All posts by ecole5@illinois.edu

Banning Plastic Bags: 5 Do’s and Don’ts for Your Advocacy Campaign

Photo Credit: http://www.greenschoolsalliance.org/files/Ban%20The%20Bag%20Rally%20Photo.png

Tired of seeing plastic bags littered in your neighborhood? So are many cities! In fact, banning plastics bags or taxing the use of them has been a growing practice for over a decade. In 2002, Ireland became the first country to impose a plastic bag tax at 30 cents a bag, while China was the first country to outright ban them in 2008. The initiatives have paid off dramatically: China has saved over 6 million tons of oil and Ireland has decreased plastic bag consumption by 94%.

U.S. cities are slowly, but surely, following the trend. All across the country cities are implementing plastic bag bans–from Los Angeles, to Chicago, to every county in Hawaii. Is your city one of them? If not, an environmental advocacy campaign may be necessary to kick start your city’s plastic bag ban. Here are 5 do’s and don’ts for creating a successful plastic bag ban campaign.

Do’s

  • Set a concrete goal for the campaign. This may seem obvious, but without a clearly defined goal it will be difficult for the campaign to be successful. Is your campaign trying to ban plastic grocery bags in a specific city? Across the state? Or is it trying to place a cost on plastic bags? Here’s a great example of a well-defined goal from a current campaign in Georgia.
  • Know your audience: who are the decision makers that can ban plastic bags in your city? Who are the supporters of the campaign? And who are your persuadables, those who are undecided yet may possibly become supporters? Knowing your audience is key to success, as supporters will be integral to persuading decision makers to act on the campaign’s behalf.
  • Come up with a strong message for the campaign. A message should be a phrase that concisely states the objectives and overall goal of the campaign. For example, Saratoga Springs, NY used the message “BYOB: Bring Your Own Bag”.

Photo Credit: http://www.papermonkey.com.au/images/folio/act-gov-plastic-bag-ban-campaign/13.jpg

  • Create a strategy. This will give your campaign leverage to persuade decision makers to act on the campaign’s behalf. New York City, for example, is using the cost of shipping plastic bags to landfills—$10 million annually— as leverage to persuade decision makers.
  • Create a demand for banning plastic bags. This can be tricky, but public education is on your side. Use facts and statistics of how plastic bags harm the environment and cost tax payers money to persuade people to act on the campaign’s behalf.

Don’ts

  • Don’t focus on persuading your opponents. They are opponents for a reason, and focusing on them takes energy away from those who can be influenced, like your persuadables.
  • But don’t forget about your opponents either, as their viewpoint will also be a voice trying to influence the final decision. Being aware of their goals and views can help you build a stronger, more concrete campaign.
  • Don’t neglect to create a time frame. Campaigns shouldn’t last forever, and setting a time frame can keep the campaign on track. Is there a city council meeting coming up? An important election? If so, try creating a time frame that aligns with the event so that the campaign’s goal can be voted on. Many bag bans are created by an ordinance during city council meetings, so try to raise awareness before those meetings.
  • Don’t be discouraged by laws that prohibit plastic bag bans. Some cities are countering plastic bag bans and taxes by creating laws that prohibit implementing bans, saying that banning plastic bags is bad for store owners and the job market. Yet, as a 12 year old from Grayslake, IL showed in 2012, these laws can be overcome.
  • Don’t overlook the results of other bag ban campaigns. Sure, some cities may have passed bag ban laws, but are they successful? If not, what is causing them to fail? Use this information to build a stronger campaign with a more achievable goal.

For more tips on how to ban plastic bags in your city, visit the Plastic Pollution Coalition website. To stay up to date with current plastic bag ban campaigns, or to see what cities are banning bags in your state, check out plasticbagbanreport.com.

Good luck!

