This is a guest post by Tania Lown-Hecht from the Outdoor Alliance.

In the last decade, social media has transformed how people relate to each other and the rest of the world. For people who experienced their adolescence before the Internet, this digital world can sometimes seem like a simulacrum of the “real thing.” Most of us have heard complaints about “slacktivism” on our social media feeds, the phenomenon where people post about advocacy issues they care about on social media.

Critics of slacktivism believe that social media posts amount to little more than making the poster feel briefly good about him or herself. While I initially bristled at the idea that social media advocacy could be effective, over the past year I’ve fallen in line with my millennial brethren. Here are five pieces of evidence that “slacktivism” is anything but slacking — and that we should all be using this low-investment, high-yield form of engagement to get what we want from policymakers.

1. Policymakers use Facebook and Twitter as an index for deciding what issues to work on. Contrary to some people's beliefs, posts on Facebook actually do influence the democratic process. Some definitive proof? At the first U.S. Democratic debate, the moderator cited Facebook status updates, rather than polling, to describe what issues were relevant to constituents.  
2. Just a few social media comments make an outsized impact on a legislator. Traditional forms of individual advocacy might include letter writing or calling your representative’s office. While these are still useful, there is new evidence that social media comments — both on a legislator’s page and on important topics — have even more impact than these traditional approaches. A recent report noted that just 30 comments on a social media post would be enough to get a policymaker’s attention.  
3. Some of the most successful recent advocacy campaigns have been social media based. From the ice bucket challenge to the Human Rights Coalition’s profile picture takeover to the (infamous) Joseph Kony videos, social media is is a powerful breeding ground for activism that can have enormous, wide-reaching and powerful impacts.  
4. Social media keeps you (and your representative) informed. With the barrage of information that we all face on a daily basis, social media has become a way for people to keep on top of major issues. Policymakers reportedly believe that the Internet has made it easier for people to engage on public policy and that they have to be more responsive to their constituents because of their engagement.  
5. Slacktivism is a gateway drug for more advocacy. Studies show that if you are willing to use your social media networks to promote a cause or issue, you’re more likely to volunteer and participate, and to donate or solicit donations from others, with the result that you are on average nearly twice as engaged as the average American.

The takeaways? Social media is one of the best ways to stay informed — and keep your community informed about issues that matter. Writing or responding to a policymaker on Twitter or Facebook has a huge impact. Sharing a story about public lands, wildfires or climate change does not go unnoticed. And, most importantly, discussing issues online or in person are the pre-cursor to citizens getting more involved on issues that matter — and that’s what it’s all about.

P.S. Find Outdoor Alliance on Twitter and Facebook to stay up to date with advocacy opportunities, public lands mayhem, and our secret desire to tour the country in a remodeled Airstream.

Image: Staya via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This article originally appeared on Alternatives Journal.

“What is it about activists that they can’t even be optimistic for one day after a whole decade?” 

The disgust and disappointment on my 16 year olds face is somewhat heartbreaking as he pours cereal the morning after the Canadian election and surfs the comments on my Facebook page. I can only shake my head sadly and agree with him. 

Wouldn’t it be great to be fueled by hope instead of fear as the late Jack Layton urged us in his letter to the nation? For just a minute could we not take a deep breath and focus on all the things that we know will now change?

My sons have never known a Canada that was not under Stephen Harper's thumb. For the last decade they have listened to their parents shock and outrage over the weakening of our environmental laws, the lack of transparency, the erosion of democracy, the muzzling of scientists, the attack on environmental groups, the disregard for Canada’s constitution.

Along the way we tried to keep hope alive. We painted a picture for them of a Canada that valued evidence based policy. A Canada that led on the world stage to create critical international agreements like the Montreal Protocol. We talked about how lucky we are to live in a democracy and how important it was for us to participate, to organize and to vote. 

Together we watched the election results come in from coast to coast and I watched the hope and optimism on my sons face as he listened to Justin Trudeau’s acceptance speech. “Sunny ways!” We all yelled, half-hysterical and grinning ear to ear. “To the end of the Harper Era!” We cheered as we raised a glass in jubilant toast. 

Our exuberance made the next mornings conversation all that more painful. “Is he really no different?” “Why can’t people ever be hopeful?”

Why not indeed. 

Optimism is a particularly hard place for the activist community. It is by nature a community that draws from the margins: those that question the status quo are often the same people that the status quo doesn’t benefit. There are also those that are simply hard wired to question authority and then there are those who have immersed themselves in climate science and for whom incremental progress or half measures are simply seen as disastrous and even immoral.

In the case of this election and the thorough trouncing of the New Democratic Party there are also those in the activist community who were deeply invested in seeing an NDP or at least a Liberal minority that would give more space for an NDP agenda and with it the potential to strengthen the Liberals position on climate change. 

