By Royston King
(Executive Director, Environmental Community Health Organisation)
THE evidence of man-made global warming is substantial and all of civil society should aggressively fight it. Social movements and new media, in particular the internet, have created many possibilities to push ahead with the fight against climate change.

Mobilisation by Social Movements
The phenomenon of globalisation can be described as the post- Westphalia period. The dividing territorial lines of states as prescribed by the peace treaties of Westphalia and Osnabruck, in 1648, and the notion of sovereignty, no longer hold.

The steady concentration of power in the hands of states which started with these treaties seems to be dissipating.

Central to globalisation is the internet. It’s low cost, interactivity and speed, facilitate the immediacy of information on events throughout the world.

Virtually, time and space have become irrelevant because information is disseminated across national borders with such speed that such borders appear to be non existent.

The world has become a global village (McLuhan, 1964). Therefore, the dividing line between the local and global communities has been eroded. This connects organisations, groups and individuals who share similar interests and perspectives. Also it creates new opportunities for new actors to emerge in society.

Accordingly, globalisation embraces a neo-liberal perspective which accounts for plurality of actors, including civil society. This is comprised of groups that are not governments or profit seeking entities. Environmental social movements could be perfectly placed within civil society.

Notwithstanding, resource mobilisation theorists suggest that the increasing rise of civil society is related to its ability to mobilise resources.

Others see a change in political institutions as presenting the opportunities for social movements to emerge. Still, there are those, who hold that, the rise of new social movements is a response to social, cultural and political changes, which have spawned grievances.

These situations have led to people becoming involved in social movements. These movements are forms of collective identity, which allow for collective actions on various issues.

In contemporary times, one of the most dramatic changes in world politics has been the rise of these actors in society.

I will argue that, the internet has facilitated the ability of these actors to network (and) to link across state borders and infiltrate every area of politics.

Studies have shown that, the largest growth in social movements occurred in the period 1990 to 2000. The internet emerged on the global scenario in the 1990s.

One can therefore conclude that the growth of these actors is directly related to the internet.

However, the weakness of this argument is that it excludes other factors that have contributed to the numerical growth of these groups.

These factors include an increase in the number of issues on the global agenda and the opportunity of time playing up a coalescence of elements which give rise to the need for such movements.

In this sense, the argument that, the growth of citizen networks is directly related to the internet is technologically deterministic.

Notwithstanding that, it could be said that the ability of these movements to network within and beyond their geographic and other boundaries was facilitated by the internet.

For the neo-liberalists, this increased political participation has linked citizens at the local level to participate in global issues.

These linkages have removed the monopoly of governments and corporations on global issues. Therefore, civil society could be seen as a third force. There are more actors outside of the mainstream political institutions working on behalf of citizens.

As a result, more power goes to citizens to take control of their communities while the role of the state shrinks and creates greater opportunity for participatory democracy.

However, this view could be challenged. It tends to see the relationship between the state and citizen networks in isolation to other factors.

It does not take account of the disparities of resources and diverse interests among these movements.

Those with more resources tend to have greater significance in the political decision making process.

Moreover, this argument seems to suggest that more power to act on the part of citizens reduces the power of the state and allows for more democracy.

But this is not necessarily so. A reduction of the power of the state can affect its ability to ensure the good functioning of society. This can affect the ability of social movements to organise against injustices and mobilise resources. Clearly then, there is need for a partnership.

However, the neo-realists argue that the state is still the unitary actor in the national and global political scenario.

They see social movements as being concerned with their own interests and therefore may not be truly representing the interest of the citizens. Further, they see a disparity between the democratically elected and unelected non-state actors in the form of these social movements. They therefore see these groups eroding rather than enhancing democracy.

Nonetheless, the election of state actors is not inherently altruistic. If it were then there would be no need for constitutions, laws and rules governing the behaviour of democratically elected state representatives.

These controls such as the constitution provide a social contract between the people and the government setting out expectations and limits of the parties involved.

However, in some societies governments are unwilling or unable to fulfil these expectations. Thus, citizens organise themselves to become active in these areas where governments seem unable to bring resolution to situations.

The very structure of these movements, which is de-centred and organised from the bottom, de-legitimises the monopoly of governments and corporations on knowledge and information on issues.

Thus affecting their hegemony and reconfiguring the way politics occur in society. For that reason, it can be argued that these social movements are defined by social conflicts.

I would contend that the environmental movement is one of the new social movements because since the 1960s the environment has been a source of social conflict.

However, these linkages achieved through the internet create many possibilities for social movements to become involved in advocacy and mobilise their members.

It gives them the opportunity to act and be recognised in the national and international community. It enables their activities to occur in new temporal and spatial terms.

It can therefore be argued that the internet has an immediate impact on the way social movements organise themselves for advocacy.

Global issues
Undoubtedly, globalisation has consequences for the environment. The world has become a single social space.

Issues arising from this phenomenon cannot be managed by any one actor. They require cooperation and coordination of all actors within the global society. Globalisation then is characterised by an increase in relations and means for communication and interconnection.

Further, environmental issues such as the protection and sustainable development of the health of the environment, which were once within the remit of individual countries, are now on the global agendas of international and global organisations.

It could be said then, that as a result of globalisation driven by the internet there are additional impacts on the environment.

This is so because it has altered the spatial and temporal dimension of the environment.