 

Additional Source Used:

Cox, Robert. Environmental Communications and the Public Sphere. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2013. Print

 

 

 

Changing the Face of Scientific Communication: How Scientists Can Regain Credibility by Acting as Advocates

 

Photo Credit: http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/images/si/cartoon-contest-2012/defreitas-web.jpg

Scientific communication. The two words alone are enough to put you to sleep. Because when you think about these words, if you’re like me, you may picture them to represent long lectures, seminars, scientific papers and writing…old men in white lab coats…boring…zzzz zzz zz…Ahem, excuse me. Basically, it stirs up images of un-comprehendible and un-relatable facts that are given by preachy robot scientists with a mouth to talk, but no ears to listen. But is this what scientific communication really is?

Not necessarily. And there are a growing number of scientists working to change this image of a “typical” one sided scientist. Because whether we realize it or not, scientific communication shapes the way we behave on a daily basis. It’s incredibly important to our well-being and has the possibility to shape our future. Not only that, but our understanding of science greatly affects which laws and regulations get passed. Therefore, scientists are trying to change the way they communicate, that is, they are going to greater lengths to get their research out for the public to read in a more reader friendly way.

This change is not coming easily. Historically scientists have been seen as objective beings that simply do research and find out facts. To share their findings and act as an advocate towards policy change as a result of their study, to some, undermines the scientist’s credibility. Even more, many of scientists’ findings, especially environmental scientists, suggest a great need for stronger regulations on industry. This then causes industry to fight scientists, question their credibility, and bring doubt to the public of the legitimacy of scientists’ findings.

We now have this paradox: society feels that it is scientists’ duty to warn them of potential dangers, yet they are constantly told to question scientists’ findings. This has created a society that is over skeptical and untrusting of scientists.

Which brings up the debate of scientists’ role in communication. Should they act as early warners to possible threats that face society? Should they advocate for policy change? And what should they do to regain the public’s trust?

Mike SanClements. Photo credit: http://cwest.colorado.edu/people

All of these questions and more were answered when I talked with scientist, environmental communicator, and author Mike SanClements. SanClements is the author of Plastic Purge, a risk communication aimed towards helping consumers make smarter decisions when consuming plastic. Relatable, understandable, and interesting to read, his book is an example of how beneficial it can be for society when scientists act as advocates.

Q: In your book, you give tons of examples of studies finding that chemicals in plastics have negative effects on humans, yet most people have never heard of these effects. What role do you feel scientists play in communicating their results to the public?

SanClements: There’s a huge debate in science about this, about the role of scientists as advocates and whether they should take on that role. I actually would go against the majority of scientific professionals because I believe that if you do have knowledge and that knowledge reflects a decision for a better outcome for humanity, you shouldn’t just put it out there and then walk away. Rather you should try to be vocal about it and make [the information] as digestible as possible. One of the reasons why I think scientific communication doesn’t go over well is because it can be stuffy and difficult to understand, and sometimes condescending. That’s one thing I tried to avoid when writing my book. I tried to show that I too use plastic, I’m not advocating that we stop using plastic. But an awareness about it can help us make smarter decisions.

Q: Does popular media play a role in risk communication?

SanClements: I think they do. But when I think about journalism’s role, I think that their overall goal is to be true to the evidence and true to what they are conveying. And I feel like that might not always be the case of what’s happening. Climate change is a good example here. A lot of times you see news stories that try to give equal weight to both sides of this issue, even though, like, 99% of scientific research shows that climate change is happening. So I think that showing both sides to an issue is important, but it’s also important to show the magnitude of both sides of the risk they are reporting on.

Q: In relation to your book, Good Morning America recently did a story saying that according to the European Food and Safety Authority BPA is ok for consumption. What is your reaction to that?

SanClements: I think my reaction to it is, you know, when I read through a lot of peer reviewed literature in researching this book, [the answer] wasn’t clear cut and there’s a lot of unknown about the levels it takes to mimic these hormones in our body. There’s evidence for both ways, right? Some found that BPA was harmful, some found that it wasn’t. If you look at the funding of literature, the one’s funded by industry find that it’s less harmful, versus the government who found it more harmful. But I guess why wait for a conclusion because there may never be one, you know? It’s not always going to be a complete black and white answer. Or it may be obstructed by industry, like cigarettes were for a long time.

