Gore, Glenn Beck, what more could you want in a media frame-off?  How about an extra layer of interpretation by Media Matters?

Successful media framing is using organizing themes (frames) to effectively connect the various elements of a news story (headlines, quotes, visuals, and narratives) into a packaged interpretation of the facts that gets the viewer (me and you) to understand the facts in whatever way the media packager (individual, network, website) intends (see Cox, p. 163.)  Whew!  "Easier said than done," you say?  "That must take all day," you say?  Well check out this video I found on the Media Matters website.  In just a 2 minute 11 second clip I count 3 layers of framing.  Much of it is simply name-calling and mockery, but I guess that passes for framing too these days.

I'm counting at least three layers of framing at work here:

1. Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States, Nobel Prize Winner, and producer of "An Inconvenient Truth," compares people who do not believe in global warming to folks who don't believe that the Earth is round.  He also compares non-global warming types to those who think that the space program (at least the part where we landed on the moon) is a fake.
2. Glenn Beck, Fox News Anchor (and not much else) gesticulates, mocks, and abuses science in the name of discrediting Gore and climate change science.
3. Media Matters, the online site dedicated to rooting out media bias (mostly in right-wing media, apparently) in turn mocks Beck, as a "climate change scientist."
4. John Zavodny, Professor of Philosophy and Humanities at Unity College, teacher of this here course, professional smart-ass, and amateur media analyst, mocks them all.

Did I say 3-layers? 

I guess that's 4. 

I don't teach math for a reason.

Well That was Rude

In this post I attempt to write an environmental communication post while talking about a form of environmental communication.

He starts off with his catchy "country rock" music then announces that he will have an hour of "broadcasting excellences" for you to listen to. Rush Limbaugh seems to be pretty confident on his program and that he will recieve a bunch of listeners, he is right. He continues with talking about how democrats' equal socializim and that Obama's "loony toons" staff may want to distroy the government. He sad something that I almost agreed on with, but then he started with his sarcasm and I caught what he was trying to do. He just tried to persuade me on agreeing with him on a false agrument with a few catchy words, nice try Rush.

I believe that civilized communication is great but not interesting. I am one of those people who loves watching those reality t.v shows because you know that someone will have it out during that hour of programing, or watching some U.F.C to see some blood shed and before I sleep I will watch a documentry or some sort of educational show to learn something while getting sleepy. I am not saying that everyone is like this but we are raised around a hostile world where our ansectors would make people fight to the death.

Entertainment in my opinion is something that makes you release an emotion: anger, happniess, exciment, etc. To do that the person/people on the telivison need to be entertaining. To be enteraining and informative is a talent because it is so hard, especially if you don't want to offened anyone, that is why most informatives don't even try to not be offensive, being offensive and rude with a little humor are the ingredants to a perfect show, it draws people in. I think that this form of media is whats popular now, civilizaed t.v could work but at the moment it's new to a lot of people, it needs time to settle in thier minds. But if we raise the next generation in a less hostel world then maybe they will listing and watch less hostile programming and who knows we may one day have a utopia, but boy would that be boring.

WARNING: It's the End of the World.

While doing some reading I came across the concept of apocalyptic warnings. Apocalyptic warnings are meant to inject a fear about something to get the point across that "if we don't act now this is going to happen", or that's how I understood it anyways. Are they natural occurances or things that are made by people? For example, the movie The Day After Tomorrow was all about climate changes and melting polar ice caps and if we don't act now then the whole northern hemisphere is going to freeze. I feel that that movie scared people because of how realistic it could potentially be. I also feel that a lot of the times fear is what triggers our motivation to get things done, but at the same time that fear could backfire. What if the fear got out of control? Would anything get accomplished and would there ever be solutions to our problems? Probably not. Fear is a touchy subject. It can easily get out of control. So my point is, are apocalyptic warnings good or bad? You decide.

Blog Prompts | Sept 22-29

Visit The Tyndall Report.  Run a search for mainstream news coverage of a particular environmental issue (global warming; sustainable agriculture; hydrogen powered cars; etc.)  What do you see?  How do the networks compare on their coverage?  OR look at the media coverage timeline and match media coverage spikes and troughs to world events.

Complete your own top 10 list of blogs related to a particular environmental theme related to your chosen profession.  Provide links, descriptions, and the qualities that elevate these sites over others.

Go to Andrew Revkin's Dot Earth blog.  Read a post with at least 5 responses.  Analyze the message and the responses. Are responses typically on topic?  Logical?  Civil?  What advice regarding content and etiquette would you give for commenting to a blog?

Grist magazine.  Rachel's Environment & Health News.  Compare and contrast tone, style, subject matter, advertising (if any) and mission.

Pick an image event that is not mentioned in Cox.  Explain the example, why it counts as an image event and what makes it work (or fail) as an image event.

