Volume 3, Issue 3
Spring 2000
Contents
Creating Perspective
by Debra A. Schwartz
One day in a discussion, I found,myself faced with this question: “Do you sometimes find it difficult to
discern the truth?”
For part of the discussion, we pondered what the search for truth is about. I said the quest is for freedom from fear and ignorance. I also agreed it is important to distinguish between truth and mere factual accuracy. Factual accuracy can be the result of partial knowledge or, potentially, a deliberate deception.
Context carves a path to the truth. That is why it is so important. In showing good judgment and understanding of truth, it reigns supreme. Context shapes our perceptions by providing color, texture and reference points from which to discern truth. Its role in communication is to provide a framework, a kind of looking glass in which truth may be found.
Truth is omnipresent. It is always there, although it may not be evident. Since facts are subject to interpretation, when they are reported out of context we commit the sin of omission. That blows our credibility because it distorts the facts.
Take the case of a professor at Harvard Law School and a public policy professor at Duke University who teamed to study the role political clout plays in influencing cleanup decisions at Superfund sites.
They concluded that political clout rather than the number of cases of cancer avoided determined the level of cleanup at Superfund sites. A closer look at their study revealed three problems. First, the original data used as the basis for their conclusion was outdated. Second, the study was not based on validated assumptions. Third, the researchers did not account for ecological benefits or reductions in the number of non-cancer ailments reported.
In this case, the authors marshaled facts to come up with conclusions based on selective mere factual accuracy. To help discern truth, I offer a few useful definitions provided by author Marsha D. Holliday.
Human truth is based on the best facts as we perceive them now.
Values differ from truth. Whereas truth is what is, values are what one thinks ought to be: what one strives to make real.
Beliefs differ from both truth and values. Beliefs are the confidence and convictions one has about what is and what ought to be-about truth and values.
Those are the components of context. It is human nature to seek a unified meaning. As journalists and researchers, we are the gatherers. It is our responsibility to provide context. That is our ethical burden. Context gives words their potency and weight. When we don’t provide accurate context, we abuse our power.
On the subject of facts, I offer this: facts, truth, values and beliefs are intertwined. We can’t know everything, but we can endeavor to provide context. To the best of our ability. Beyond that, we are open to scrutiny.
Debra Schwarz is a freelance reporter from Chicago
Initial IEC a Success
by Robert A. Thomas, Ph.D.
The inaugural class of the Institute for Environmental Communication (IEC) closed with 38 Fellows
completing the program. The IEC, which will be held each fall semester, is a multi-week program hosting
guest speakers, an impressive group of environmental stakeholders, and plenty of spirited discussion. The
Fellows are selected from the following groups: environmentalists, scientists, journalists, industrialists,
Brown Field community people, politicians, government employees, teachers, business persons, and the like.
Topics range from discussing environmental justice issues to urbanization and the petrochemical industry. Speakers are chosen whose experiences give them the depth of experience to address the concerns of a broad audience.
The purpose of the IEC is to provide a forum for discussion of environmental issues among people who are either directly affected by the issues or have solutions for them within their power.
The principal impediment to achieving workable, sustainable solutions to environmental conflict is the lack of communication among people from diverse segments of society. The Fellows Program’s working hypothesis is that if people who have different motivations meet and work together, they will come to understand others’ perspectives and find it easier to work as a team. Among humans, trust only grows from acquaintance coupled with openness and mutual honesty. It is the purpose of the Fellows Program to produce a constituency that will contribute to an environmentally oriented community within which there is increased communication and trust.
The IEC will produce an alumni group composed of people who have, through the Fellows program and other activities, shared experiences and knowledge about the environment and who know one another personally, thus enhancing the ease of communication.
For additional information, including a list of 1999 IEC Fellows, visit the IEC page of our website.
IEC Fellows (L-R): Gregory Ben Johnson, Allen Kirkley,
LUCEC Director Bob Thomas, Roy Rogge, Darryl Malek-Wiley
What You Don't Know May Hurt You
by Julie DesOrmeaux
Millions of Americans have jumped on the environmental bandwagon over the past twenty years and have since
been diligently doing their part to preserve the natural beauty and safety of our environment. However, they are still
in an uproar over issues such as pollution and trash in our waterways killing our animals and contaminating our drinking
water. What many don’t realize is sometimes their efforts are based on out-of-date environmental information. Oftentimes
the simple, everyday things they do are more destructive than the actions of traditional environmental enemies.
Many Americans curse big industry in the news for their latest oil spill disaster minutes before heading out to the garage to change the oil in the family car. At one time, industrial waste dumping was the main source of water pollution in the US. Now, direct results of actions by individuals and small businesses are the problem. According to the 1998 NEETF/Roper Survey, only one in six Americans knows that changing one’s car oil is the main source of petroleum pollution in rivers, lakes and bays. Fifty-seven percent still think the problem comes from oil rigs, tankers and refineries with unsafe practices. The truth is that individuals are responsible for more oil dumping than industry when they change their car oil, dump it on the ground or in storm drains, and allow this run-off to reach our drinking water.
It’s not uncommon for a sport fisherman to set out for a day on the water by stopping by the local quickie-mart. Here, he or she would fill their cooler with soft drinks before untangling or restringing their fishing rod. Once on the water, they would be sure to snip the six-pack rings left over from the beverage cans because, as they were taught, these plastic rings are the number one cause of wild animal entanglement. According to the survey, 56 percent of Americans would respond in this way. Only 10 percent know that the leftover fishing line they threw in the water just minutes before is by far the main cause of wildlife death by strangling.