Let’s be clear — the Liberal Party Platform on climate change currently lacks strong emissions reductions targets at a critical moment in history when it is clear that the United Nations Climate Change Conference discussions are undergoing a dramatic cultural shift. For the first time in over a decade we are seeing a race to the top on climate policy. Countries are committing to aggressive targets and, like China with the announcement of their cap and trade system, they are putting in place real policies to meet those targets.

Canada will have to scramble to catch up after a decade of federal action and there is a considerable amount of fear and cynicism in the activist and scientific community about how our new Liberal government will rise to that challenge. Prime Minster-designate Justin Trudeau’s support for the Keystone pipeline and the cosy relationship between the Liberal campaign chair and Transcanada has not helped create optimism on the climate file. 

Of course, there is also the experience of our colleagues south of the border who remind us that without strong public campaigns the Obama administration would never have considered pulling permits for Arctic drilling and certainly would have approved the Keystone pipeline by now. The pull of the oil and gas industry is strong and while we now have the technology to build a cleaner, safer energy system, it is not easy for any elected leader to forego significant short term financial benefits from fossil fuel exploration let alone tell their constituents that the price of electricity and gas needs to go up.

The Liberal campaign slogan during this Federal election was ‘hope and hard work.’  In the coming months we will need a lot of both. Not just from our new government but also from ourselves. 

Let’s allow ourselves to hope. For our children and our health and the health of our communities. Over the past week I have forced myself not to fall into the pit of cynicism and to take a moment everyday to think of one thing that I care about that will change under this new government. It has had the effect of weights being lifted off my shoulders leaving me feel more spacious, more creative and free. 

A decade of attacks on our democracy, on those who can afford it the least and on our environment has left considerable baggage and scars. It will take a while to unpack it all and to trust my own government again. For my children I will try. If we allow ourselves to hope, Prime Minister-designate Justin Trudeau is making it easy for us. 

We aren’t getting platitudes and framing devoid of real promises and content. Within minutes we were getting renewed commitments to a new voting system, an inquiry into the missing and murdered Aboriginal women and an invitation to Green Party leader Elizabeth May and every Premier to attend the Paris Climate Summit as part of a team. We even got a day after press conference where our Prime Minister-designate…answered questions. 

The coming months will not be easy as we begin to establish a new relationship with our government and the international community but I am hopeful that we now have a government that will govern for all of Canadians best interests and not simply for one sector. I am hopeful that we now have a government that will choose science over politics, clean, safe energy systems over business as usual and perhaps even a government that will choose people over polluters. 

Tzeporah Berman BA MES LLD (honoris causa) is an environmental activist, an Adjunct Professor of Environmental Studies at York University, author of This Crazy Time: Living Our Environmental Challenge, published by Knopf Canada and the mother of two boys. 

Image: Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A group of 421 academics are requesting the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) end its audit of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA), a group that describes itself as “an independent, non-partisan research institute concerned with issues of social, economic and environmental justice.”

As the Canadian Press recently reported, an internal CRA document stated the audit was the result of the CCPA being “biased” and “one-sided.”

In a letter to revenue minister Kerry-Lynne Findlay the group states it is “perplexed at CRA’s decision to perform the audit…on the groups that [the CCPA] allegedly engages in politically partisan, biased and one-sided research activity.”

“The CCPA is an internationally-recognized and respected research centre, built on a solid tradition of critical analysis,” the letter states. “Indeed, the CCPA plays a vital role by supplying much needed reflection on a number of policies, which it has always done in a fair and unbiased way, and which respects the fundamental tools of sound research.”

The group also criticizes the CRA, suggesting that by undertaking the audit, the CRA “fails to understand the nature of what academic research is all about.”

Read the full text of the letter below.

The request comes at a time when public criticism of what is being called the “politically-motivated” audit of Canada’s environmental charities and groups critical of the Harper government is reaching a new level.

At least 52 charities are undergoing or will undergo audit from the CRA. The federal government committed $13.4 million to the investigation and audit of charities engaged in political activities or who receive funding from foreign sources.

Mario Seccareccia from the University of Ottawa told the National Post the academic community is frustrated with the current government’s hostility towards academic research.

“It’s an environment that has been rather stifling when it comes to intellectual work,” he said. “There’s a real malaise…They’ve been irritating a lot of people.”

The group of academics is requesting the government halt all political activity audits of think-tanks until a neutral and transparent process for selection is put in place.

Minister Findlay maintains the audits are conducted in a manner independent from political interference or ministerial oversight.

Louis-Philippe Rochon, economist at Laurentian University in Sudbury and organizer of the open letter told the National Post there was ample support for the letter.