Is Dolphin Safe Tuna Really Safe?

Is dolphin safe tuna really safe to dolphins? It seemed like common sense that it is however that isn’t necessarily true. According the US Consumers Union, there is no guarantee that dolphins have not been harmed despite the labels on the can. This is because there is no universal and independent verification of the dolphin friendly claims, by observers, for example, which board fishing boats or make surprise visits to canneries to inspect the captains' logs.

Dolphins are often found swimming above schools of yellow fin tuna. Knowing this, fishing fleets look for dolphins in order to trap tuna. The fishing fleets then use encircling nets to catch the dolphins which in turn would catch all the tuna. Since the 1990’s the government prohibited companies from using the “Dolphin Safe” label on fishing fleets that used the encircling nets to catch tuna. However, in 2002 it was determined that this was no longer harmful to the dolphin population as a whole. This allowed fishing fleets to again use encircling nets and get away with the “Dolphin Safe” label.

In 2008, Greenpeace released a report that noted that “Dolphin safe” labels can make people believe that tuna with the label is overall environmentally friendly. However other species such as sharks and albatross still suffer from tuna fishing. Also the hunt itself still has an impact on the environment. So I guess sometimes labels have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Man Vs. Nature

Today I read “The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis” by Lynn White. It explained in detail how intentionally and unintentionally human behavior affects the wildlife all around us. All throughout life humans have been altering the natural world in favor of our own lifestyle and frequently forget the impact we’re having on the environment and animal life. From as far as we can go back the more science and technology grew the more we began to exploit nature instead of act as a part of it. The evidence is apparent: No other creature has truly soiled the earth like humans.

In Christianity it was man that had named the creatures of Earth and therefore assumed dominance over them. So it is thought humans are made in God’s image so the rest of the natural world is ours to do with. White believes that we will not ease ourselves out of this ecological mess no matter how many scientific and technological advances we make unless we get a new religion or begin to reform our old one.

Out of all human shames came Saint Francis of Assisi who firmly believed in the humility of mankind. It was said that he spoke with animals and repented for the error of his ways. His vision of God was unique because it was an alternative form of Christianity in which he tried substituting man as equal with the rest of the creatures rather than man ruling over all. Though he failed in trying to justify man’s relation to creatures it does bring to light that the root of the problem is partially because of religion and so we must remedy it with the same religion.

Saint Francis’s vision of Christianity has enlightened a new perspective and I believe many Christians in today’s society are beginning to realize exactly how valuable nature is to us. We as humans have such a tremendous influence over nature that we often believe we are superior. However, even though we have a natural advantage over the surrounding environment we do owe our respects to nature.

If we dont no does it matter

The other day in class we talked about an issue of if you dont no about it does it relly matter. That made me think about alot of things that are going on in this cuntry right now and I think one of the most importand issues is global warming, and when i thought about if I dident no about it would it matter and the truth is no it wouldent. It makes me wonder if this hole thing is even real or if scientest are just looking for a way to scare people in to changing the way we live to make them happy. What do you think?

Dolphin Safe Tuna

Being a college student in a dorm room I get a lot of canned foods for when I’m hungry. The other day I bought some cans of tuna at the store and noticed that they had a dolphin safe label on them. I thought it was very interesting how they used this label to environmentally communicate to the public and encourage people to buy their product.
I decided to look online and find out what the story was behind these labels and why they are needed. I discovered that without the use of alternative fishing methods hundreds of thousands of dolphins die from the industry using driftnets, gillnets, and purse seine nets. These methods don’t focus exclusively enough on the target species and therefore have a large bi-catch, which includes dolphins.
These labels represent organizations that set standards for the fishermen to follow. If the fishermen harvest tuna in a manner that minimizes the accidental killing of dolphins according to the organizations standards, then they get to put the label on their cans. This label attracts customers and makes the cans more marketable. There are many different labels all with different standards, but they all strive to eliminate the killing of dolphins while still helping tuna sales by putting their label on the cans. Some of these include labels made by United States Department of Commerce, EarthTrust, Earth Island Institute, Greenseas and Princes foods.
This is a great example of an environmental condensation symbol. It communicates how you can make a difference just by making a decision to buy a brand that has a dolphin safe label on it. It gets you emotionally involved because no one wants dolphins killed for no reason. We just want our tuna.

Beating a dolphin for dinner

The other day I was watching environmental videos and I came across this Dolphin safe tuna video. In the video they didn’t show the message that they were trying to get across very well. I thought the video was pretty funny and it caught my attention, but I didn’t really understand what it was trying to say. At the end of the video it showed that it was dolphin safe tuna so I did some research on it and found that not all tuna companies actually have dolphin safe tuna even though they say they do. I think this is what the video was trying to show, that some companies are actually really mean to the dolphins and still put them in the tuna, even though they say otherwise. If the video had a little more information about the dolphins, it would’ve been better and more understanding. It would’ve gotten its point across. If the video had talked about the actual tuna companies lying about their dolphin safety, then the video would’ve been more truthful and better.