The strong backing for safe environmental practices in this country is heartening, but as new environmental information is found and old ideas are replaced, the public needs to be informed. The new information needs to get out, and environmentally aware citizens need to be open to new ideas and willing to change their ways.
Julie DesOrmeaux is a sophomore majoring in communications at Loyola University.
Kicking the Petrochemical Habit
Part II
by Charles Reith, Ph.D. (See Part I)
What would fully costed oil mean to America?
First and foremost, the price would go up...way up. It’s expensive to produce clean energy, and it’s just too tempting to externalize costs (pollute) when we can get away with it. But suppose we found the resolve in governments worldwide to insist on clean, fully costed energy. Not only would the environment become cleaner, but also many sectors of the economy would begin to flourish. Examples of burgeoning new enterprises:
Conservation technology: Suddenly, dozens of shelved technologies for producing more for less-lighting, HVAC, refrigeration, transportation, etc.-would become competitive. The prospect of higher energy bills would make homeowners, car buyers, and business leaders highly receptive to capital investments that reduce energy dependence, hence cut long-term operating expenses.
Renewable energy: Solar, wind, biofuels, and other energy alternatives will spread across society thanks to the increased attractiveness of freedom from the uncertain and escalating price of traditional energy. Past dependence on unreliable subsidies would be replaced by the greater assurance of a return-on-investment: pay more up front to avert energy bills.
Local enterprises: As transportation costs increase, local providers will enjoy price advantages over far-away manufacturers who may currently benefit from cheaper labor, relaxed regulations, or economy of scale.
Repair, refurbishment, and recycling: Rising energy costs will increase the prices of energy-dependent goods, meaning that society will find it increasingly attractive to fix things rather than to discard them and build anew.
Increased energy costs will fuel an exhilarating expansion of enterprises to conserve, extend, recycle, or better utilize the fossil resources and their dependent products. Most exciting will be the long-awaited advances in energy capture and storage technologies that have been held at bay by cheap energy. We can expect progress in photovoltaics, batteries, and electrical efficiency that are analogous to the breath-taking improvements just witnessed for personal computers in their processing speed, storage capacity, communications capability, portability, and affordability.
But what about the economic pain? Lost jobs, idle plants, abandoned infrastructure. It’s true that rising energy prices will adversely affect workers in many sectors of industry, especially those involving frivolous energy-hog products like giant cars, luxury boats, and leisure aircraft. Workers affiliated with inefficient or outdated factories will be laid off as their companies are out-competed by those who have strategically positioned or re-tooled for an energy-efficient economy. Prosperity will shift from those who own the resources to those who can compete with less.
This is where the analogy to drugs applies. Just as withdrawal from an addictive drug requires discipline and sacrifice, so will we find it difficult to extract ourselves from petro-dependency. As a society, we will be challenged to design more intelligently, deploy new technology, and phase out waste and inefficiency. We will be forced to find smarter ways to achieve the same result, to replace smokestack industry with efficient enterprise.
How can we kick the petro-habit? Politicians have been forced to confront this issue because of concern over the accumulation of CO2 and greenhouses. Since science can’t rule out the possibility of environmental and economically damaging consequences-for instance, changes in temperature, precipitation, and storm-frequency-we have explored the possibility of global limits on carbon emissions. A global carbon treaty would require developed nations to replace fossil fuelish systems with highly efficient ones, or with systems powered by renewable or nuclear sources. As with taxes and regulations, there will be contentious debate over the allocation of responsibility. Much lobbying, litigation, and enforcement will be directed toward carbon compliance.
A happy alternative is for industry to exhibit private-sector leadership in solving the petro-problem. Leadership companies such as BP-Amoco and Dupont have shown that stockholders don’t leap like lemmings from companies that acknowledge the possibility of global warming and carbon-regulation. Thanks to their adoption of a business strategy known as “eco-efficiency,” these and other forward-looking companies are breaking trail toward a clean industrial economy. They are serving the marketplace of tomorrow, even as they profit from the marketplace of today.
Unfortunately, many US companies are not yet convinced that the petro-habit is a dangerous addiction.
Charles Reith provides management consulting through his firm Sustainable Systems. He also serves on the Board of ExTen, a Denver-based recycling company. He teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in Environmental Management at the AB Freeman School of Business at Tulane University.
Visitors: Inger Marit Kolstadtbraten & Aaslaug Undheim from Norway
Inger Marit Kolstadbråten and Aaslaug Undheim, Norwegian environmental journalists, visited LUCEC during their trip to the U.S. to research endocrine disrupting hormones. Inger Marit shared her experiences covering the environment in Norway with environmental communications students at Loyola. Here the two are shown taking a few moments break to enjoy Mardi Gras.
Visitor: Mike Anane from Ghana
Mike Anane, an environmental journalist from Ghana, visited LUCEC recently and spoke to classes in journalism, environmental philosophy, and global policy. Mike’s discussions centered on environmental issues he faces in his home country and how he deals with associated political factors. He also toured a state-of-the-art sanitary landfill to prepare for current decisions being made in Ghana regarding waste disposal. Anane is shown here inspecting landfill lining.