internet democracy in global environmental governance ... · internet democracy in global...

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828

MA Dissertation

Department of Geography School of Social Science and Public Policy

King’s College London

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance: Blogs, Environmental Discourses and the (Re-)Radicalisation of the Public SphereBy Benjamin TannahillID: 1158828

August 2012

Word Count: 11,973

This dissertation is submitted as part of MA Environment, Politics and Globalisation, King’s College London.

1


KING’S COLLEGE LONDON

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON

DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY MA/MSc DISSERTATION

I, ……………………………………………………………… hereby declare (a) that this Dissertation is my own original work and that all source material used is acknowledged therein; (b) that it has been specially prepared for a degree of the University of London; and (c) that it does not contain any material that has been or will be submitted to the Examiners of this or any other university, or any material that has been or will be submitted for any other examination.

This Dissertation is ……………………………………words.

Signed: …………………………………………...…………….

Date: …………………...……………………………………….

2


AbstractThe tension between environmental problems which do not respect national borders and the nation-state-centric systems of global governance and communication designed to deal with those problems poses a dilemma for advocates of democratic forms of global governance. The Internet, it is claimed (e.g. Papacharissi, 2002), could potentially provide a solution to such problems. Here, I assess these claims through an analysis of the content and distribution of environmental discourses in the eco-blogosphere in order to determine if they can enhance democratic legitimacy and efficacy in the public sphere.

3


Table of Contents

List of Tables.......................................................................................................................................................................... 5

List of Figures........................................................................................................................................................................ 6

Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................................................. 71.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................ 82.0 Democracy, Governance and the Internet................................................................................................. 112.1 Democracy in Global Environmental Governance.....................................................................112.2 Problematising the Public Sphere.................................................................................................... 132.3 The Promise of Internet Democracy................................................................................................ 152.4 The (Re-)Radicalisation of the Public Sphere..............................................................................183.0 Methodology......................................................................................................................................................... 213.1 Blogs: Method and Sampling.............................................................................................................. 213.2 Rio+20: Background and Discursive Framework.......................................................................244.0 Findings.................................................................................................................................................................. 284.1 Highly Ranked Blogs.............................................................................................................................. 284.1.1 Economic Orientation............................................................................................................. 284.1.2 Political Orientation................................................................................................................ 304.2 Lower Ranked Blogs.............................................................................................................................. 334.2.1 Economic Orientation............................................................................................................. 334.2.2 Political Orientation................................................................................................................ 365.0 Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................. 396.0 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................................. 42Appendix 1 – Ethics Screening and Risk Assessment Forms...........................................................................44

Appendix 2 – Blog Data.................................................................................................................................................. 47

References............................................................................................................................................................................ 49

4


List of Tables

Table 1: Discursive Framework 25

5


List of Figures

Figure 1: Skewedness of links in the blogosphere 22Figure 2: Sustainable development cartoon 30Figure 3: Dear Capitalism 33Figure 4: REDD+ 35Figure 5: Indigenous protests 37

6


Acknowledgements

Thanks go firstly to my family for their continued support and saint-like patience over the past year. I am also grateful for the assistance received from friends and colleagues as well as their hilarious companionship. Credit for inspiration goes to Marty Friedman and Guthrie Govan. Last, but not least, thanks go to Professor Tim Butler for enthusiastic support!

7


1.0 Introduction

The scale, scope and severity of the environmental problems facing humanity has rendered effective global environmental governance—namely, the “efforts of the international community to manage and solve shared environmental problems” (O'Neill, 2009, pp.3-4)—one of the principal challenges of the twenty-first century. In the 1970s, it was argued that only the coercive power of authoritarian governments would suffice to bring about the socio-economic restructuring necessary to avert ecological crisis (e.g. Heilbroner, 1974; Ophuls, 1977) and, at the other end of the scale, eco-anarchists (e.g. Bookchin, 1982) proposed that local organisation was most appropriate for managing the environment in a democratic and participative manner (Catney & Doyle, 2011). Such arrangements have been criticised, however, for being too instrumentalist (not to mention “glaringly ineffective” [Torgerson, 1999, p. xi]), and neglectful of problems of coordination in the implementation of public policy, respectively. Increasingly, then, scholars have been consolidating behind explicitly democratic forms of governance as the only solution that can “potentially possess the openness, flexibility, coherence, and legitimacy necessary for a fallible humanity to cope with the complexities and uncertainties posed by environmental problems” (Torgerson 1999, p. xi). This dissertation seeks to explore some of the problems, and some of the proposed solutions, to democratic forms of environmental governance.The liberal model of democracy currently dominant in international politics has been heavily criticised by ecologically-minded scholars (e.g. Dryzek, 2000; Eckersley, 2004; Mathews, 1996; Smith, 2003) as being fundamentally inadequate on the grounds that it takes material human interest to be the ultimate measure of all value, thus protecting nature only to the extent that it is of some instrumental utility to humanity. Therefore, following Stevenson and Dryzek (2012), I shall take an approach to global democratisation which focuses minimally on the formal (liberal) institutions of democracy, and shall turn my attention instead to the informal world of the engagement and contestation of discourses in the (global) public sphere (a public space in which the public will is formed and seeks to influence the political arena). These scholars argue that the relevance of discourses lies principally in their ability to coordinate large numbers of individuals without

8

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828necessitating that they communicate with each other directly (much in the way that, say, market-liberal discourse coordinates affairs in the global economy) (ibid.). Diverse institutional arrangements are thus coordinated by discourses and “the essence of democracy can be sought in competent and dispersed influence over the engagement of discourses in transnational public spheres” (ibid. p.191). As we shall see in sections 2.2 and 3.2, there are two key democratic limitations common to both formal institutions of GEG and the public sphere. Firstly, they allow space only for a relatively narrow range of environmental discourses, which limits the potential for the engagement and contestation of different discourses—a key element of a functioning democracy (Dryzek, 2000)—thereby reducing the democratic vitality of these political arenas. Secondly, they are both predicated on the concept of the nation-state. However, in a world of ever-increasing global economic integration, global problems such as climate change, and arenas of discourse which increasingly extend beyond the boundaries of national territories—all of which require greater global political integration and coordination (see Paehlke, 2003; Fraser, 2007)—such arrangements are increasingly inadequate and pose a danger to humanity's ability to preserve the biosphere: “the life-support systems on which human beings depend” (Dryzek, 1983 cited in Torgerson, 1999, p.4). As Robert Paehlke puts it: “this is democracy's dilemma in the age of globalization” (2003, p.4).A potential solution presents itself in the form of the Internet, the democratic potential of which has increasingly been the subject of scholarly thought, especially in the past decade or so. Whilst the democratic merits of the Web remain a contentious topic, its speed, polycentrality, and low access-threshold hints that it could possess the necessary characteristics to allow marginalised voices greater discursive space in the political arena, as well as facilitate the coordination of a global/transnational public sphere by overcoming the “difficulties of distance and scale and defense of national interest” (Paehlke, 2003, p.4) which make global governance such a difficult proposition. This dissertation will therefore explore the possibility of a specifically digital reinvigoration of democracy at the level global environmental governance.Discourses—“ensemble[s] of ideas, concepts and categories through which meaning is given

9

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828to social and political phenomena, and which [are] produced and reproduced through an identifiable set of practices” (Hajer & Versteeg, 2005, p.175)—can be said to contain a 'storyline' (Hajer, 1995) about how problems came to be and what should be done (or not done) to resolve them. I seek to assess the democratic potential of the Internet through an analysis of the various 'storylines' which flow through cyberspace, and to determine their impact on democracy in global environmental governance. I do not aim to assess the various merits of different discourses per se, but rather to assess the consequences for democracy of their content and distribution. The focus of my research will be discourses surrounding the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro ('Rio+20') and my data will be gathered from a series of environmental weblogs ('blogs'). In chapter three I go into further detail on both Rio+20 and blogs and explain the rationale behind their selection.The structure of this dissertation is as follows: firstly, I will contextualise my research by discussing the key concepts and theories which underpin it (chapter two). Secondly, I will introduce Rio+20 and the discursive framework for my analysis as well as discussing blogs and how I gathered my data (chapter three). Thirdly, I will presenting my findings descriptively (chapter four) and I will analyse them (chapter five) with respect to the concepts and discursive framework presented in chapters two and three, respectively. Finally, I will conclude (chapter six) by assessing the consequences of my research for the prospect of internet democracy in global environmental governance.

10


2.0 Democracy, Governance and the Internet

In this section I will discuss the key concepts and theories that underpin my research. I will focus on four key literatures: firstly, I will discuss global environmental governance, in order to identify democratic deficiencies in the modus operandi of contemporary governance systems; secondly, I will explore scholarship on the public sphere and elaborate on radical critiques of the democratic limitations of contemporary public sphere theory; thirdly, I explore discussions on the Internet as a potential panacea to the institutional limitations posited in the first and second sections of the chapter and; fourthly, through a discussion of work by Antonio Gramsci and neo-Gramscian scholars, I introduce the idea of 'hegemonic discourse', a concept which forms a key part of my analytical framework.2.1 Democracy in Global Environmental Governance

Global environmental governance (GEG), has undergone a fundamental transformation over the past few decades in ways that have important implications for discussions of democracy. Since the UN environmental conference in Stockholm in 1972, generally considered to represent the starting point for global environmental governance, environmental protection measures have consisted mainly of international environmental treaties, negotiated by nation-states. The ecological contradictions embedded in the accumulation imperatives of states, however, has led to a role in environmental management which is at best, “contradictory”, and, at worst, “fundamentally ecocidal” (Eckersley, 2005, p.159). Consequently, the international governmental regimes which govern global environmental matters have been dubbed “an experiment that has largely failed” (Speth, 2004, cited in O'Neill, 2009, p.5). In response to the failures of GEG, the past few decades have seen a whole host of non-state actors arise and involve themselves in environmental governance, including non-governmental organisations (NGOs), transnational corporations, environmentalists and scientists. Thus, the old GEG system now shares the global stage with a transnational, decentralised, polycentric cast of environmental actors working with the state, against the state and beyond the state, which some have labelled a “global civil society” (Castells, 2008; Kaldor, 2003). The powerful connective and integrative effects of (particularly economic) globalisation has

11

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828further encouraged the emergence of polycentric forms of governance, through opening up the possibility for substate (municipal and regional) and private sites of governance to engage in affairs beyond national borders (Scholte, 2004). Whilst states remain pivotal nodes in this arrangement (e.g. they offer GCS a territory for their headquarters and “provide the protection and predictability of an established liberal legal order” [Chambers & Kopstein, 2006, p.378]) their role in international affairs has been transformed in light of the shift from state-centric to polycentric forms of governance (Arts, 2005). Thus, whilst, in the twentieth century, states were responsible for problems of legitimacy and accountability; in the twenty-first, with governance required on a global scale, these two key facets of democracy need to be adapted to a context in which the nation-state is not the sole site of governance (Biermann & Pattberg, 2008). Accordingly, there are increasingly calls for a conception of politics without nation-states as the necessary “touchstone” (Dryzek, 2012, p.3). As former German Federal Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety Jürgen Trittin succinctly observes: “in the political arena we are one step behind globalisation” (2002, p.13).The institutions of GEG, however, are designed to be state-centric, and have difficulty accommodating the 'post-Westphalian turn' into proceedings. Najam et al. (2006) thus identify a core problematic of GEG to be the fact that “the system has outgrown its own design and is no longer able to cope with new realities” (p.14) and highlight the need to “create the institutional space to allow non-state actors to realize their full potential” (p.16). There is thus a disparity between the locus of the major environmental problems such as climate change—which exist at the transnational or global level and do not respect territorial boundaries—and the locus of the systems designed to solve them, which are premised on a set of Westphalian principles which are increasingly at odds with the current post-national constellation of political institutions. This weakens the legitimacy and accountability of these new forms of governance and represents a key democratic deficit in GEG.The problems of democracy and the difficulties of coping with globalisation are also found in the contemporary public sphere, as I now discuss in the next section.