“This was a powder keg waiting to happen,” he said, adding signees were eager to add their name to the letter.

“Mostly from the social sciences and humanities, but some from the sciences. We have Canada Research Chairs, heads of departments, younger faculty, more established faculty, and from almost every university in Canada,” he said.

“It hit a raw nerve amongst academics,” he said. “The idea that if we reach a conclusion other than the official doctrine of the government, our research is somehow biased and political.”

Recently researcher Gareth Kirkby, a former journalist and graduate student in the public communications program at Royal Roads University, found the CRA’s audits appear to target charities that lean in a different direction than the current federal government, especially those that work on issues related to the petroleum industry.

Kirkby told DeSmog Canada the CRA document listing the CCPA as “biased” and “one-sided” fits in line with his graduate research. “The government has created a 'funnel' that pushes CRA to audit certain kinds of charities,” he said.

“And those charities are overwhelmingly on the ‘progressive’ side of the political divide, with policy preferences that differ from those of the cabinet: environmental organizations working on energy issues, international development and human rights groups, and charities receiving significant funding from labour unions.” 

Kirkby noted it was “strange” that some charities have passed multiple audits in the past, but are now being told they are “breaking the political activity rules or that their official ‘purposes’ are suddenly unacceptable.”

“The Fraser Institute, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, and the C.D. Howe Institute are the right-leaning equivalent of the CCPA, with policy preferences pretty much lined up with the current government,” Kirkby added, “and they are not being audited for their political activities.”

“Any fair observer can see that all four of these think-tanks have world-views that influence their research choices without meaning that the result is partisan and biased,” he said.

Text of the open letter:

Dear Minister Findlay,

Recently, we were informed through reports in a number of newspapers that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has undertaken an audit of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) on the grounds that it allegedly engages in politically partisan, biased and one-sided research activity.

While we understand the need to prevent abuses of the charitable status, we are rather perplexed at CRA’s decision to perform the audit on this basis. The CCPA is an internationally-recognized and respected research centre, built on a solid tradition of critical analysis. Indeed, the CCPA plays a vital role by supplying much needed reflection on a number of policies, which it has always done in a fair and unbiased way, and which respects the fundamental tools of sound research. They have produced much-needed research on many disparate topics, such as on income and wealth distribution, the hidden government support of the Canadian banking sector during the financial crisis, and an analysis of alternative federal fiscal policy implementation annually. Since these various research studies are academically all of very high quality, you can therefore imagine how this news took us by surprise.

By undertaking this audit, we feel that CRA fails to understand the nature of what academic research is all about. Research begins from a series of questions and observations, and, from there, it proceeds, following a set of guidelines, to infer possible answers. In this sense, it contests. All research in fact is critical, by its very definition: it tests hypotheses, seeks answers, and must be allowed to find these answers wherever it can.

But critical policy analysis does not equate with political activism, nor is it “biased” or “one-sided”, as CRA has claimed. Researchers explore specific questions of interest, and then present the results of their research. Reaching a conclusion is not the same as bias. To illustrate, a CCPA researcher explored the issue of what would be the appropriate exchange rate regime for Canada and then concluded that a floating exchange rate was desirable to alternative types of exchange rate mechanisms because the former allowed the public authorities to conduct independent macroeconomic policies. The fact that this conclusion turned out to be similar to the policy view of the Bank of Canada does not make the CCPA researcher any more political than if the researcher would have produced that same research independently within his/her respective university.

The CCPA is not a political organization, nor does it engage in political or partisan activities. The fact that it has criticized government policy on a number of issues does not make it a partisan organization promoting a narrow agenda. Rather, it is engaging in serious, unbiased academic research. It may reach a different set of conclusions from those of the government, but then, this is allowed in a free-thinking, democratic country. On the contrary, we would argue, that such dissent should be encouraged and not stifled by such actions of the CRA.

Indeed, if there is bias, the bias seems to be mostly in the CRA’s decision to audit the CCPA and apparently no other think tanks, whose policy conclusions are friendlier toward current government policies. We are not aware of any audits being launched regarding “bias” at conservative think tanks like the Fraser Institute; some have publicly confirmed that they are not being audited (including the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and the C.D. Howe Institute). We are therefore left with the conclusion that the decision to audit the CCPA is politically motivated to intimidate and silence its criticism of your government’s policies.

We therefore strongly urge the CRA to put a moratorium on its audits of think tanks, until such time as a truly neutral criteria and auditing process are implemented to ensure neutrality and fairness, and to ensure that the audit process does not silence dissenting voices. Periodic audit should be conducted in a fair, transparent, and even-handed fashion across all the various think-tanks that claim charitable status in Canada, with a focus on financial management and integrity (not on the content of the research being conducted). Why single out only one such research centre that happens to be more critical of government policy? Instead of trying to muzzle and impede sound and legitimate research, it is now time for you to try to promote more effectively the public good in the form of sound critical research for which Canadian researchers are respected internationally.

