Transnational Activism and Social Media

Environmental transnational activist groups may be only spreading information to followers, and not the targeted audience of fossil fuel supporters. A recent study conducted by Public Understanding of Science found that during an international day of protest called the Global Frackdown, communication on twitter was split into segmented “hashtag publics”. This means that conversations on the fracking debate were sheltered from one another, with little room for debate. The same trend is pertaining now to the Climate Summit; while climate activist circles are actively engaged in the subject, oil and gas industries are straying away from mentioning the issue on social media (Science Codex). Nonetheless, debate is necessary to generate long-term solutions to this issue. Without engaging dialogue between fossil fuel industrialists and climate change activists, agreements cannot be formed on ways to significantly decrease CO2 emissions. Oil-gas industry stakeholders, civil society, and states have to work together in order to address the environmental problems that will affect the world’s future.

Keck and Sikkink discuss the interconnectivity of transnational activist networks. These bubbles of conversation pool together local social movements, foundations, media, international organizations, and parts of governments. To be effective, transnational activist networks rely on the Boomerang Model, wherein issues are presented to a broader international base that then pressures the government. In the case of environmental transnational activism, the Boomerang Model may be the only means to achieve domestic goals. Many developing countries have a desirable incentive to industrialize with fossil fuel technology. In these countries, governments may be unwilling to compromise, associating decreased CO2 emissions with increased costs. The Boomerang Model causes foreign governments to come to a consensus on how to best provide financial incentives for developing countries. This model can also be attributed to wealthy nations. In countries such as the United States, corporate lobbyists may halt environmental laws needed for improved atmospheric conditions. To circumvent Congress, novel international approaches need to be consulted. The meeting at the Climate Summit avoids the need for Congressional approval, since whatever results from it will not be a treaty. If transnational activists can raise enough support to gather powerful heads of state, there is greater probability that CO2 emissions will start decreasing. Nonetheless, topics need to be generated in order for environmental issues to be understood among those in power.

To promote dialogue, environmental transnational activist groups need to broaden their scope and change their rhetoric. Part of the current problem is that both parties create an argument over information politics. In the same way that competing companies display the benefits of their products in different terms, an exchange of selective statistics causes a greater divide between supporters and dissidents of climate change. This problem can be addressed by creating a forum where facts are presented on equal grounds, and where both environmental and fiscal concerns can be handled on a logical basis. Nonetheless, I do not think that the current forms of social media are adequate for this forum. As aforementioned, social media sites such as twitter have a tendency to dissolve conversation between opposing groups. In order to promote change, a new social media forum needs to be created, one that convenes opposing parties and generates solutions and the unforeseen drawbacks associated with them.

 Works Cited

"Climate Activists Dominate Social Media, but Are They Just Preaching to the Choir? | Science Codex." Climate Activists Dominate Social Media, but Are They Just Preaching to the Choir? | Science Codex. 6 Dec. 2015. Web. 7 Dec. 2015.