12


2.2 Problematising the Public Sphere

Traditional conceptions of the public sphere present it as a communal communicative space—a space where 'private people come together as a public' (Habermas, 1989, p.27)—which lies between society and the state and seeks to articulate autonomous views (i.e. public opinion) and thereby influence the political institutions of society (Castells, 2008). In ideal terms, the public sphere facilitates “rational discourse of public affairs directed towards the common good, and operates autonomously from the state and/or economy” (Papacharissi, 2010, p.114). According to Habermas, however, the autonomy of the public sphere has, in the modern age, become a vehicle for capitalist hegemony and has been compromised by commercialisation and corporate agendas (1989). Consequently, the discourse produced is dominated by the interests and objectives of advertising and public relations (Papacharissi, 2010). For example, in contemporary society the main component of the public sphere is the media (Thompson, 2000) and the effects of commercialism can be observed in the “inexorable impoverishment of mainstream political communication” much of which is “rooted in media systems and structures” (Coleman & Blumler, 2009, p.11). The consequences for democracy of a media system dominated by deregulated, conglomerate media industries concerned almost exclusively with short-term profit-making (Dahlgren, 2005) can be seen in the way environmental issues are represented in the mass media. Given their status as the main source of information on science-related (including environmental) issues (Bosch, 2012), the mass media play a crucial role in framing environmental matters by giving voice to some standpoints at the expense of others and legitimating certain 'truths' as reasonable and credible over others (Anderson, 2009). For example, Lewis's (2000) study of the representations of sustainable development in five American printed newspapers revealed a lack of ideological diversity and demonstrates how concepts as complex as sustainable development can be narrowed down and dominated by a particular interpretation. She found that the experts called upon to explain sustainable development shared an economic growth ideology and that, while news may appear balanced due to providing a range of source, e.g. politicians, business leaders and NGOs, the actual debates “take place inside a box” (p.268). Furthermore, representation of affected groups was uneven: the two most under-represented groups were found to be people who have to live

13

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828with the consequences of sustainable development projects and radical NGOs. Regarding the issue of climate change, Anderson (2009) finds that, given the saturation of mass media with advertising and the special corporate interests, criticism of governmental inaction or the role of industry in the propagation of climate problems are discouraged in the mainstream press. In a similar vein, Carvalho (2007) has shown how, in the British printed press, the discursive construction of scientific claims is selectively entwined with particular ideological viewpoints. The rub lies therein, of course, that these ideologically narrow and not entirely representative portrayals of environmental issues are then the ones which are fundamental in shaping public perceptions and driving forward policy agendas (Holt & Barkemeyer, 2012). This then results in what one could call an 'imbalance of discourses' (Dryzek, 2010). As Dryzek explains, in large-scale (or global) political systems where, due to sheer numbers of stakeholders, democratic deliberation is impracticable (the “democratic paradox” [Mouffe, 2000]), “[l]egitimacy is achieved to the degree collective outcomes respond to the balance of discourses in the polity” (2010, p.22). The problem is therefore that the current imbalance of environmental discourses represents a lack of democratic legitimacy in the public sphere. However, even if the ideal-type Habermasian public sphere were attainable (i.e. autonomous from commercial interests), globalisation-driven transformations in the political sphere have, again, induced changes which decrease its relevance to modern society. Fraser (2007), for example, sees a contradiction between the classical Habermasian public sphere (which she shows to be implicitly founded on the concept of the nation-state) and contemporary arenas of discourse which increasingly spill beyond the borders of nations and states. Thus, the traditional public sphere, consisting of a national citizenry, pursuing a national interest in a national territory, using a national language, in order to influence a nation-state, is increasingly at odds with the contemporary world of dispersed interlocutors, pursuing interests in a global economy via a “vast translinguistic nexus” (p.19), in order to influence a complex mix of public and private transnational powers and institutions. Under these conditions, Fraser proposes the concept of a 'transnational public sphere' as “indispensable” (p.8) in preserving the legitimacy and efficacy of public opinion. Furthermore, to secure legitimacy in the transnational public sphere, Fraser proposes a transnational

14

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828variant of the 'all-affected' principle: “public opinion is legitimate if and only if it results from a communicative process in which all potentially affected can participate as peers, regardless of

political citizenship” (p.22, italics in original). However, given the impracticability of large-scale stakeholder deliberation mentioned above, I propose a return to Dryzek's 'balance of discourses' as a more pragmatic solution. This would only function, however, if said balance was politically consequential. I argue, therefore, that legitimacy and efficacy in the transnational public sphere can be secured through transnational formations of public opinion (embodied in a balance of discourses) with a strong link to governance.

With regard to a) facilitating a transnational public sphere, b) contributing to the rebalancing of discourses in the public sphere and to c) increasing the institutional influence ('link to governance') of the public sphere much has been made of the Internet in popular and academic literature, and it is to this that I now turn.2.3 The Promise of Internet Democracy

The Internet's “fluidity and indeterminacy” (Coleman & Blumler, 2009, p.7) as well as its “speed and space”; “multiplicity and polycentrality”; and potential for “interactivity and participation” (Fenton, 2010, p.7) lend it characteristics potentially conducive to coordinating arenas of discourse and governance which spill out beyond traditional national borders as well as, given its (comparatively) low participation threshold, potentially giving a voice to marginalised groups. While traditional forms of political and civic engagement may be in decline (Putnam, 2000), the Internet may offer new opportunities for new forms of civic engagement and social interaction via blogs, chatrooms, online forums, social networking sites, etc. (Kittilson & Dalton, 2008). Zygmunt Bauman (1999, cited in Gillett, 2007) sees a principal challenge for modern democracies in the lack of public spaces through which individuals can collectively build a bridge between their private concerns and public affairs. But, through the Internet, the citizens that retreated to their private spheres as the historical bourgeois public sphere collapsed are perhaps able to emerge as a public once more, this time paradoxically via the private gateway of their own corner of cyberspace (Chadwick, 2009). However, one must remain sceptical of the democratic promise of new technologies—both television and radio were expected to enhance democracy and both, television especially, have 15

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828been implicated instead in its decline (Papacharissi, 2002). The empirical data on the democratic potential of the Internet is complex, contradictory and splits opinion. Proponents see in this technology a panacea to the much-lamented decline of political participation and the growing apathy towards, and lack of trust in, politics at large. They provide evidence of the Web's potential for, for example, meaningful democratic deliberation (Papacharissi, 2004; Habegger, 2011); enhancing civic engagement and trust (De Zuñiga et al., 2009; Shah et al., 2005); allowing a freer exchange of views (Ho & McLeod, 2008) and promoting political engagement amongst the youth (Ellison et al., 2007; Valenzuela et al., 2009)—who typically display the greatest decline in traditional engagement (Dalton & Kittilson, 2012). Its opponents claim that the Internet does not necessarily contribute as much to participation and engagement as is thought (Baumgartner & Morris, 2009); decreases exposure to political difference (Galston, 2002) leading to increased political fragmentation—so-called “deliberative enclaves” (Sunstein, 2001); that it reinforces social inequalities found offline (Malin, 2011) and that it may succumb to the commercial forces which permeate offline society (Dahlberg, 2005). They also highlight the common fates of most purpose-built democratic projects on the Internet: “the road to e-democracy is littered with the burnt-out hulks of failed projects” (Chadwick, 2006, cited in Hindman, 2009, p.23). In sum, e-democracy is a passionately contested topic. However, it is important to realise that, in and of itself, the Internet is does not represent a public sphere, but rather a public space (Dahlgren, 2005; Dean, 2003; Papacharissi, 2010). The Internet is a tool and, consequently, as Agre (2002) notes: “the Internet changes nothing on its own, but it can amplify existing forces, and those amplified forces might change something” (p.317). However, crucial to note in this context is one of the main paradigm shifts heralded by the Internet: namely, a change in the modes of information dissemination, from one-to-many communication, to many-to-many (Fenton, 2010). This (theoretically) allows even the smallest news provider (down to the so-called 'citizen journalist') to compete with transnational media monoliths and provides space for minority voices which do not feature in the mainstream media due to their lack of appeal to mass audiences (Rivas-Rodriguez, 2003).One of the most prominent sites of such many-to-many communication is New Media.

