How does the digital age help climate activism? [Free Report]by Theodore Bechlivanis | 01-02-2021 00:28 |
|---|
|
There¡¯s little doubt that the internet dominates modern life. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues and we attempt to cram as much of our ordinary lifestyle as possible into social media and Zoom meetings, the cumbersome, cacophonous mess the internet used to be a couple of decades ago seems especially distant. The way the internet has evolved into a quintessential part of our daily routines is impressive; and yet, it¡¯s also hard to dismiss its influence on our communities and the way we organize them. In the year 2020, the internet is an indispensable tool for activism. It¡¯s our go-to for finding causes we care about and the people that advocate for them without the potential tedium of seeking out real-life activist spaces. As a matter of fact, the comfort of debating and exchanging ideas from behind our screens has begun to challenge the definition of ¡°activist spaces¡± altogether. The internet has made things easier for an array of activist circles, including environmentalists. With several booming communities and a vocal internet presence, climate activists have displayed some of the most promising examples of online community organizing. But how much has climate advocacy grown since the advent of internet activism? More importantly, how much have environmentalist communities diversified since activist spaces started going digital? Fortunately, there are statistics that can help us answer these questions, so let¡¯s take things from the top. Climate activism in numbers: Google Trends Although it¡¯s difficult to gauge the number of people currently involved in environmental activism, we have access to statistics that tell us how many people are making environment-related queries at a given moment in time. This is made possible through Google Trends, Google¡¯s real-time database service. Google Trends provides an unbiased sample of search data for trillions of terms, plotted against time and refined by region and timeframe. For instance, this is the plot for ¡°biodiversity¡± queries between 2004 and now:  We can easily see that biodiversity has had its highs and lows in popularity over the years but has maintained a consistent number of searches overall. It¡¯s important to note that this plot shows the ¬popularity of a term relative to the highest amount of queries it received in a given timeframe. In this case, ¡°biodiversity¡± searches peaked in March 2004 but took a considerable plunge in July 2013 with only 31% of their maximum popularity. Not all plots look like that. Other environment-related terms show an upwards trend over time. The people behind these queries have vastly different motivations – they could be doing research for a school project, looking for references to support an argument on social media, or trying to make ethical consumer choices. What¡¯s important is that the environment and climate change are becoming increasingly commonplace on the internet, where the majority of public discourse happens. This allows more people to interact with climate activism, even if it¡¯s just by grace of their morning social media scroll-down. Another useful aspect of Google Trends is that it shows popularity in relation to time. Peaks and valleys in query popularity can be used to interpret the significance of near-past events on human culture. For instance, let¡¯s look at the plots for ¡°climate change¡± and ¡°climate activism¡±:   Both plots peak in September 2019 (marked in red). The reason for that is simple: that¡¯s when the infamous 2019 UN Climate Summit took place, including such events as Greta Thunberg¡¯s thunderous speech and the worldwide climate strikes it called to action. With an estimated total turnout of 4 million people, the climate strikes are a perfect example of how the internet has allowed activists to expand their reach and appeal to audiences that were previously uninvested. Unfortunately, most search terms related to climate change exhibit a decisive drop in queries after 2019. That doesn¡¯t necessarily mean people have lost interest in environmentalism. Instead, the overrepresentation of COVID-19 in the news and on social media has led to a spike in online searches about the coronavirus pandemic, overshadowing environment-related terms. This plot shows the jarring rift in popularity between ¡°COVID-19¡± (shown in red) and ¡°climate change¡± (shown in blue) over the course of 2020:  These data offer a very vague look at how people perceive ecological issues, but at the same time, they indicate that the public is researching, citing, and discussing environmentalism and climate change with increasing frequency over time. But are these discussions truly and universally public? To answer that question, we need to look at internet accessibility as a function of disability, geographic location, and social status. Internet & Inclusion: Is online activism accessible? Before we start analyzing how accessible online activism is, let¡¯s compare it to its real-life counterpart. Activist spaces are – much like most physical locations – riddled with accessibility issues that prevent people with disabilities from participating in them. Though most of these spaces are inaccessible through no fault of their own, many of the adjustments required to make them more inclusive are either too costly or too time-consuming. Conversely, online activist circles have eliminated the need for physical interaction, allowing many disabled folks to enjoy the feeling of community and solidarity that these spaces provide from their homes. At the same time, the digitalization of climate activism has given a voice to global audiences and working-class people who don¡¯t have the time or the means to attend real-life ecological activities. Granted, going digital is in no way a cure-all to the organizational ills of physical activist spaces. Although marked improvement has been made in the field of web accessibility, a great part of the internet still lacks basic accessibility features, such as alternative text and closed captions. Internet access isn¡¯t only tricky for people with disabilities, either: according to the 2019 Internet Health Report, a collection of research articles published by the Mozilla Foundation, location and social class are deciding factors in determining who has internet access. Although over 50% of the global population has an internet connection, this number better represents richer countries. For example, over 80% of European citizens had internet access in 2018. For Asia and the Pacific, this number drops to 47%, while African countries score just over 24%. To better understand the gravity of these numbers, let¡¯s take a gander at another metric for internet accessibility, the Inclusive Internet Index. This Index, which was construed by the Economist¡¯s Intelligence Unit, is a ranking of countries based on the quality of their connection to their internet. The results are in agreement with the Internet Health Report: six out of ten top-scoring countries are either in Europe or North America, and nine out of ten are in the West.  The four criteria used to determine each country¡¯s score are availability, affordability, relevance, and readiness. Although the first two are self-explanatory, the latter two are less obvious. Relevance refers to the existence of online content in the country¡¯s native tongue, while readiness measures the skills and cultural framework required to use the internet meaningfully. Relevance is particularly important in the case of online activism: language is the primary means of community organizing. Gripping writing can make or break a call to action. With that in mind, let¡¯s consider how accessible online climate activism truly is. Over 80% of the world¡¯s population live in developing countries. Discrepancies in internet access rob people with poor connection of the opportunity to make their struggles against government corruption and industrial greed heard. They also prevent them from contributing their perspective, knowledge, and enthusiasm to what could be an organized global effort to tackle environmental issues. The impeccable coordination of the 2019 climate strikes leaves room for cautious optimism – but unless the digital divide is repaired, how can we tell whether we¡¯re part of a global movement or a large-scale echo chamber?
|