Q: But with conflicting studies it’s hard for consumers to know who to trust. How can scientists overcome doubt in people’s minds?

SanClements: I think that a lot of that goes towards teaching people the idea of critical thinking and scientific understanding and how the scientific method works essentially. I’m not sure how you could do it, but I think we need to teach the public how peer review works and how to find good, legitimate sources.

Q: What advice would you give to people going into an environmental communication field?

SanClements: From a scientist’s perspective I think it’s important [for journalists to] report the crux of what the scientist was studying. Rather than expanding on it, [journalists] should try to understand it. Sometimes they take ideas and scale them up too much. From a scientists perspective it can be hard because [scientists] feel like they say one quote and if it’s kind of catchy, it gets sort of misinterpreted, cited, and then misrepresents the study, which makes the study lose importance. From the other perspective, as a scientist who watches other scientists try and communicate, I feel like sometimes scientists themselves need to really sort of just loosen up. (Laughs) They need to not be afraid and understand that it’s ok to advocate and have beliefs about things, and share their work in the context of society. They should also speak loosely and not always feel like they’re being peer reviewed. Sometimes I feel like that leads to people just not wanting to hear it

By acting as advocates, scientists have the potential to help society more than ever before and regain their credibility. In a world that is more or less controlled by industry, their voices are desperately needed to shed light on serious environmental problems and to support policy change that leads to tighter regulations on industry. As SanClements, and many other scientists show, a new face needs to be given to science communication. One that isn’t afraid to stand up to the stereotypical images of objective scientist; one that stands up for scientific findings and works to inform the public of serious consequences. The face of an advocate.

 

For more information on Mike SanClements and his book, visit his website: www.mikesanclements.com

For a film that looks at industry’s impact on scientific communication, watch “Merchants of Doubt”. The trailer can be seen here.

Additional Source Used:

Cox, Robert. Environmental Communications and the Public Sphere. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2013. Print

Plastic: A Convenient Dependence

We’ve all seen it: plastic bags tangled in trees waving like the victory flags they are. Because if you think about it, we’ve been at war with plastic for the last few decades, and from the look of grocery stores and the environment, plastic has won. Think about your daily routine. Where’s the plastic? If you’re like me, it’s everywhere. From the time I wake up to the time I go to sleep, I am quite literally surrounded by plastic. This is both good and bad. Plastic has allowed us to achieve amazing things and pursue new technologies. If it weren’t for plastic, we wouldn’t have the advanced medicine, green technology, or computers that we have today.

Photo Credit: smchealth.org/bagban

A problem arises, however, when we become wasteful of plastic. Referred to as “single use plastic” it is the bottles, bags, and packaging that can be seen littering the streets and water ways. Single use plastics create a problem for society in more ways than one. We are so addicted to its convenience, we fail to see its short comings that have potentially harmful impacts on human health and the environment. From concerns of chemical leaching to concerns of environmental degradation, plastic has us at its mercy.

So what exactly is so bad about plastics? Environmentally speaking, they are both directly and indirectly harmful. Plastic is petroleum based, and it is estimated that about eight percent of all oil harvested goes towards making it. Oil harvesting, as we all know, is a potentially dangerous and destructive process that can sometimes result in oil spills, causing major loss of life, possibly lowering biodiversity. And while most plastics are recyclable, according to a study done by the EPA in 2012 only about nine percent of all plastic produced was actually recycled that year. The rest winds up in landfills or water ways where they can potentially leach harmful chemicals into the environment, including drinking water.

photo credit: loyarburok.comPhoto Credit:http://www.loyarburok.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/turtle_choking_plastic-450×281.jpg

Directly, plastic is responsible for the death of thousands of animals a year. Over 180 species of animals have been found to eat plastic, and when their stomachs get full of the toxic stuff, they die. Sea turtles are notorious for eating plastic bags because they look like jelly fish, their favorite meal. Recently stories of whales succumbing to plastic’s invasion have circulated in the media. In 2013 a sperm whale washed up on the shores of the Netherlands with 37 pounds of plastic in his stomach, which ultimately caused his death. When they’re not in animals’ stomachs, discarded plastics that wind up in the ocean leach chemicals, of which the effects are unknown.