16

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828Encompassing Web 2.0 phenomena such as blogs, YouTube, social networking sites, chatrooms, etc., they allow a far greater degree of interactivity and citizen participation and, as Friedland et al. note: “perhaps for the first time in history, the informal public sphere has a medium that in principle allows for large-scale expression of mass opinion in forms that systematically affect the institutional media system” (2006, p.19, italics in original). Weblogs ('blogs'), in particular, have been heralded as democratically beneficial as they promote decentralised, citizen control as opposed to hierarchical, elite control (Meraz, 2009). They are, most minimally defined, (semi-)regularly updated online journals which present content in reverse chronological order (Hindman, 2009). Whilst they first began in the mid-1990s they surged in popularity after the turn of the century and an estimated 181 million blogs currently exist across the world (as of the end of 2011) (NM Incite, 2012). They attract a small percentage of online attention in comparison to the mainstream online media but despite this there is a “common consensus” (Farrell & Drezner, 2008, p.16) that blogs have concrete political consequences. Most famously, in 2002 the US Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott was forced to resign in the wake of inappropriate comments he made at a birthday party, an event which, although broadcast by the mainstream press, was largely ignored until the intense debate in the blogosphere forced the issue into a full-blown scandal and drew his resignation (Drezner & Farrell, 2008).Thus, the Internet could, through its speed and breadth, facilitate a transnational public sphere; through its low participation threshold, allow marginalised voices to be heard, and; through its amplificatory effects (and possible influencing of the mass media and political arena through, for example, blogs), improve the link to governance of alternative discourses.Absolutely crucial to note in any study of the democratic potential of the Internet is its comparative novelty and, accordingly, the fact that it has generally been appraised with respect to 'traditional' notions of civic engagement and the Habermasian deliberative public sphere. Problematically, this might 'skew' results as researchers are looking for 'traditional' democratic phenomena which are, in fact, not necessarily relevant to contemporary democracies; indeed, most studies of Internet democracy have been grounded in mainstream notions of the public sphere and deliberative democracy à la Habermas (e.g. Dahlberg, 2001; Janssen & Kies, 2005) at the expense of other theoretically interesting phenomena (see

17

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828Freelon, 2010). Drawing on the work of Antonio Gramsci, scholars critical of the Habermasian tradition have thus called for a re-radicalisation of the public sphere (Dahlberg, 2007a; Fraser, 1990; Mouffe, 2005) and it is the work of these neo-Gramscian scholars which I will now explore. 2.4 The (Re-)Radicalisation of the Public Sphere

Gramsci developed his notion of 'hegemony' to demonstrate how legitimacy in a society is fostered through constantly shifting economic and socio-cultural forces. Through his studies of civil society in Italy he found that a form of “consent” existed between the ruling and the subordinate classes. Consent is formed through various struggles in which the dominant group in society makes certain compromises with other, less dominant, groups, for the sake of some “general interest”. This general interest then becomes the hegemonic norm under which popular beliefs, institutions and assumptions are developed (forming what Gramsci called “common sense”) and permeate through civil society and popular culture (Worth, 2002). Thus, elements of civil society are co-opted by the state thereby achieving the passivity of the dominated classes and their identification with the hegemonic order (Katz, 2006). Through this process of transformismo (co-optation) the ruling class assimilates threatening ideas, creating cultural and political consensus (Katz, 2006; Cox, 1993). The constellation of political institutions and social groups bound together by the hegemonic ideology form a “historical bloc”, in Gramsci's terminology, which forms the organic link between political and civil society (Gill & Law, 1989). Gramsci's ideas become particularly useful to my research when they are translated to the current era of globalisation and expanded beyond the nation-state, as neo-Gramscian scholars, spearheaded by Robert Cox, have done. Cox demonstrated that it was possible to frame global affairs through Gramscian ideas (1987, 1993, 1996). Thus, neo-Gramscian scholars sought to “expung[e] nation-state centrism from the discussion of hegemony” (Robinson, 2005, p.561, italics in original), claiming that economic globalisation is “creating the conditions for a shift in the locus of class and social group formation from the nation-state to the global system” (p.564)—a transnationalisation of classes which, consequently, allows us to imagine a transnationalisation of hegemony. Robinson declares that a move away from a statist conception of hegemony allows for a reversion to a “more 'pure' Gramscian view of hegemony as a form of social domination exercised not by states but by 18

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828social groups and classes operating through states and other institutions” (p.561). Gramsci thus allows us to conceive of global social forces and transnational classes which, interrelating at the global scale, produce global “norms”, which are defined within a hegemonic world order and foster a global “common sense” (Worth, 2002). Drawing on the work of Gramsci and neo-Gramscians, public sphere theorists have criticised the flawed assumptions underlying the dominant Habermasian, deliberative conception of the public sphere (Dahlberg, 2007a, 2007b; Fraser, 1990; Mouffe, 2005). The Habermasian conception of the public sphere which is under scrutiny, in ideal terms, facilitates rational discourse, in a non-coercive environment, autonomous from both state and economic interests, in which arguments based on social status, tradition or dogma are exposed, with the aim of achieving a consensus. The most commonly cited critique of this ideal is that it is overly rationalist in conception and thus overlooks the asymmetrical power relations underlying rational deliberation and the formation of any consensus (as highlighted by the work of Gramsci) (Dahlberg, 2007a; 2007b). Furthermore, in designating certain forms of communication as 'rational' and others as 'irrational', deliberative concepts of democracy have been criticised for facilitating the very exclusion they claim to avoid (Mouffe, 2005; Young, 2000). Dahlberg (2007a) contends that these power relations and the inter-subjective basis of rationality can be better accounted for within post-Marxist discourse theory. Drawing on Mouffe (2000), he proposes that all framing of meaning (including discourse and what it 'means' to be 'rational'), necessarily involves exclusion. There is always an 'outside' to discourse, which is defined by its exclusionary character and against which the boundaries of discourse are drawn. The omnipresent antagonism (see Mouffe, 2005) between 'inside' and 'outside' is the site of a contestationary struggle to establish the “common sense” socio-cultural order (i.e. hegemony in Gramsci's sense), including the boundaries of what is defined as 'legitimate' deliberation. This struggle results in a dominant discourse or discourses which are perceived as authoritative and subordinate discourses which have been marginalised or silenced. Thus, any consensus over the boundaries and contents of discourse is always at least partly a result of unequal power relations and a struggle for hegemony. In this context, inter-discursive contestation is the key to weakening the ideological “common sense” of the hegemonic historical bloc, fostering an improved 'balance of discourses' and allowing for greater discursive space for voices marginalised by hegemonic economic and socio-cultural

19

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828forces. As Dahlberg (2007a) notes, “[d]iscursive contestation here is not simply an empirical description, but a normative requirement for advancing the public sphere” (p.836, emphasis mine). Accordingly, the normative requirement for advancing the transnational/global public sphere, as required for improved governance of transnational/global environmental problems (see section 2.2), is contestation of the discursive boundaries of global hegemonic historic blocs. The weaknesses of the deliberative public sphere, therefore, can perhaps be overcome by employing an understanding of democracy premised, not on rational consensus-seeking, but rather on discursive contestation of (global) hegemonic norms. Since the 1990s, the basis for global hegemony has been, in part at least, the “growing power and mobility of transnational capital and associated neo-liberal ideas, ideologies and theories” (Gill, 2008, p.74) in an “increasingly global capitalist order” (p.75). Accordingly, whilst the Internet possesses the potential to contest hegemonic discourses, the biggest threat to this potential is seen by some (e.g. Barney, 2003; Fortier, 2001) to be the colonisation and/or co-optation of cyberspace by hegemonic (i.e. corporate/commercial) powers. These scholars claim that corporations, supported by neoliberal policies, are using the Internet to fortify the hegemonic discourses and practices of consumer capitalism and, in so doing, are marginalising the counter-hegemonic discourses which, as we have seen, are so important to democracy (Dahlberg, 2005). This dissertation therefore seeks to explore whether the Internet can facilitate the emergence of counter-hegemonic discourse and, crucially, whether these discourses can resist being co-opted by commercial forces. Taking Rio+20 and environmental blogs as my research subjects, I thus have two linked research questions: can the eco-blogosphere a) improve democratic legitimacy at the level of global environmental governance by contesting the discursive boundaries of the hegemonic discourse at the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development and, if so, can it b) improve democratic efficacy by ensuring such counter-hegemonic discourses have democratic impact (i.e. are not co-opted or marginalised by corporate/commercial interests).

20


3.0 MethodologyI shall answer my research questions by assessing the content and distribution of environmental discourse in a sample of blog posts concerning Rio+20. In this section I will, firstly, explain my sampling and data gathering methods and, secondly, explain my reasons for examining Rio+20 and outline the discursive framework which provides the basis for my analysis. 3.1 Blogs: Method and Sampling

Blogs are an appropriate data source for three reasons. Firstly, the sheer number of extant blogs means that there is a very large, rich and diverse set of data available, therefore providing me with sufficient data to answer part a) of my research question (presence of counter-hegemonic discourse). Secondly, as will be explained below, certain properties of the blogosphere allow me to distinguish between discourses which are likely to be democratically impactful and those which are not, thereby allowing me to answer part b) of my research question (efficacy of counter-hegemonic discourse). Thirdly, blog posts are stored in easily accessible, searchable online archives, allowing for easy access to, and comparison of, data.Certain political properties of the blogosphere influenced my sampling technique. Most important is that fact that the blogosphere is actually a rather misleading term for the universe of blogs which, in fact, bears little resemblance to a sphere. Analyses of the distribution of incoming/outgoing hyperlinks and page views in the blogosphere (its “currency” [Farrell & Drezner, 2008, p.17]) show that, instead, it resembles much more closely a power-law distribution (Adamic & Glance, 2005; Farrell & Drezner, 2008). There is an elite stratum of highly-ranked blogs, followed by a steep decline and then a long “tail” of medium-to-low ranked blogs (see fig. 1). In order to boost their own traffic, bloggers further down the curve will often be motivated to contact an elite blog when they have an interesting post. The elite blog can then choose to feature that post alongside a link leading back to the original. In this way the skewed, networked structure of the blogosphere functions as a filter, allowing interesting posts to “float” to the top of the blogosphere.

21


Also important, as various scholars (e.g. Rasmussen, 2008) have pointed out, is that in order for a blogger or some other online group to have political impact, they must in almost all cases be picked up by the mass media. The Climategate scandal, for instance, regarding the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and the theft of thousands of e-mails, was a story first featured on the blogs of climate sceptics before being popularised by mainstream news outlets such as Fox News. Trench (2012, p.284) comments that “the Climategate affair could not have grown as it did were it not for the availability of blogs to quickly disseminate information and arguments”. A number of studies attest that media elites read political blogs (e.g. Dautrich & Barnes, 2005a, 2005b) as well as that the mainstream media is influenced by top political blogs (Drezner & Farrell, 2008) and that they have played a major role in US elections (Adamic & Glance, 2005). Thus, media elites need 22

Fig. 1 - Skewedness of links in the blogosphere. Snapshot of the relationships between 4,543 blogs on October 18, 2003. Vertical axis: degree (number of incoming links); horizontal axis: rank of blog in ecosystem. From Farrell & Drezner, 2008.