Image Credit: UK in Italy via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

There has been a lot of discussion around Canada’s “War on Science” over the last two years, prompted by a major gathering of scientists in Ottawa during the summer of 2012 who announced the “Death of Evidence” in the country. The scientists marched in response to the infamous Budget Bill C-38 that killed funding for numerous federal science positions and research labs coast to coast. The rally’s lead organizer, scientist Katie Gibbs, says the Death of Evidence protest made way for a whole new breed of young Canadian scientists who are eager to stand up and defend their laboratories. It’s about more than just science, says Gibbs, it’s really all about democracy.

Katie Gibbs was known around the lab as the graduate student who cared deeply about the implications of her science. “While I was doing my PhD, I was kind of the rabble-rouser on the floor. You know, I always had volunteers coming to the lab to pick up posters, or storing protest signs under my desk, that sort of thing,” she told DeSmog Canada.

Most of the professors she worked with didn’t participate in any kind of advocacy, she said. “My supervisor, in particular, he wouldn’t even write a letter to the editor.”

In the summer of 2012, however, it wasn’t Gibbs pushing for the Death of Evidence rally, the event that forced Canada’s science crisis into the public eye. Instead a group of professors at the University of Ottawa began organizing a public event and turned to Gibbs when they realized they needed someone brave to be the face of the march.

“What was interesting was that it was a group of professors that started thinking around the rally. My supervisor poked his head into my office one day and said a bunch of professors were meeting to talk about doing something in response to the Omnibus Budget Bill. He said, ‘does anybody want to come,’ and I was like ‘hells yeah!’” Gibbs said, adding she became lead organizer after that meeting.

Gibbs says her professors’ involvement was an indication of how concerned the traditional scientific community was with the changes that were being made through new legislation under the Harper government.[view:in_this_series=block_1]

Generally scientists shy away from any form of advocacy, or even perceived advocacy, Gibbs explained. But given the current crisis of science in Canada that is changing with younger students, she said.

“The younger generation of scientists doesn’t seem to have the same hang ups around science advocacy that the older generation of scientists does.”

In order to channel the momentum of the scientific community after the 2012 rally, Gibbs launched Evidence for Democracy (E4D), an advocacy group dedicated to keeping science linked to decision-making in the country.

Part of the work of Evidence for Democracy consists in creating a distinction between advocating for policy and advocating for science itself, Gibbs explained.

“Normally in science when we talk about science advocacy we’re talking about: you do some research that shows A would be a good policy versus B, so you become an advocate for A and try to actually get that policy put in place.

Whereas what we’re advocating for is one step before that, in that we’re just advocating for science and for decisions to be made based on science. So it’s kind of less political or less polarizing than even traditional advocacy.”

For Gibbs, there is still some resistance to the very idea of science advocacy within the scientific community, but supporters are increasingly convinced of its necessity.

“I still feel scientists are hesitant but my argument is ‘if you’re not willing to advocate for the crucial role of science in public policy decisions then who is going to do that?’ That really has to come down to scientists,” she said.

The job of convincing the younger generation of scientists to get involved, however, has been much easier, Gibbs said. 

Katie Gibbs speaking at the Stand Up for Science rally in Ottawa. Photo by Kevin O'Donnell. 

“All the graduate scientists I worked with, they absolutely see the need for scientists to engage in that way and they have such a strong desire for their science to be relevant and for it to get out in the public space,” she said.

“Even for us [E4D] we have a ton of volunteers, most of them graduate students and it’s because we offer most of them the chance to work on policy outreach. They wouldn’t really get the opportunity to work on those kinds of issues in their traditional academic experience.”

Gibbs said younger scientists are choosing to study in the sciences because they are passionate about the outcomes of the science, rather than merely curious or passionate about the process. While more traditional scientists consider themselves separate from the policy outcomes of their research, younger scientists see themselves as a part of the larger complex of society, politics and policy.

“I know that was my case as well,” Gibbs said. “I was only interested in doing policy-relevant science. I enjoyed doing the science but my main passion was that it be used, rather than doing it just for the sake of doing it.”

As she sees it, this way of viewing science is politically “empowering.”

“I see evidence as really being the only way to hold governments accountable for their decisions,” Gibbs said. “Unless we actually know what information they are using to make decisions, we have no way of judging the quality of the decision.”

When it comes to the relationship between science and democracy, Gibbs said, it all comes down to evidence-based decision-making and accountability.

“I often say…that facts are a check on political power.”

Image Credit: Katie Gibbs by DeSmog Canada.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.