What makes the public a public that cares and is willing to demonstrate this through both their citizenship and behavioural actions?

A campaign by a local newspaper pushing their agenda, a few seminars, public consultations and opening for submissions sponsored by the media…. or a restructuring of media corporations so they don’t rely on the money from many messages made by professional manipulators to make us want things we didn’t really want before.  Maybe we need a media that is there to sell information and empowerment to the public rather than sell the public’s attention to the biggest corporations of our time.

If we are to be serious about developing sustainable transport within our city, we have to acknowledge that the media is not a benign institution - and I’m not going down the track of media watch, looking at particularly nasty or incompetent pieces of work.  I’m talking about the way it functions from day to day.

My first point is that media sells attention

We go and buy the paper, turn on the TV or the radio, and we feel like we are being served.  The people and performances we are exposed to are there to make us want to watch, to keep us interested, entertained and if they are doing their job right - getting a good part of our attention.  That doesn’t seem like such a bad deal, you as the “consumer” of this production the media has put on for you, could almost feel like you were being very well attended to.  But why?  These media institutions are not purely, altruistic charities - just here for our pleasure.  They have your attention for a reason.  They are going to sell it to the highest bidder.  One of your most valuable assets is up for grabs and it’s going to be bought by a fast food chain, a toy manufacturer or the automotive industry.   It almost seems unfair that people are acquiring and selling something of yours while you are distracted by whether Darren will win the million dollar prize.

My second point is that media’s clients are corporations with special interests

So, the media industry is being paid by these big corporations in exchange for our attention.  How would this affect the content of the media?  Well, usually you don’t bite the hand that feeds you and this rings very true for our friends in media land.  While advertising dollars isn’t going to prevent any mention of opposing views, it has the potential to dull down these arguments and ensure that the point of view which is more interesting for the concerned corporation, will be heard.

This was a big issue in the anti-tobacco movement.  The debate may have pushed through certain barriers much faster if the media weren’t so reliant on the allegiance of tobacco companies as one of the biggest sources of advertising money.   It is worth noting that when tobacco advertisements were banned on TV, the tobacco companies diversified and bought up “advertisable” products so they could continue to “censor” the medias coverage of the tobacco debate.  Nowadays, media are probably more dependent on “Quit” advertisements, so the whole allegiance has gone full circle and may be even overly sympathetic towards the anti-smoking sentiment

My third point is that media employees don’t understand the power of their messages

You say one thing and you portray a list of statements and sentiments that would fill the rest of the news bulletin if you had to explain them all.  I will not talk about all of them right now, but will try and explain some of the more important.

Firstly, normative messages will arise from you innocent account.  There are injunctive norms which are all about what people ought to be doing.  Most journalists, producers and script writers are pretty aware of these norms.  They gather that when someone says this is good or bad, this is recommended or not, legal or not, sensible or not, responsible or not - people get a certain message about whether or not they ought to be doing it.  Descriptive norms, however, are often  alluded to without the knowledge of the person who presents the messages.  These are the norms that are all about the fact that other people are behaving this way - describing what is happening with no apparent judgment.  Descriptive norms are very powerful as we are more like sheep than we know.  We also are not consciously aware that we are following blindly.  So, every time we are told how bad it is that there are so many people doing such bad things, we are provided with the injunctive norm that we shouldn’t behave like this, but we are also provided with a descriptive norm that so many people behave like this that it is an accepted way to behave.  Maybe journalists have to think less about sensationalizing stories and more about the consequences of their messages.

(Note I may have unwittingly introduced the descriptive norm that most journalists don’t worry about descriptive norms and hence encouraging them to continue to carry on in this fashion - aaagh sometimes I feel like I just create traps of inevitable hypocrisy while just trying to benignly analyze the world…)

Secondly, messages often carry a sense of empowerment or helplessness, a sense of the public being free agents or mere products of the system.  Allocating blame for problems, responsibility of action and victims of situation leads us to potentially feel guilty, victimized, empowered or overwhelmed.  The truth is, usually these stories are not that simple, distribution of blame, responsibility and affliction of problems is spread across a wide range of institutions of which the public are included.  The media often simplify these stories and the public can often be given a passive role - this will lead to helplessness as they feel they can only merely watch as the stories unravel before them each day.  It is important that the stories in the media make the public feel empowered without feeling overwhelmed.  This is a potentially powerful tool the media possesses but lacks the confidence or competence to use.

So today, I have just had a brief (and incomplete) look at the media and the potential ways they could improve the people power for a more sustainable world.  I think I would like to continue this with a look at some other major institutions which have powers to help the people have power.  Who knows, one day we might be able to work together enough to push buses along like I witnessed in India.

What a name!  What a past time!  What a great topic of conversation to bring up with anyone with a few wrinkles and a head of grey hair.  I have had conversations with my grandma, a guy on the train, a couple at a funeral, and when the topic turns to cycling, they pretty quickly want to tell me about their dinking experiences.  How they courted each other, how they got around as kids, how they got their kids to school - it all involved more than one person on a single bike.  They talk with fondness, including stories of the various mishaps - which are just a fact of life.  It always makes me feel a bit fuzzy to hear of the joys cycling has brought to people in the past.