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828only examine the elite blogs to procure a “summary statistic” (Farrell & Drezner, 2008, p.22) of the discourses, framings and opinions available on a particular topic. The mainstream media (as a result of their immense agenda-setting power), then, act as the 'link to governance' between the top political blogs and politically powerful actors. Non-elite blogs, by contrast, struggle to make any direct political impact.In order to make use of the fact that a) the blogosphere acts as a filter and, b) that, essentially, only highly-ranked blogs have agenda-setting potential, I analysed blog posts from a sample of highly-ranked blogs and, for purposes of comparison, a sample of lower-ranked blogs. This allowed me to explore the way in which environmental discourses are distributed throughout the blogosphere and to assess which may have the most agenda-setting (and therefore democratic) impact. In order to collect the elite blogs I took the highest-ranked and/or most-commonly mentioned blogs across a series of green blog directories and “top environmental blog” lists found on environmental websites (listed in appendix 2). As I gathered my sample I skipped over blogs which did not contain at least two posts about Rio+20. For the lower-ranked blogs I used a convenience sample with a virtual snowball method. Snowballing is a technique whereby one participant is used to put the researcher in contact with another, who then directs the researcher to a third, and so on (Clifford & Valentine, 2003). To transfer this technique to the online blogosphere, I treated an individual blog as a 'participant' and used its 'blogroll' (a collection of links to other blogs) to guide me to other blogs. A limitation of this method is that, as blogs most commonly link to similar blogs (Habegger, 2011), it is possible that my sample of less popular blogs is somewhat unrepresentative. To minimize this, following Erickson (1979, cited in Li & Walejko, 2008), I attempted to randomize the starting point of my snowball sampling method so as not to unduly bias my sample. I did this by accessing a relatively small blog directory which focuses solely on environmental blogs (www.bestgreenblogs.com) and searching through blogs in the directory in the random order presented on the website. Upon finding a relevant blog I would then use its blogroll to find other blogs. When I reached a dead end I would return to the blog directory and continue through the list from where I left off until I had gathered sufficient data. I sought to guarantee the high/low ranking of my blog sample with the use of Google PageRank (PR). This index (scaled from 0 to 10) provides an estimation of the distribution of

23

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828attention given to any website in relation to the whole of the Internet (Kirchhoff et al., 2007). The pages indexed by PR follow a logarithmic power-law distribution (see Pandurangan et al., 2002) which means that each 'level' is exponentially harder to reach than the last. It is thought to be approximately four times harder to reach level five, say, than to reach level four (Beasley, 2002). I took a highly-ranked blog to have a PR of 7 or above, and lower-ranked blogs as having a PR of 5 or less (a blog with a PR of 7 being sixteen times more 'popular', at least in PR terms, than one ranked 5). Whilst PR is far from perfect (see Kirchhoff et al., 2007), it is sufficient for broadly distinguishing between high- and low-ranked blogs. The final list of high- and low-ranked blogs, as well as their respective PR and URLs can be found in appendix 2.

3.2 Rio+20: Background and Discursive Framework

In 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development took place in Rio de Janeiro in order for the international community to discuss the world's growing environmental problems. The main outcome of this event was a non-binding, voluntary agreement for the implementation of sustainable development (SD) (defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [WCED, 1987]) called Agenda 21. The 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) marks the twenty year anniversary of the 1992 Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro. Between the 19th and 22nd of June, 2012, Rio+20 saw representatives from 192 UN member states, alongside private, non-governmental and civil society organisations gather in Rio de Janeiro to reaffirm the commitments made in Agenda 21 and to discuss the future plans for the implementation of SD in global environmental policy. Discussions were centred on two main themes: the Green Economy and the institutional framework for sustainable development (explained in greater detail below).There are several reasons for choosing Rio+20. Firstly, it represents the most recent manifestation of an environmental summit that is global in scope. This allows me to gain the most up-to-date analysis of the blogosphere and the GEG arena possible. Secondly, as I shall explain in more detail momentarily, the conference has strong discursive emphases regarding

24

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828its political and economic orientation, which allow for a reasonably straight-forward identification of counter-hegemonic discourse(s).The discursive framework with which I will analyse my data is based on work by Dryzek and Stevenson (2011; Stevenson & Dryzek, 2012). Although they originally devised their typology to encompass climate discourse (as opposed to the broader sustainability discourse relevant to Rio+20), the fundamental tenets of each discourse are still appropriate for this research context. The typology divides discourses into two themes: one broadly economic, one broadly political. The economic dimension can be appraised as either reformist or radical regarding the parameters of the liberal capitalist status quo. The political dimension has conservative and progressive elements. The combination of the two discursive aspects produces a four-way typology of environmental discourses (table 1).

Economic OrientationReformist Radical

Political Orientat-

ion

Conservative Mainstream Sustainability Ecological LimitsProgressive Expansive Sustainability Green Radicalism

Table 1: Discursive framework adapted from Stevenson & Dryzek, 2012.

• Mainstream Sustainability is economically reformist and politically conservative; environmental problems can be dealt with within the parameters of the existing political economy. Economic growth is seen as compatible with sustainability and human relations are taken to be inherently competitive and profit-seeking. Market- and technology-based solutions are preferred, and, whilst the emphasis is on the private sector, governments can sometimes play a key role in stimulating/catalysing such markets/technologies with policy frameworks. The green economy is framed as an opportunity for low-carbon societies to drive productivity through green technologies and innovation.• Expansive Sustainability resembles its mainstream counterpart in economic terms but is more politically progressive. Growth and sustainability are compatible but with the qualification that the ultimate objective of modernising technologies should not be the

25

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828decoupling of growth and ecological damage but rather the promotion of human rights and needs whilst reducing inequalities between developed and developing countries. The involvement of a broader range of actors such as local communities and civil society is viewed favourably. • Ecological Limits demands radical economic shifts but via conservative means. It questions the notion of unconstrained economic growth, often in the form of neoliberal policies, as well as population growth. Society needs to reconfigure patterns of production and consumption to stay within the ecological limits of the planet. The reorganisation of the economy, however, does not require a redistribution of power and should be carried out through multilateral agreements on behalf of existing authorities (e.g. states, politicians) and by voluntary behaviour on behalf of non-authoritative actors (e.g. individuals, companies).• Green Radicalism explicitly condemns the idea that economic growth and sustainability are compatible and demands a radical transformation of the economy via a progressive redistribution of power away from the authorities which currently dominate. Instead, the decentralisation of decision-making is suggested, thus allowing for genuine participation by marginalised groups. Small- and local-scale production is preferable to industrial-scale production. Human and gender rights, justice and equity must take precedence over short-term economic matters. The commodification of nature is rejected.

Within this framework Rio+20 is strongly reformist in economic orientation and fairly conservative in political orientation, with several more progressive political elements also present, however. The principal economic theme of the Rio+20 outcome document The Future

We Want (UNCSD, 2012) is the Green Economy. The UN website describes this as an economy “whose growth … is driven by public and private investments that reduce carbon emissions and pollution, enhance energy and resource efficiency, and prevent the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services … catalyzed … by targeted public expenditure, policy reforms and regulation changes. This development path should … maintain, enhance and … rebuild natural capital as a critical economic asset” (UNEP, 2012). More ambitious reformist elements do emerge here and there in The Future We Want however, for example, the recognition of the necessity of “broader measures of progress to complement GDP” (UNCSD, 2012, p.6). No 26

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828radical economic ideas are present, however. Politically, the conference (perhaps unsurprisingly) foresees a rather large role for the UN in future developments, particularly in the form of a set of Sustainable Development goals, based on a similar precept to the Millenium Development Goals. The institutional framework for SD remains largely UN-based although there is plenty of optimism surrounding voluntary commitments by the private sector and public-private partnerships. The outcome document, however, does “recognize” the importance of including other stakeholders, including women, youth and indigenous peoples, and these groups were included in the set of nine 'Major Groups' alongside industry and NGOs and so on.For the purposes of my research, therefore, I take the hegemonic discourse at Rio+20 to be Mainstream Sustainability, with elements of Expansive Sustainability also present, principally the recognition of the need for the inclusion of a wider range of actors although, The Future

We Want places far greater emphasis on the private sector than, say, on indigenous populations or NGOs. Counter-hegemonic discourse, then, is represented by the Limits and Green Radicalism discourses. In the right context, Expansive Sustainability discourse which is sceptical of the utility of the UN process and governments to achieve sustainability and favours local/community/indigenous/civil society solutions would also represent counter-hegemonic discourse.

27


4.0 Findings

This section will discuss the findings of my research by separately assessing the economic and political orientations of, first, the highly-ranked blogs and, subsequently, the lower-ranked blogs1. 4.1 Highly Ranked Blogs

A total of 209 blog posts (circa 162,000 words) concerning Rio+20 were sampled from ten highly-ranked environmental blogs (see appendix 2 for the list of blogs). The number of posts per blog ranged between 2 and 50. 4.1.1 Economic Orientation

The economic point of departure for the vast majority of the highly-ranked blogs is reformist. The basic parameters of the global economy are rarely explicitly contested and the Rio+20 framework for a Green Economy is largely taken for granted. To this end, many posts (e.g. H1.1, H2.1, H8.2) focus on investment in technology and innovation, energy efficiency, the creation of green jobs, public-private partnerships and valuing natural assets etc. In this context, Rio+20 is repeatedly framed as a (missed) “once-in-a-generation” (H3.46; H10.6) opportunity to make the most of environmental problems and “redirect – not reduce – the scope of economic and social development” (H10.40). “[T]he idea is to harness market forces to turn economies onto a green track. More carrot and less stick” (H9.5). This opportunity also takes on a competitive edge: “does the US want to fall behind in the global race toward a green economy … ?” (H3.50). Even when the potential downsides of market solutions were recognised, they were still proffered as the most pragmatic solutions: “but whatever the drawbacks of commodifying nature, something has to be done” (H9.5). Within this context, however, there are quite a few posts (e.g. H2.13, H6.2, H10.9) which certainly surpass Rio+20 in terms of the ambition of their suggested reforms. These centre 1 The referencing system for the blog sample functions as follows. 'H' represents 'highly-ranked blog' and 'L' represents 'lower-ranked blog'. The first number refers to a particular blog, the second to a particular blog post. Thus, H3.10 refers to highly-ranked blog 3, post 10.