"Going GREEN?"

My question is does "going GREEN" really make an impact on the environmental problems? Does one person really make a difference? Why are some things we do better than others?

To be honest I think all we're doing is changing from one earth killing method to another. Either way we're slowly killing everything around us so we can live the luxurious lives we've become accustomed to. Some examples are things such as using as little paper as possible. That seems like an awesome idea right? Save some trees and the world and rainforests will be saved. Well if we don’t use paper then what will we use? Electronic? Don’t electronics use electricity? But where does the electricity come from? Is it collected through solar power or wind power? Don’t both of those options require metal, buildings to collect and store the energy plus additional maintenance that requires more natural materials?

These are all question that people should ask but never do. It seems like people just see the positive side effects instead of the negative. The scientists just see that not using paper and other woods will keep the rainforest from depleting which is true and awesome but they still aren’t very good solutions. There must be better ones out there that just haven’t been tried before.

I believe there is so much more that can be done and just isn’t. Lets so back to the primitive styles of living and see how they’re sustainable. Maybe that’s the key to prolonging the earth and all that it has to offer. Another could be to help people recycle by allowing them to recycle for free and really educating people about the “going GREEN”. To many people just can’t afford it.

http://www.rnp.org/GreenPower/sources.html

Choking the Earth...and maybe Ourselves?

Pollution. Over 1 billion people in the world are affected by pollution from food, air, or water. Since most of the media's attention focuses on global warming and climate change, this"shrugged off" environmental antagonist still holds much relevance today. 

As more and more people are born everyday, demand rises for products and resources. With these demands, companies increase production rates, more cars get on the roads, sewage rises, and clean water sources decrease, causing people to use whatever they can get, even if it is unsanitary water. Garbage builds up, and sometimes has nowhere to go.

There are many different ways human health can be impacted by pollution, including artisanal gold mining (mercury emissions), contaminated surface and groundwater, and air pollution. In an article written by Timon Singh, which can be found at http://www.americainfra.com/news/pollution-impacts/, the severity of these issues is covered. 

The antagonism of public health and urban pollution covered by Cox came about in the 1960s, but it is still a concern now. So, how do I know about pollution? Well, there are many ways people can learn that pollution exists, including the infamous global warming warnings showing cars and carbon emissions, but there are also different, less obvious ways pollution can be noticed. One image that stuck out in my mind was from the movie Slumdog Millionare, when the boy is in the sewage and the kids pick through garbage for personal resources. 

So how can pollution be prevented? If you are interested in how your pollution can be decreased, visit this website:http://www.epa.gov/p2/. 

The Media's View of an Apocalypse

How often do you hear the words, “going green,” “save the planet” or “stop global warming?” These phrases have become part of our everyday language, especially since the movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” came out. Now, “going green” has become almost the focus of our lives. We teach school children the importance of protecting our planet and have even made “going green” a fashion statement. Nowadays, everything can and is related to climate change. We are constantly reminded of our role in the health of the environment, with grocery stores telling us to bring our own bags, t-shirts telling us to save the planet, and websites giving advice from showering to recycling.

Now, even the environment itself seems to be telling us to do something. Warmer winters, visible air and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity are just a few of mother nature’s warnings to us all. But even these might not have been real problems, if not for our own human intervention. They're not problems until we say they are. With scientists telling us these are unnatural events, we have made it our duty to save the environment. We have even become almost paranoid that the world is ending, that every unpredicted event is now a major issue, whether it really is or not.

I’m not exactly sure how we got to this point, but I know we couldn’t have gotten here without the help of the media showing us evidence of things like drowning polar bears, melting icecaps and major floods. Google searches of "Apocalypse" shows us pictures of fiery or barren landscapes, and other environmental catastrophes. I think it is these images that have mostly shaped our views about global warming and the end of the world. These pictures make an idea or far-away concept more real and closer to home. They make us want to act, to do something to prevent future destruction of the earth, but at the same time, they make us more worried than maybe we need to be. These warnings give us the motivation to change our ways for the overall good, but it is not necessarily nature that’s telling us this, but ourselves through the media. How long will this last?

The "Coke" Way of Responding

Environmental communication is all about communicating with the public sphere. It’s about finding the right way to present your environmental issue with the public sphere in a way that will get their attention. A condensation symbol, according to political theorist Murray Eledman, is a symbol that is a short or catchy expression or slogan that is able to compress images, attitudes, reactions, and judgments into a verbal form. Condensation symbols are used on a daily basis as a type of environment communication whether it be a video clip on YouTube/T.V., a catchy picture, or a commercial.

