Discussion forum #8 – rising concerns on Environmental Science

About this phase (Penna & Geels, 2012):

Phase 3: Political debates and defensive hedging

“If public opinion becomes more concerned, the issue may spill over to policy makers, who then engage in debates, hearings, and investigations. To influence the debates, industry actors use political and framing strategies, e.g. contesting the technical feasibility or emphasizing costs of possible solutions. They also tend to implement incremental innovations, arguing that regulations are not necessary, because they are already working on solutions. For defensive reasons they may also hedge and explore alternatives solutions based on new capabilities. The work by outside firms or suppliers on alternative solutions can undermine the argument from incumbent firms (‘alternatives are not feasible’). Alternatives may also find a foothold in small market niches linked to ‘moral customers’ who are concerned about the issue.”

With regard to GMOs, I believe we are currently in the fourth phase of the DILM cycle as a nation. However, on the state level this issue might possibly be in the very late fourth or fifth stages, in states where policymakers are beginning to take tangible action (WA, OR, CA, CO, VT).

I posit that the phase 3 of the DILM cycle (as related to the debate over GMOs and GMO labeling) happened nationally from mid-2011, until November 2014 (when three states had GMO labeling initiatives on the ballot, representing a real threat to agribusiness and food companies).  During this period of time, there were a lot of political debates around GMOs, many scientists getting involved, and politicians were forced to take a stance on the issue.

Articles like the following about the “investigations” around GMO crops [and where/how they spread, and if it’s legal] were common in 2011-2014: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/09/26/351785294/gmo-wheat-investigation-closed-but-another-one-opens

Additionally, opinion articles like this one sprang up around the instances of GMOs on the ballot in 2012, 2013, and 2014:https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/home/labeling-gmo-food/2012/10/16/a7a1128e-118a-11e2-9a39-1f5a7f6fe945_story.html

GMO Labeling failed in California in 2012, Washington in 2013, and Colorado and Oregon in 2014. However, Vermont passed a GMO labeling law in 2014 by popular vote, set to go into effect in June/July of 2016. The industry is currently fighting this tooth and nail, and if industries end up having to comply with the regulation, this could launch us into phase 5. This is why I contend that we are currently in phase 4—which I’ll talk about next week. J 

It was also around this time (2013/2014) that the discourse around Monsanto started to noticeably change on a large scale, using phrasing and marketing about sustainable agriculture to mitigate the negative public opinion about their practices, including widespread GMO and pesticide use.

3- 

The first article is an example of rising public concern about the implementation of LEED certification. The article shares information on how several hundred municipalities have written LEED into their codes for regulatory or tax-credit purposes and the outcome, which is not all positive, for taxpayers.

The second article is on architect, Frank Gehry’s view on LEED certification.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/05/08/leed-certification-doesnt-add-value-and-costs-taxpayers

http://inhabitat.com/frank-gehry-calls-sustainable-design-political/