This brings up another short coming of plastic: just how safe is it? Plastic has really only been around (for consumer use at least) since the 1950s. As such, studies on how chemicals in plastic affect humans are relatively new. None the less, this is a very heated topic that has received much attention lately. A lot of the attention has been focused on BPA, a chemical found in the lining of canned foods and in polycarbonates, or plastic number seven. This chemical is concerning because it is an endocrine disruptor, which means that it can affect your hormones. Specifically, BPA mimics estrogen, and has been linked to higher risk of breast cancer, birth deformities in boys, and autism. A study done by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that over 93% of Americans have BPA in their urine.

Another concern is a group of chemicals called phthalates. Phthalates are very similar to BPA in their possible health concerns, however, they are much more wide spread in the environment. According to an article by Maia James, founder of Gimme the Good Stuff, you couldn’t avoid phthalates even if you wanted to. That’s because aside from being used in plastics like PVC (plastic number 3), they are also used in fragrances, soaps, shampoos, deodorants, make-up, and cars, among other things. What’s worse, most of the time they are part of a product’s fragrance, not the actual product itself. Because of this, companies are not required to include phthalates in the list of ingredients. So you could be wearing phthalates and not even know it. Again, phthalates are linked to developmental abnormalities in baby boys, so the widespread use of them is pretty scary.

The last chemicals of concern are styrene and benzene. These chemicals can be found in plastic number six, polystyrene, commonly called Styrofoam. Polystyrene is the plastic that makes up coffee lids, take out containers, and Solo cups, just to list a few items. The chemicals styrene and benzene can leach from polystyrene, especially when heated. This is problematic as many people eat and/ or heat their food in polystyrene, allowing these chemicals to leach into the food. Styrene is associated with various neurological and gastrointestinal problems and can even lead to an increased chance of getting leukemia and lymphoma; while benzene is actually listed as a known carcinogen and reproductive toxin in California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

So you can see why plastics are so controversial. On one hand, they are a great convenience to our very busy life style—who among us can live without their mostly plastic phone? On the other hand, they may be slowly killing us (and quickly killing animals). Reports on their health effects are controversial and the results seem to depend on who is doing the study. Studies done by the FDA find that small amounts of these chemicals are safe for consumption, while studies done by schools and researchers find that they are dangerous. Who should we believe?

Photo credit:http://advocacy.britannica.com/blog/advocacy/wp-content/uploads/bags-2.jpg

Whether you believe plastic poses health risks or not, one thing is certain: not all plastic is necessary and improperly disposed plastic is a threat to wildlife. This brings me back to single use plastics. Over 1.6 billion gallons of oil a year are used to create plastic bags alone. Can you imagine that number if plastic bottles were factored in? Single use plastics are an  unnecessary use of our finite resources, and therefore we should all    work together to eliminate them. By making smart consumer decisions we can take single use plastics out of our lives and out of our environment, so that when we walk down the street, won’t have to see any of plastic’s unsightly victory flags in our trees anymore.

 

For more information on plastic, recycling, and how to reduce single use plastic consumption, please visit these websites:

earth911.com/recycling

Video: www.ted.com/talks/dianna_cohen_tough_truths_about_plastic_pollution

Video: www.ted.com/talks/mike_biddle

www.ecolife.com/recycling/plastic/how-to-reduce-plastic-consumption.html