28

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828mainly around “reinventing growth” so that it is “green and inclusive” (H10.11) and finding new measures of economic and social progress beyond GDP. These blogs still accept the hegemonic Rio+20 green economy frame, however. For example, Climate Progress describes GDP as the “crack-cocaine of economic indicators” (i.e. it is addictive) but still accepts “valuing natural capital” as a means for protecting the environment (H2.13). Furthermore, the compatibility of growth and sustainability is not contested: “having to choose between the two is a false dilemma” (H3.25). The emphasis is rather on placing social and environmental concerns on an even footing with economic ones, even warning that corporations and governments could in fact damage the long-term potential of green growth through not acting: “the Earth Summit has the theme of “green growth”—but it is up to us to make that a meaningful term instead of a term to greenwash damaging development” (H10.50). Only 8 posts of the 209 feature explicitly radical economic discourse and 4 of these are by the same author, on the same blog (H6). These suggest that “an entirely new economic, environmental, and social paradigm is needed” (H6.17) and that “we need to redefine the entire notion of economic growth … [and] recognize that there are ecological limits to growth which we are rapidly reaching” (H6.12). They also feature the concerns of NGOs that the Rio+20 proposals for a green economy will “encourage countries to put monetary value on all nature, reducing forest and ocean protection to markets and profits and undermining principles of ecological justice and collective well-being” (H5.2). One blogger took advantage of the flexibility of the blog medium to post a cartoon which implies that sustainability and development are not compatible and ridicules the level of corporate involvement at the conference (H2.4) (see fig. 2). In general, these blogs accept the economic framework propounded by the Rio+20 document, and even lament its failure to take solid steps to promote the kind of green growth it espouses as a missed opportunity. Occasionally the reformist discourse is more ambitious than that of Rio+20 but explicitly counter-hegemonic discourse is rare.

29


4.1.2 Political Orientation

The political orientation of the highly-ranked blogs is generally more progressive than the Rio+20 framework, but rarely presents ideas and concepts not already present in the hegemonic discourse (even if only in watered-down form). This can be demonstrated by looking at three trends in the blogs. Firstly, the widespread disillusionment with the UN process; secondly, comparative optimism at the emergence of new political arrangements based on civil society, public-private partnerships and corporate social responsibility and; thirdly, concern over the absence of strong language on women's rights from the final outcome document. Examining the first point, it is clear that Rio+20 was widely deemed to be a failure. Frustration abounds at the fickle vicissitudes of international politics and there is a palpable desire for action and change of the kind which such summits are not thought capable of delivering. For example, Switchboard says: “we can't rely only on the slow wheels of bureaucracy and

30

Fig. 2 – Copyright S. McMillan 2012. From Romm, 2012 (H2.4).

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828government negotiators ... [w]e must start doing it ourselves, and Rio proved that we are” (H3.3). These sentiments were shared alike by business (James Cameron, the founder of Climate Change Capital was quoted as saying: “good governance does not require good governments” [H3.16]) and environmentalists (according to renowned activist Bill McKibben, a 'walkout' staged by youth activists at the conference represented a lack of desire to “sit through the UN process and pretend that it is getting somewhere” [H6.7]). However, Rio+20 was also commonly seen to have a “silver lining” (H1.9) in the form of new international arrangements which are arising, centred around the contributions of civil society and the private sector. As the title of one blog post puts it: “Rio-Inspired Optimism (If Not Optimism About Rio)” (H4.1). Foremost among such new forms of governance are “magic” public-private partnerships which are “more important that (sic) any conference declaration” (H9.5). The Columbia University blog, State of the Planet (H8), for example, promoted the ongoing work between the Columbia Water Center and Pepsi Co. to find solutions to water scarcity, providing a “great example of how public-private partnerships can provide innovative solutions to complex global problems” (H8.7). These new arrangements and the hundreds of individual commitments to sustainability on behalf of countries, communities and companies worldwide are deemed by commentators to be, “the real legacy of Rio” (H3.3) and it is suggested that “we should move on to make these newly emerging institutions of international cooperation work as well as they can” (H2.7). These developments, however, are more a result of disillusionment with the UN process, rather than an outright rejection of the principle of international negotiations themselves. Accordingly, calls for the strengthening of existing institutions were also present, due to the necessity of “an overarching process to coordinate these efforts” (H2.2). The role of civil society and business in this context is then to “light a fire under global leaders” (H3.34). Interspersed with calls for the empowerment of new international actors, were strong calls for the empowerment of women. Such bloggers generally accepted the aims and objectives of the conference but stated that “achieving gender equality is intimately tied” to “address[ing] poverty, protect[ing] the environment, and maintain[ing] balanced economic growth” (H2.10). In particular, the absence of any mention of reproductive rights in the final Rio+20 text (due to the heavy lobbying of the Vatican and other religious organisations) was heavily criticised as

31

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828such rights are seen to be crucial in slowing down population growth. The well-being of women and the “fate of the earth's systems” are said to be “so closely intertwined that it is nothing short of shocking that some leaders want to separate one from another” (H3.20). Political discourse that completely sheds the hegemonic discourse of Rio+20 is very rare and derives only from one blogger, Mat McDermott of TreeHugger (H6). One such instance is when he quotes George Monbiot from the Guardian advising us that “it is the system that needs to be challenged, not the individual decisions it makes” (H6.6) and calls for greater confrontation on behalf of activists. He also posted about a commentary on Rio+20 by David Korten in which two competing worldviews are evaluated: the Contemporary Western perspective (based on individualism, self-gratification and alienation from one another and nature) and a Traditional Indigenous perspective (based on a connection to our community and to nature). Korten condemns the former as it “leads further down the scorched Earth path we are currently on” and praises the latter as “a viable and prosperous human future” (H6.27).Insofar as these blogs contest the legitimacy and utility of the UN process, they could be seen as contesting the discursive framework at Rio+20. However, what is actually occurring, is a shift of emphasis onto the private sector and civil society, an emphasis which is already present in the Rio+20 framework, which is simply amplified, phrased more ambitiously and combined with criticism of the slow UN process in these blogs. It should also be noted that there is a certain selectivity regarding which new actors are most emphasised. There is very little mention of the involvement of local communities or indigenous peoples, and a far greater emphasis is placed on the role of the private sector and women.

§Assessing their economic and political orientations together, the highly-ranked blogs are mainly represented by the discourse of Expansive Sustainability, with elements of Mainstream Sustainability also present. Counter-hegemonic discourse is limited to a small minority of posts.

32


4.2 Lower Ranked Blogs

A total of 117 blog posts (circa 125,000 words) concerning Rio+20 were sampled from 30 lower-ranked environmental blogs (see appendix 2 for the list of blogs). The number of posts per blog ranged between 1 and 21. 4.2.1 Economic Orientation

The lower-ranked blogs feature a very wide range of economic discourse, from the very mainstream and reformist to the very radical and even revolutionary. Most striking, however, is the balance of these discourses in comparison with the highly-ranked blogs. It is noteworthy that 52 of the 117 blog posts feature explicitly radical economic discourse. These 52 posts are spread across 13 blogs. It is indicative of the general mood of these lower-ranked blogs that they, unlike their highly-ranked counterparts, make liberal use of the forbidden c-word: capitalism (see fig. 3). It features a grand total of twice in the latter (once positively, once negatively) and eighty-eight times in the former (in contexts which are, at a minimum, unflattering and, at times, brimming with vitriol).

In the context of discourse on capitalism, these blogs strongly critique the idea that growth and sustainability are compatible. The blog featured at PostGrowth.org, for example, is dedicated to promoting ideas “beyond growth” (L24). A post entitled “Looking beyond Rio, Towards Degrowth” (L24.1) argued that sustainable development, in the form of “maintain[ing] economic growth and protect[ing] the environment” is “insanity” as “growth 33

Fig. 3 - From Loewen, 2012 (L13.1).

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828comes at a grievous cost”. Furthermore, increasing consumption forever is “impossible” due to ecological limits and “unless we are prepared to address the situation at this level, meetings like Rio will be futile”. This blog, as well as almost all others which feature predominantly radical economic discourse also call for a radical transformation of the economy. Whilst PostGrowth does not want to “ end capitalism” but rather “to change the nature of capital” and “to question the blind ideological assumptions – particularly that of sustainable growth – that underlie [financial/political institutions]”, many of the 13 radical blogs go further. David Korten (the only provider of explicitly counter-hegemonic political discourse in the highly-ranked blogs as mentioned above [section 4.1.2]), for example, envisions a local economy “comprised of human-scale, locally-owned enterprises that work in symbiotic partnership with their individual local ecosystems, meeting local needs with local resources” (L26.4). Cool

the Earth cites a South American justice movement statement which condemns the current ecological crisis as being part of a “broader crisis of capitalism” (L8.2) to which Climate &

Capitalism adds that “all the responses [to the alleged crisis of capitalism] … seek to deepen the free market without recognising the underlying structural causes” (L6.8). Several blogs (e.g. L3, L6, L11, L16) cite in full various Rio+20 Declarations by indigenous people (e.g. the Kari-Oca II declaration, signed by representative of 500 indigenous Brazilian tribes) all of which point to capitalism as a major cause of current environmental woes. Pablo Solón (former ambassador for the Plurinational State of Bolivia to the UN) maintains that “the capitalist system is out of control” and needs to be “overthrow[n]” (L6.17). In terms of Rio+20-specific concepts, radical blogs explicitly reject the “weasel concept” (L6.9) of the Green Economy which is being put forward by the UN, which can “mean almost anything” (L3.2) but undoubtedly will prove to be a “brutal “green washing” of capitalism that only implements false [market-based] solutions … to the environmental crisis” (L6.18)—a “destructive illusion” (L6.20). One blog, the revolutionary socialist (Maoist) blog Democracy

and Class Struggle (L7), even espouses arguably extremist views, stating that it “reject[s] the imperial conclave of Rio+20 … where imperialist power agreements are made to prey upon and plunder the people of the world under the slogan of “sustainable development”” (L7.1) and “welcomes the collapse of green market carbon trading schemes” as well as criticising mainstream environmental NGOs as being “nothing but shock troops for the corporates” (L7.2). 34

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828The commodification of nature is singled out as one of the most potent threats at Rio+20. The treatment of the REDD and REDD+ concepts—market-based schemes to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases from forest degradation and deforestation—is typical of such attitudes. A post on REDD Monitor, entitled “NO REDD+! - Decolonize the Earth and Sky!” described the scheme as a form of “colonialism” and relayed stories of indigenous people and peasants being “killed, forcibly relocated, [and] criminalized” under the scheme (L11.5, see also fig. 4). As one blogger puts it: “Mother Earth is not a commodity to be traded on the trading system. The trees are not for sale” (L3.9).

