Carley Pouland - Post 1

I hold the view that Wapner described in his paper as being the narrow perception of transnational activists, that they are “solely global pressure groups seeking to change states' policies” (Wapner, 312). This is why I feel that groups such as Greenpeace are not legitimate. They turn their attention to the people, typically though the media, using symbolic or information politics, yet they have no influence in the international system. 

While I agree with the mission of many NGO’s and feel some are quite effective, I believe that often NGO’s and TAN’s are not held accountable and not legitimate contributors to environmental solutions. Though it is but a select few who operate within the sight of society and the media, many of those do so through symbolic political tactics that I would consider extremist. These tactics can decrease the credibility of the cause in the eyes of the public and policy makers, and they also bring about mass attention that could be better used for other issues. For instance, the Sea Shepherds value whales and the end of whaling. Yet, as most environmentalists know, whaling is limited to a few international actors. While it happens, I would not consider it a dire issue. Instead, the Sea Shepherds, already out in the Artic with many resources, could be better using their time to study ocean circulation patterns and acidification. This would not only be a more useful way to contribute to the environmental cause as a whole, but it would also serve to protect the whale population far more effectively than jumping onto Japanese boats.

Hand in hand with the “extremist” type tactics would be the dissemination of biased or unfounded information. NGO’s and TAN’s that operate under the media, and therefore the publics, radar are those I believe to be most persuasive in policy making. Those NGO’s and TAN’s have no reason to share information that is framed to elicit certain responses. They operate with science and research that, at least in the environmental world, does not need to be framed in order to get results. Much research on climate change and other issues, such as fisheries management, have cold hard data to support the implementation of adaptation and mitigation strategies. There is no incentive for these groups to present only limited or skewed information when the actual data is convincing enough.

Wapner disagrees that NGO’s significance can only be defined by their influence on States. I understand that it is important to create attention surrounding an issue so that the public may demand change. However, I think this is rarely successful when using the tactics typically employed by the more visible NGO’s and TAN’s. Oftentimes when environmental political changes are made due to public pressure, it is due to an inciting incident that has nothing to do with the actions of any NGO or TAN. For example, the Love Canal tragedy was an issue that had links with public health. There was clear wrongdoing on behalf of the Hooker Chemical Company, and there was definite causation between the chemical waste and the high incidences of cancer (http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/love-canal-tragedy). These factors combined lead to media attention, which brought about public outcry.  This then lead to the creation of CERCLA (Superfund), which was a major intervention on behalf of the Government. However it was the townspeople, not an NGO or TAN, that identified the problem and sought media support that eventually lead to a solution. So while I believe the public plays a role in pressuring state decision-making, I think it is only when there is a clear and finite problem that is linked with other salient issues (i.e. public health) and has an evident solution. Such finite problems may be ones that NGO’s and TAN’s spend time on, but often it is only environmental tragedies that bring about any real policy changes. Though NGO’s and TAN’s can play a role in encouraging governments to make such changes, I believe many are too focused on sensationalizing certain issues to give any time to research and development that would actually help to solve the environmental problems they care so much about.