Does dinking belong in the past where safety standards weren’t as high and a bike was highly prized and something to be shared?  I think there is room for it to come back. 

While cycling was not a big part of my childhood, I have embraced the concept with my fair share of experiences being “the dinker” and “the dinkee”.  Not only is it fun, it can be challenging, it can be an adventure, it can be romantic and I guess it’s a pretty efficient way of getting around as long as your bike can cope.   You get some interesting looks and the ocassional cheer as you and your passenger fly through the street.  I think it’s an important representation of the lighter side of cycling, which is important in an age where lycra, bicycle performance, speed and conflicts with cars seem to swallow up the coverage of the cycling world.     

If you think your bike is sturdy enough why not try dinking someone.  There are an array of ways of getting them to stay on your bike with varying levels of comfort for the rider and the passenger.  The front handle bars or basket gives the passenger a great view (and a great workout for their abs), the crossbar gives you a cosy configuration, the rack is easy to get on and off but it makes the bike a bit back heavy and if you are a true gentleman/lady you can always offer them your seat and you can stand to peddle.  I would love to get some dinking pictures together, so it would be great if you could send them in.  If you have hints for stability or maximising the fun of dinking please leave comments.

Now I’ve grown a little, I’ve learnt a little and also started choosing my behaviour with more awareness.  I am, however, still heavily involved in the demand for burning fossil fuels and I have a big backlog of emissions that I have accumulatively emitted throughout my life.  I have been in cars, planes, trains.  I have used washing machines, heaters and hair dryers.  I wouldn’t know how to start counting my historical carbon emissions.

Looking back at my life of environmental and social “sinning” – would a sensible person happily admit to all this and agree to change their ways.  Trying to cope with the magnitude of your impact would probably make you want to slash your wrists and insist they dispose of your body in the most environmentally friendly way possible (not exacly sure what this is). 

So I don’t advocate that everyone goes to the church of the environment to pay pennants for all their sins in the past.  I do suggest you go to the temple that is the natural environment and rediscover how beautiful it is.  Maybe while you are there, you can make a promise to it – something you are going to try – a new way of eating, living, playing, or travelling – something that might do less harm to our natural world.

The trick, with starting something new is to not look back until you are set in your new ways.  Don’t think about your previous life, don’t make yourself guilty about what you’ve done – just believe in what you are going to do.    

This doesn’t relate to the Dutch and their love of cycling, it is to do with fruit (as all good things are).  I bought a bag of oranges the other day with all the good intentions in the world to eat them all up to stop me from getting a cold.  Everyday I saw them there, next to them were apples and bananas.  For some reason each time I went for some fruit I passed the oranges and went straight for the others.  Why?  I love the taste of oranges and I know they are healthy for me and once I start eating one I feel like I’ve discovered a hidden pot of sweet gold.

For me, I think it is peeling the orange which seems like such a mission when it’s sitting their all wrapped up in its thick coat.  Once I start peeling it, of course it isn’t so bad and it can actually be a bit of an adventure to try and peel it in one piece.  Maybe this is the case for your bike as well.  Not that you need to peel it.  I think, when you haven’t cycled for a while the prospect of getting on your bike seems like a whole lot of hassle.  Once you are on it and feel like you are flying, you can’t comprehend why you thought it would be so hard.  Mind you, if you stop cycling for a while (for some strange reason or another) - you will probably go through the whole “but it’s so much of a bother to cycle” phase.  The question is how do we make oranges and bicycles more (warning pun coming up) appealing.  Do we just need to get rid of this awkward peeling or is it a matter of reminding people that it’s not so hard to access the juicy orange or the joys of cycling.

As a nation, we are going to have a quota of greenhouse gases that we are allowed to emit.  This will mean that each industry will either be given, or have to buy emission permits in order for it to carry out processes which emit carbon dioxide.  The generators of electricity will be required to buy emission permits and then they will burn coal or whatever they have to produce electricity and they will give off some emissions in the process.  This is quite straight forward as all the emissions are occurring within the environment that the permit holder controls.  This will be the case for most industries.

Transport will be interesting though.  Without having read the CPRS I cannot speak as an informed citizen, but I struggle to understand how emissions will be controlled and counted.  Petrol will increase in price due to the Emissions Trading Scheme, and it will be assumed that those who purchase the petrol will use it to pollute.  Maybe, what we need to do is somehow purchase this petrol and then not pollute with it.  Emissions will be counted, but we won’t have emitted anything.  This is the same as retiring emission permits, but without the government knowing about it - so it won’t be able to give out extra emission permits so that the nation is still emitting up to its limit.

I am just going to have to think of a way of safely stockpiling millions of litres of petrol to do this.  But, surely there must be an easier way ……