Fig. 4 - From Lang, 2012 (L11.5).Whilst I have placed much emphasis on the radical blogs (due to their contrast with the higher ranked blogs), it is crucial to note that 13 other lower-ranked blogs espouse explicitly mainstream, reformist economic discourse, very much in line with that found in the majority of the highly-ranked blogs. BusinessGreen.com asks “[h]as the Rio+20 Earth Summit really been that bad?”. Whilst the author has “sympathy” for the myriad critics of the summit he claims that the text (although admittedly weak) “provides yet further evidence that more environmental policies, investments and regulations are on the cards” and that the “savvy business leader [will] take the Rio+20 (sic) as further evidence that clean technologies and the green economy have considerable political support and will continue to prosper” (L5.1). Much emphasis, again, is placed on the private sector: “Rio+20 is an incredible opportunity for the World Bank Group” (L18.1); “a “green economy … can only come into being if society and industry are constantly creating new innovations”2 (L29.1). There is very little, however, that deviates from the economic discourse of the majority of the highly ranked blogs.2 Translated from the original German by the author

35


4.2.2 Political Orientation

In terms of political orientation the lower-ranked blogs feature a wide range of discourses and, much like with their economic orientation they can be roughly divided into two groups. One group more or less resembles the mainstream discourse of the majority of the highly-ranked blogs and a second group features discourse more progressive than is found either at Rio+20 or in the highly-ranked blogs. The first group, whilst generally (but not always) critical of the Rio+20 process and international institutions, look to the private sector for future inspiration. For example, one blogger asserts that he “does not subscribe to the view that these types of summits are exercises in futility” but is sure that “there has to be a better way of doing things than the current diplomatic morass” (L5.1). Another claims that “current governance structures are insufficient to meet even the environmental problems of the 1970s” (L2.1). The framing of future possibilities is aptly described by the title of a post in World Watch Blogs: “Voluntary Commitments – The Way Forward After Rio+20?” (L17.3). In this context governments are seen to play a role in so far as they “invest” (L19.1) and provide funds to “catalyze the market” (L18.2). Again, very little differs in any major way from the similar mainstream discourse found in the highly ranked blogs.The second group differ from the first in three main ways. Firstly, when considering new actors in environmental governance, they demonstrate suspicion of the motives and potential efficacy of the private sector and are, instead, vocal in their support of indigenous peoples and other comparatively marginalised voices such as those of small farmers. Bloggers note, for example, an “increasingly worrying degree of corporation cooption (sic)” (L26.2) and fear that the green economy is “the latest attempt of corporations to use the environmental crisis as an opportunity for making greater profits”. Instead, they choose to focus on the importance of indigenous knowledge and rights in the proper maintenance of the biosphere. They note the “contrast between money-centred Western and life-centred indigenous views of the proper purpose and structure of a high-performing economy” (L26.8) as well as the “poor respect and recognition given to traditional knowledge systems for governing the commons” (L6.11).

36

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828A reoccurring theme in several blogs (e.g. L3, L11, L16) is indigenous and local protests and struggles (see, for example, fig. 5). Protests against the construction of hydro-electric dams in Brazil, especially the Belo Monte dam on the Xingu river in Brazil which was being occupied by local tribes during the Rio+20 conference (an event found its way into few major news outlets and none of the major blogs), are recounted numerous times. One interesting example (although not strictly related to Rio+20) is the successful struggles of local farmers against Monsanto and Pepsi Co. in rural India mentioned in one blog (L15.3)—Pepsi Co. being a company with which Columbia University collaborates, as it mentions in its highly-ranked blog (H8.7), as discussed above in section 4.1.2.

The second way these blogs differ is that they identify unequal power relations as a key hindrance to effective environmental governance. The Rio process “fails to acknowledge the imbalances of power that allow the wealthiest governments to wield greater influence within the negotiations, while small farmers, indigenous groups, and other representatives of affected communities are given token representation but largely ignored” (L6.13). The Kari-

Oca II declaration, for example, lamented the fact that the Rio+20 outcome document “does not mention culture or indigenous rights as part of the main principles” (L3.6). An insight into the more progressive, democratic world these blogs envision can be found in the proposal of Bolivia to Rio+20, cited in the blog Share the World's Resources: “sustainable development requires a new international financial architecture to replace the World Bank and the IMF 37

Fig. 5 - From Anderson, 2012 (3.11). Munducuru tribe protest the construction of the Belo Monte Dam.

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828with entities that are democratic and transparent, that respect national priorities and national independence in the application of development strategies. These new institutions should have a majority representation by developing countries and should act according to the principles of solidarity and cooperation, rather than commercialization and privatization” (L26.12). The third difference is that they employ different metaphors regarding the relationships between humans and the environment. Again, in the Kari-Oca II declaration (which is cited in full in numerous posts across various blogs, e.g. L11, L16), for example, indigenous people note the “inseparable relationship between humans the the Earth” and “urge all humanity to join with us in transforming the social structures, institutions and power relations that underpin our deprivation, oppression and exploitation” (L3.12). The phrase Mother Earth is also frequently invoked to imply the inherent, and not contingent, value of the Earth as well as the dependence of humanity on nature. For example, one post explains that in Ecuador there has been a “vigorous movement for a “Universal Declaration of the Rights of Nature”” (L6.11) and, although only mentioned briefly, Patrick Bond, the director of the University of KwaZulu-Natal (South Africa) Centre for Civil Society espouses a rare ecocentric (as opposed to anthropocentric) worldview, which takes humans to be no more or less important than the rest of nature (L6.15).In sum, these blogs are progressive in a different way to the, also progressive, highly ranked blogs. They are more suspicious of the rich and the powerful (i.e. states and corporations) and more trusting of the poor and the (comparatively) disenfranchised (i.e. the indigenous populations).

§Assessing the economic and political orientations of the lower ranked blogs together, the discourses of Limits, Green Radicalism and Expansive Sustainability all feature significantly. Very few posts take a Mainstream Sustainability approach.

38


5.0 Analysis

In this section I will compare the content and distribution of environmental discourses across the two blog samples, focusing primarily on counter-hegemonic discourse, and discuss their implications for our understanding of the eco-blogosphere. The most salient point of difference between the two blog samples is the distribution of radical economic discourse, which is far more prevalent in the lower-ranked blogs. In general, the highly-ranked blogs want to “reorient” existing paradigms of economic growth to make them compatible with social and environmental well-being, whilst many of the lower-ranked blogs want to “redefine” it or even go beyond the entire concept, treating it as either a physical impossibility within the ecological limits of the biosphere, or as fundamentally incompatible with long-term social and environmental well-being, or both. Whilst many lower-ranked blogs call for a fundamental transformation of the capitalist political economy and reject the commodification of nature inherent in the UN's vision of a Green Economy, these are issues which are barely touched upon in the highly-ranked blogs. Thus, recalling the filter-like properties of the blogosphere, we can see that radical economic discourses, especially critiques of capitalism, are being filtered out of the blogosphere as it travel up towards the higher-ranked blogs. Regarding the political orientation of the two samples, a slightly different story emerges. Whilst progressive discourse, i.e. discourse which is critical of current political institutions and power relations and looks beyond to new paradigms, is present in all areas of the blogosphere, during the transition from the lower-ranked to the highly-ranked blogs, the emphasis shifts noticeably from a focus on the marginalised and the disenfranchised at a local level (broadly speaking, those who will have to live with 'sustainable development') to a focus on the private sector, public-private partnerships and also the empowerment and rights of women (broadly speaking, those actors who will carry out 'sustainable development' – although it might seem unusual to include women in this category, highly-ranked blogs repeatedly pointed out the importance of the inclusion of women in the implementation of sustainable development). A similar distinction manifests itself in the metaphors invoked by

39

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828both samples. Most prevalent in the highly-ranked blogs was the idea of the ecological crisis as an opportunity to profit by valuing natural capital and then exploiting it in a sustainable fashion: a 'win-win' scenario. Many of the lower-ranked blogs, by contrast, invoked the metaphor of Mother Earth, which is inherently valuable and which cannot be traded on the market. Thus, although both samples, to a certain extent, seek a redistribution of political power they do so in very different ways. Arguably, the shift in power towards the private sector envisioned by the highly-ranked blogs is more in line with the hegemonic discourse at Rio+20 (which makes plenty of space for such arrangements) but is simply one or two steps ahead in terms of women's (especially reproductive) rights and actual commitments to corporate social responsibility. Occasionally, in frustration at the failures of international negotiations, these blogs also envision a smaller role for states and the UN than is implied in the Rio+20 discourse. The discourse of many of the lower-ranked blogs, by contrast, is counter-hegemonic insofar as it seeks to empower local actors and explicitly rejects the commodification of 'Mother Earth'. However, the paucity of discourse on women's rights in the lower ranked blogs is a glaring omission which could suggest that, with regard to this particular theme, they are more conservative than the hegemonic discourse at Rio+20 and the highly-ranked blogs. To return to my research questions, the findings of my research show that blogs can provide a discursive space for the emergence of counter-hegemonic discourse and, therefore, have the potential to contribute to the rebalancing of the distribution of discourses in the political arena (question a). However, in order for these counter-hegemonic discourses to have democratic impact these counter-hegemonic discourses must be democratically efficacious. As explained in section 2, for this to happen a link to governance is required which, in the context of blogs, is most effectively achieved through an influence on the mainstream media via the most highly-ranked (and therefore most highly-read) blogs. This research has shown that the eco-blogosphere filters out almost all radical economic discourse as well as certain strains of progressive political discourse (with the main exception being attitudes towards women's rights), meaning that they are effectively absent from the top tier of blogs and thus have minimal links to governance. This suggests that environmental blogs are being

40


institutionalised into the mainstream media and, in the process, are indeed succumbing to the commercial pressures which typify the mainstream public sphere (question b). Overall, then, the eco-blogosphere therefore has very limited ability to efficaciously contest the discursive boundaries of the hegemonic discourse at the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. This conclusion provides further evidence for positions taken by other commentators who have noted the close ties between the elite blogosphere and the mainstream media in other areas. Chris Bowers, for example, in the context of what he calls the (US) “progressive political blogosphere” notes three trends towards the increasing incorporation of the blogosphere into mainstream media: firstly, established media companies and organisations are hiring successful bloggers to blog for them full-time; secondly, previously 'amateur' progressive blogs become professional and increase their revenues to the point that they can hire full-time staff and; thirdly, a move by bloggers to consulting and advocacy work. He says “add up all three of these paths ... and the progressive political blogosphere is now both thoroughly professionalized and integrated into the progressive media” (2010a). In a follow-up article he points out that “new voices will still emerge … [but] when they do those bloggers will emerge within established, professionalized blogs in order too (sic) attract an audience in the first place” (2010b). A consequence of this is that “as the political blogosphere is being bought out by the mainstream media, it becomes bound by the standards to which the mainstream media is held” (Munn, 2012, p.62). Thus, the blogosphere is becoming more professional, but at the same time losing its critical edge. This does not mean that the blogosphere cannot contribute to the value of the mainstream media in some way, but it does eliminate some of the advantages which blogs had over the mainstream media in the days when amateur bloggers ruled the roost.

