As I mention in my last blog post, environmental issues and climate change do not face the same problems of exposure, media coverage, and issue recognition that many other issues encounter. Discourses of climate change and other environmental problem continue to inhabit what Jurgen Habermas called the “public sphere”. Environmental issues are common in both “public” spaces that Habermas characterizes as referring to “events and occasions [that] are open to all, in contrast to closed or exclusive affairs” as well as “public” spaces that refer to state institutions and the public authority. In other words, environmental problems are discussed both formally in state legislation and agencies and informally in open to all discussions across a variety of mediums, including twitter. Moreover, Habermas writes that “Only in the light of the public sphere did that which existed become revealed, did everything become visible to all. In the discussion among citizens issues were made topical and took on shape.” (4) It seems to me that climate change and environmental issues has already made it past what Habermas indicates the point of the public sphere is: to “reveal” an issue and give it a shape. Climate change has already been “revealed” and “visible to all”, and apart from a small minority of typically very conservative elites, most of the United States and world acknowledges and recognizes the dangers of climate change.
However, some criticisms to Habermas’ ideas such as the ones posed by Nancy Fraser in the Mere Rhetoric podcast do seem to be relevant to the issue of climate change. Nancy Fraser asserts that in reality Habermas’ “open spaces” do exclude certain groups of people. For example, the discussion of climate change and climate change solutions usually revolves around developed nations such as the United States, Germany, United Kingdom, and China. This excludes arguably the people most affected by climate change who traditionally live in poorer parts of the world and are not able to participate in the discourse of climate change. Furthermore, people in regions of the world that are drastically affected by climate change usually do not have the political influence to shape or enact international laws or treaties that address climate change such as the Paris Climate Accords. This disconnect is a critique of Habermas and his ideas of the public and show that perhaps climate change and discussions of climate change, while known to all, might turn a blind eye to the voices of those who do not have the social or economic abilities to have a significant role in the discourse on environmental issues.
Furthermore, I wanted to talk about digital activism and environmental issues. As the NHPR podcast indicates, digital activism is increasingly becoming the method of choice for young activists to organize and communicate with other people interested in their cause. The low barriers to entry and large number of people on social media have allowed for “Twitter celebrities/activists” such as Bill McKibben who is an author, educator, and environmentalist on Twitter who I am currently following. The new digital age has allowed for individuals who otherwise might not have the credentials or influence to talk and be heard to be internet celebrities that have substantial followings.