So I was thinking of condensation symbols and trying to point them out one day while watching T.V. and noticed numerous commercials that used them, however the Coca-Cola commercial with the Polar bears struck me as odd. Why polar bears drinking coca-cola in the snow. So I decided to do more information on why the advertising agency would use polar bears. And I got my answer on a website that said, “Polar Bear Support Fund.” I clicked on the website and a whole website committed to helping save the polar bears from their depleting habitat.
Their message was very clear it said,
“It’s time for us all to take action.
To reduce our human impact on global climate change.
To help support the Polar bear.”

The Coca-Cola Company is committed to doing their part to address global climate change.As part of their ongoing commitment to the environment,they created The Coca-Cola Company Polar Bear Support Fund to help build awareness and support for the polar bear. In 2007, the Coca-Cola Company made an initial contribution of $100,000 to World Wildlife Fund to help World Wildlife Fund's efforts to protect polar bears and their habitat. In 2008, they increased their contribution to $300,000 for WWF polar bear conservation efforts in North America. An additional $100,000 was raised through the MyCokeRewards brand loyalty program to help support World Wildlife Fund's efforts.

Its condensation symbols such as Coca-Cola’s commercial with the polar bears, and people like me that wonder why and go that extra mile and find out that Coca-Cola supports the cause! All it takes to raise awareness is a catchy commercial that “catches” the right type of people. Plus, you can never go wrong when you add cute animals..people can’t help but be captivated.

Refrences:

http://polarbears.thecoca-colacompany.com/

Do You Have Some Smokey In You?

As I have grown up, I have always associated Smokey the Bear with fighting fires. He taught me to use safety when dealing with fire. Smokey showed me that a fire can do tremendous amounts of damage to a forest and the wildlife living in it.

Smokey the Bear is the symbol of forest fires throughout the US. He is a known figure on and off the TV or advertisements he is in. Smokey the Bear was first developed in two major wildfires called Los Tablos Blaze in the Lincoln National Forest and the Capitan Gap fire. Together these fires burned around 17,000 acres of beautiful forest and grassland. On May 9, 1950 a baby cub was pulled from the burning forest where it was clinging to a tree. It paws and behind were badly burned and it was rescued and brought to a fire camp. The bear was then named "hotfoot" and later named "Smokey the Bear". So this bear was rescued from a wildfire and it is trying to prevent wildfires from happening so nothing will happen like what happened to Smokey the Bear himself.

To me this is such a successful symbol of preventing wildfires because it is a true life story of a baby bear. Since the fact is that this bear was affected by a wildfire, the bear has a true experience behind his motive to prevent wildfires. This bear being a symbol to prevent wildfires is known all throughout the United States and shows you it is a successful symbol. Smokey tries to get the point across that "only you" can prevent forest fires. Smokey the Bear can be seen anywhere from on a TV, billboards, signs, and even books and much more. By this people all around the world look at Smokey the Bear as preventing forest fires. Smokey the Bear has been a very successful condensation symbol.

"Make A Difference with Dawn"

The past couple of evenings as I have sat in front of the television to relax and nod off after a day of classes and homework, I have been seeing an interesting commercial flash across the screen. It shows people in green jump suits handling various species of wildlife such as penguins and an otter. Both of these animals are covered in a black, slick substance that can be very harmful to wildlife.

These animals have been caught in oil spills and need to be cleaned. I have seen the other advertisements for Dawn dishwashing liquid "the toughtest grease remover for your pots and pans". But for washing wildlife? I mean oil must be a little bit harder to remove than simple food grease right? Yeah, it probably is harder to remove, but Dawn claims their soap can do it.

Needing to satisfy my curiosity, I visited the Dawn website and read that conservationists at the International Bird Rescue Research Center and Marine Mammal Center use Dawn. It helps them save wildlife caught in oil spills safely and gently, removing oil from feathers, skin and fur. Apparently rescuers discovered this use for Dawn thirty years ago, and since then have saved 75,000 animals.

Now Dawn is offering a deal to customers who want to get involved and help save wildilfe: when you buy a bottle of Dawn, activate your donataion online, and one dollar is donated to the International Bird Rescue Research Center and Marine Mammal Center.

This is an extremely effective environmental condensation symbol because it is broadcasted all over the country vie television, and people need to wash their dishes with something. Once they get that bottle of soap home it only takes a couple of seconds to get online and activate the donation. Plus, Dawn cheats a little bit by showing cute and fuzzy looking animals on the commercial and also on the bottles of soap. And lets face it, if Dawn can remove oil from fur and feathers, then I imagine it can remove the toughest greases from your dirty dishes.