41


6.0 Conclusion

This dissertation sought to explore the possibility of the Internet reinvigorating democracy in global environmental governance. In the introduction, two key democratic deficiencies of GEG and the public sphere were identified: the imbalance of discourses and their implicit Westphalian underpinnings. Regarding the first problem, this research has shown that the eco-blogosphere (as a whole) boasts a very broad range of environmental discourse, from the techno-managerialism of Mainstream Sustainability to the anti-capitalist thrust of Green Radicalism. Similarly, to turn to the second point, the broad range of authors which featured on the blogs suggests that the Internet could form the basis for the transnational public sphere which Fraser (2007) deems an indispensable part of democratic governance in a post-Westphalian world. The blog samples (both individually and collectively) hosted, and linked to, posts from both developed and developing countries, from indigenous peoples (L4) and radical environmental activists (from the Global North and South) (H6.27; L3.1), from former ambassadors to the UN (L6.17), a German minister (L29.1) and the CEO of a waste disposal company (H6.3) to students and academics (H8; H9). From this perspective, then, the Internet bodes well for democracy. However, as we have also seen, these authors and the 'storylines' they tell are not evenly distributed throughout the blogosphere and, crucially, are themselves vulnerable to Gramscian transformismo (co-optation) at the hands of the hegemonic historical bloc. Thus, commercial pressures in the elite stratum of the blogosphere have filtered out the vast majority of radical/progressive discourse which means that there remains still an imbalance of discourses which are actually politically consequential.

Ultimately, as Coleman and Blumler point out, the Internet represents an “empty space of power” (2009, p.9) which is vulnerable to colonisation by state and corporate interests as well as open to occupation through individuals and groups who would have few other means of democratic expression. Furthermore, it seems to be the case that in this online space of power, the hegemonic might of transnational capital seems to be reconstructing the unequal (and therefore democratically damaging) power relations which exist offline. However, the amplificatory effects of the Internet, whilst not necessarily democratically impactful in a direct fashion, do demonstrate the sheer variety of discourse and opinion which exists in the world beyond those present at the top tier of conferences at the UN. Whilst this dissertation provides 42

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828clear evidence against the 'cyber-utopian' position that the Internet will inevitably reinvigorate democracy through its speed and accessibility, the silver lining is that it does provide evidence of the vitality of resistance to hegemonic discourses. From this perspective, the institutionalisation of the blogosphere is more an indicator of the scale of the challenge ahead for those who would seek to contest hegemonic historical blocs, than a necessarily pessimistic forecast of the hope for democracy. The Internet is not the answer to “democracy's dilemma in the age of globalisation” (Paehlke, 2003, p.4), but is simultaneously a reflection of the hopes that do exist for systems of global governance premised on democratic legitimacy and accountability.

43


Appendix 1 – Ethics Screening and Risk Assessment Forms

See next two pages.

44


ETHICS SCREENING FORM GOES HERE

45


RISK ASSESSMENT FORM GOES HERE

46


Appendix 2 – Blog Data

'Top Environmental Blog' Sites Name URLTechnorati http://www.technorati.com/lifestyle/greenEnvironment About http://www.environmentabout.com/1316/top-10-best-environmental-blogs-and-websites Social Media Explorer http://www.socialmediaexplorer.com/social-media-marketing/the-top-25-environmental-blogs/ Highly-Ranked Blogs Number Blog Name PageRank No. of Posts URL1 Grist 7 36 www.grist.org2 Climate Progress 7 21 www.thinkprogress.org/climate3 SwitchBoard 7 50 www.switchboard.nrdc.org 4 DeSmogBlog 7 2 www.desmogblog.com5 Mother Jones: Blue Marble 7 2 www.motherjones.com/blue-marble 6 TreeHugger 8 31 www.treehugger.com7 Sustainablog 7 2 www.sustainablog.com8 Columbia University: State of the Planet 7 10 www.blogs.ei.columbia.edu

9 Yale Environment 360 7 5 www.e360.yale.edu/ 10 Huffington Post 8 50 www.huffingtonpost.comLower-Ranked Blogs Number Blog Name PageRank No. of Posts URL1 The Antarctica Blog 4 1 www.antarcticablog.blogspot.com2 Climate Community 5 1 www.theclimatecommunity.com3 AmazonWatch: Eye of

the Amazon4 15 www.amazonwatch.org/news/blog

4 EcoEarth 5 1 www.ecoearth.info/blog5 BusinessGreen.com:

James's Blog5 1 www.businessgreen.com/blog/james

-blog

47

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828Number Blog Name PageRank No. of Posts URL6 Climate & Capitalism 5 21 www.climateadcapitalism.com7 Democracy and Class

Struggle4 2 www.democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.com

8 Cool the Earth 3 2 www.cooltheearth.wordpress.com9 Earth Peoples 3 4 www.earthpeoples.org/blog10 Global Forest

Coalition5 1 www.globalforestcoalition.org/blog

11 REDD-Monitor 5 5 www.redd-monitor.org12 Earth Action 5 1 www.earthaction.org13 Wrong Kind of Green 3 2 www.wrongkindofgreen.org/blog14 The Price of Oil 5 4 www.priceofoil.org15 Adopt a Negotiator 5 11 www.adoptanegotiator.org16 Indigenous 4 Mother

Earth5 4 www.indigenous4motherearthrioplus

20.org17 World Watch Blogs 5 7 www.blogs.worldwatch.org18 What's with the

Climate5 2 www.whatswiththeclimate.org

19 Sustainable Development and

much more

4 2 www.elrst.com

20 Earth Stumbling 0 1 www.earthstumbling.com21 We Are Power Shift 5 7 www.wearepowershift.org22 Real Climate

Economics5 1 www.realclimateeconomics.org/wp

23 Mediacology 4 1 www.mediacology.com24 PostGrowth 4 1 www.postgrowth.org/learn/blog25 EcoNowBlog 2 2 www.econowblog.blogspot.com26 Share the World's

Resources5 13 www.stwr.org

27 The Good Human 5 1 www.thegoodhuman.com28 Ruscombe Green 4 1 www.ruscombegreen.blogspot.com29 CleanThinking 5 1 www.cleanthinking.de30 Lohas Lifestyle 4 1 www.lohaslifestyle.blogspot.com

48


ReferencesAdamic, L. & Glance, N., 2005. The Political Blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. Election: Divided They Blog. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on link discovery, pp.36-43. Agre, P., 2002. Real-Time Politics: The Internet and the Political Process. The Information Society: An International Journal, 18(5), pp.311-331. Anderson, A., 2009. Media, Politics and Climate Change: Towards a New Research Agenda. Sociology Compass, 3(2), pp.166-182. Arts, B., 2005. Non-state actors in global environmental governance: New arrangements beyond the state. In: Koenig-Archibugi, M. & Zürn, M., eds. New modes of governance in

the global system: exploring publicness, delegation and inclusiveness. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Barney, D., 2003. Invasions of publicity: Digital networks and the privatization of the public sphere. In: Law Commission of Canada, ed. New Perspectives on the public/private divide. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, pp.8-22. Bauman, Z., 1999. In search of politics. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Baumgartner, J. & Morris, J., 2009. MyFaceTube Politics: Social Networking Sites and Political Engagement of Young Adults. Social Science Computer Review, 25(1), pp.319-338. Beasley, C., 2002. Top 10 Google Myths Revealed. [online] Available at: <http://www.sitepoint.com/top-10-google-myths-revealed> [Accessed 20 August 2012].Biermann, F. & Pattberg, P., 2008. Global Environmental Governance: Taking Stock, Moving Forward. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 33, pp.277-94.Bookchin, M., 1982. The Ecology of Freedom. Palo Alto, CA: Cheshire.Bosch, T., 2012. Blogging and tweeting climate change in South Africa. Ecquid Novi: African Journalism Studies, 33(1), pp.44-53. Catney, P. & Doyle, T., 2011. Challenges to the state. In: T., Fitzpatrick, ed., 2011. Understanding the Environment and Social Policy. Bristol: Policy Press, pp.91-111. Carvalho, A., 2007. Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowledge: Re-reading news on climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 16(2), pp.223- 243. Castells, M., 2008. The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication Networks, and Global Governance. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), pp.78-93.

49

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828Chadwick, A., 2006. Internet Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Chadwick, A., 2009. Web 2.0: New challenges for the study of e-democracy in an era of informational exuberance. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 5(1), pp.9–41. Chambers, S. & Kopstein, J., 2006. Civil society and the state. In: J., Dryzek, B., Honig & A., Phillips, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 363–81.Clifford, R. & Valentine, G., 2003. Key Methods in Geography. London: SAGE. Coleman, S. & Blumler, J., 2009. The Internet and Democratic Citizenship: Theory, Practice and Policy. New York: Cambridge University Press. Cox, R., 1987. Production, Power and World Order. New York: Columbia University Press.Cox, R., 1993. Gramsci, hegemony and international relations. In: S., Gill, ed., Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.49-66. Cox, R., 1996. Approaches to World Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Dahlberg, L., 2001. Computer-Mediated Communication and the Public Sphere: ACritical Analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communications, 7(1), [online]: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol7/issue1/dahlberg.html. Accessed 26 July 2012.Dahlberg, L., 2005. The Corporate Colonization of Online Attention and the Marginalization of Critical Communication? Journal of Communication Inquiry, 29(2), pp.160-180.Dahlberg, L., 2007a. Rethinking the Fragmentation of the Cyberpublic: from Consensus to Contestation. New Media & Society, 9(5), pp.827-847. Dahlberg, L., 2007b. The Internet, Deliberative Democracy, and Power: Radicalizing the Public Sphere. International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics, 3(1), pp.47-64. Dahlgren, P., 2005. The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication: Dispersion and Deliberation. Political Communication, 22(2), pp.147-162.Dalton, R. & Kittilson, M., 2012. Virtual Civil Society in the United States and Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science, 47(1), pp.11-29. Dautrich, K., & Barnes, C., 2005a. Freedom of the press survey: general population 2005. [online] Storrs, CT, University of Connecticut, Department of Public Policy, May 14. Available at: http://importance.corante.com/archives/UCONN_DPP_Survey_GenPop.pdf[Accessed 28 July 2012].

50

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828Dautrich, K., & Barnes, C. (2005b). Freedom of the press survey: journalists 2005. [online] Storrs, CT, University of Connecticut, Department of Public Policy, May 14. Available at: http://importance.corante.com/archives/UCONN_DPP_Survey_Journalists.pdf[Accessed 28 July 2012].Dean, J., 2003. Why the Net is not a Public Sphere. Constellations, 10(1), pp.95-112. De Zúñiga, H., Puig-I-Abril & Rojas, H., 2009. Weblogs, Traditional Sources Online and Political Participation: An Assessment of How the Internet is Changing the Political Environment. New Media Society, 11(4), pp.553-574. Drezner, D. & Farrell, H., 2008. Introduction: Blogs, politics and power: a special issue of Public Choice. Public Choice, 134(1-2), pp.1-13. Dryzek, J., 1983. Ecological Rationality. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 21, pp.5-10.Dryzek, J., 2000. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations Oxford: Oxford University Press.Dryzek, J., 2010. Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.Dryzek, J., 2012. Global Civil Society: The Progress of Post-Westphalian Politics, Annual Review of Political Science, 15(1), pp.1-19.Dryzek, J. & Stevenson, H., 2011. Global democracy and earth system governance. Ecological Economics, 70(11), pp.1865-1874. Eckersley, R., 2004. The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty. Cambridge, MA; London: MIT Press. Eckersley, R., 2005. Greening the Nation-State: From Exclusive to Inclusive Sovereignty. In: J., Barry & R., Eckersley, eds. 2005. The State and the Global Ecological Crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp.159-180. Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C., 2007. The Benefits of Facebook ‘Friends’: Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12(4), pp.1143–68.Erickson, B., 1979. Some problems of inference from chain data. Sociological Methodology, 10, pp.276-302.Farrell, H. & Drezner, D., 2008. The power and politics of blogs. Public Choice, 134(1-2), pp.15-30.

51

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828Fenton, N., 2010. Drowning or Waving? New Media, Journalism and Democracy. In: N., Fenton, ed., 2010. New Media, Old News: Journalism & Democracy in the Digital Age. LosAngeles: SAGE Publishing, pp.3-16.Fortier, F., 2001. Virtuality check. London: Verso. Fraser, N., 1990. Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. Social Text, 25/26, pp.56-80. Fraser, N., 2007. Transnationalizing the Public Sphere: On the Legitimacy and Efficacy of Public Opinion in a Post-Westphalian World. Theory, Culture & Society, 24(4), pp.7-30. Freelon, D., 2010. Analyzing online political discussion using three models of democratic communication. New Media & Society, 12(7), pp.1172-1190. Friedland, L., Hove, T. & Rojas, H., 2006. The Networked Public Sphere. Javnost – The Public, 13(4), pp.5-26. Galston, W., 2002. If political fragmentation is the problem, is the Internet the solution?In: D., Anderson, M., Cornfield & F., Arterton, eds., 2002. The Civic Web: Online politicsand democratic values. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp.35-44.Gill, S., 2008. Power and Resistance in the New World Order, 2nd ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Gill, S. & Law, D., 1989. Global Hegemony and the Structural Power of Capital. International Studies Quarterly, 33(4), pp.475-499.Gillett, J., 2007. Internet Web Logs as Cultural Resistance: A Study of the SARS Arts Project. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 31(1), pp.28-43. Habegger, M., 2011. Learning to Do Democracy: Deliberative Capacity in Political Blogging Communities. MA thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institutite and State University.Habermas, J., 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge: Polity Press.Hajer, M., 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Hajer, M. & Versteeg, W., 2005. A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 7(3), pp.175-184. Heilbroner, R., 1974. An Inquiry into the Human Prospect. New York: Norton & Co.Hindman, M., 2009. The Closing of the Frontier: Political Blogs, the 2008 Election, and the Online Public Sphere. Paper prepared for the Democracy, Citizenship and Constitutionalism Forum, University of Pennsylvania, March 26.

52

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828Ho, S., & McLeod, D., 2008. Social-Psychological Influences on Opinion Expression inFace-to-face and Computer-mediated Communication. Communication Research 35(2), pp.190–207.Holt, D. & Barkemeyer, R., 2012. Media Coverage of Sustainable Development Issues – Attention Cycles or Punctuated Equilibrium? Sustainable Development, 20, pp.1-17. Janssen, D. & Kies, R., 2005. Online forums and deliberative democracy. Acta Politica, 40(3), pp.384–392.Kaldor, M., 2003. Global civil society: An answer to war. Malden, MA: Polity.Katz, H., 2006. Gramsci, Hegemony, and Gobal Civil Society Networks. Voluntas, 17(4), pp.333-348. Kirchhoff, L., Bruns, A. & Nicolai, T., 2007. Investigating the impact of the blogosphere: Using PageRank to determine the distribution of attention. Paper presented at the Association of Internet Researchers conference, Vancouver, October 17-20, 2007. Kittilson, M. & Dalton, R., 2008. The Internet and Virtual Civil Society: The New Frontier of Social Capital. CSD Working Papers, Center for the Study of Democracy, UC Irvine. Lang, C., 2012. NO REDD+! In Rio +20: A Declaration to Decolonize the Earth and the Sky. REDD Monitor. [blog] 19 June. Available at: <http://www.redd-monitor.org/2012/06/19/no-redd-in-rio-20-a-declaration-to-decolonize-the-earth-and-the-sky/> [accessed 05 August 2012]. Leowen, A., 2012. Overcoming doom with Dr. David Suzuki. Wrong Kind of Green. [blog] 25 June. Available at: <http://wrongkindofgreen.org/2012/07/03/david-suzuki-a- figure-of-left-liberalism-at-its-breaking-point/> [accessed 04 August 2012].Lewis, T., 2000. Media Representations of “Sustainable Development”: Sustaining the Status Quo? Science Communication, 21(3), pp.244-273. Li, D. & Walejko, G., 2008. SPLOGS AND ABANDONED BLOGS: The perils of sampling bloggers and their blogs. Information, Communication & Society, 11(2), pp.279-296.Malin, B., 2011. A very popular blog: The internet and the possibilities of publicity. New Media & Society, 13(2), pp.187-202. Mathews, F., 1996. Ecology and Democracy. London; Portland, OR: Frank CassMeraz, S., 2009. Is There an Elite Hold? Traditional Media to Social Media Agenda Setting Influence in Blog Networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(3), pp.682-707. Mouffe, C., 2000. The Democratic Paradox. London: Verso.

53

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828Mouffe, C., 2005. On the Political. Oxford: Routledge. Munn, N., 2012. The New Political Blogosphere. Social Epistemology, 26(1), pp.55-70. Najam, A., Papa, M. & Taiyab, N., 2006. Global Environmental Governance: A Reform Agenda. Winnipeg, Canada: International Institute for Sustainable Development.NM Incite, 2012. Buzz in the Blogosphere: Millons more bloggers and blog readers. [website] 8 March. Available at: http://nmincite.com/buzz-in-the-blogosphere-millions-more-bloggers-and-blog-readers [Accessed 29 August 2012]. O'Neill, K., 2009. The Environment and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Ophuls, W., 1977. Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity. San Francisco, C.A.: W.H. Freeman & Co.Paehlke, R., 2003. Democracy's Dilemma: Environment, Social Equity and the Global Economy. Cambridge, M.A.; London: MIT Press.Papacharissi, Z., 2002. The Virtual Sphere: the Internet as a Public Sphere. New Media & Society, 4(1), pp.9-27. Papacharissi, Z., 2004. Democracy Online: Civility, Politeness, and the Democratic Potential of Online Political Discussion Groups. New Media & Society, 6(2), pp.259-283. Papacharissi, Z., 2010. The Private Sphere: Democracy in a Digital Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.Pandurangan, G., Raghavan, P., Upfal, E., 2002. Using PageRank to Characterize Web Structure. Proceedings of the 8th Annual International Conference on Computing and Combinatorics, August 15-17, 2002. Putnam, R., 2000. Bowling Alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.Rasmussen, T., 2008. The Internet and Differentiation in the Political Public Sphere. Nordicom Review, 29(2), pp.73–83. Rivas-Rodriguez, M., 2003. Brown Eyes of the Web: Unique Perspectives of an Alternative US Latino Online Newspaper. London: Routledge. Robinson, W., 2005. Gramsci and Globalisation: From Nation-State to Transnational Hegemony. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 8(4), pp.559-574. Romm, J., 2012. Open Threat Plus Rio+20 Cartoon of the Week. Climate Progress. [blog] 23 June. Available at: <http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/06/23/505129/open-thread-plus-rio20-cartoon-of-the-week/> [Accessed 04 August 2012].

54

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828Scholte, J., 2004. Globalization and Governance: From Statism to Polycentrism. CSGR Working Paper No. 130/04, Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation, University of Warwick.Shah, D., Cho, J., Eveland Jr., W., & Kwak, N., 2005. Information and Expression in a Digital Age. Modeling Internet Effects on Civic Participation. Communication Research, 32(5), pp.531–65.Smith, G., 2003. Deliberative Democracy and the Environment. London: Routledge. Speth, G., 2004. Red Sky at Morning: America and the Crisis of the Global Environment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Stevenson, H. & Dryzek, J., 2012. The Discursive Democratisation of Global Climate Governance. Environmental Politics, 21(2), pp.189-210.Sunstein, C., 2001. Republic.com. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Thompson, J., 2000. Political scandal: Power and visibility in the media age. Cambridge: Polity.Torgerson, D., 1999. The Promise of Green Politics: Environmentalism and the Public Sphere. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.Trench, B., 2012. Scientists' Blogs: Glimpses Behind the Scenes. In: S., Rödder et al., 2012. The Sciences' Media Connection – Public Communication and its Repercussions, Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook 28. Dordrecht: Springer, pp.273-289. Trittin, J., 2002. The Role of the Nation-State in International Environmental Policy: Speech by the German Federal Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Energy. In: F., Biermann, R., Brohm & K., Dingwerth, eds., 2002. Global Environmental Change and the Nation State: Proceedings of the 2001 Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change. Potsdam: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, pp. 10-15.UNCSD (United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development), 2012. The Future We Want. Rio de Janeiro, 19-22 June, 2012. Rio de Janeiro: United Nations. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), 2012. UNEP – Green Economy – What is GEI? [online] Available at: <http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/AboutGEI/WhatisGEI/tabid/29784/Default.aspx> [Accessed 23 August 2012].Valenzuela, S., Park, N. and Kee, K. 2009. Is There Social Capital in a Social Network Site?Facebook Use and College Students’ Life Satisfaction, Trust and Participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), pp.875–901.WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development), 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

55

Internet Democracy in Global Environmental Governance Student No.: 1158828Worth, O., 2002. The Janus-like Character of Counter-hegemony: Progressive and Nationalist Responses to Neoliberalism. Global Society, 16(3), pp.297-315.

56

internet democracy in global environmental governance ... · internet democracy in global...

Documents