the environmental costs of global bargain shopping

Why are Olympic athletes in Beijing worried about the air quality in a country on the rise? According to Richard York (Sociological Forum, December 2007), it may be because economic success in Asia is coming at the expense of the natural environment.

Energy production is a huge contributor to global climate change and the depletion of fossil fuels. And countries entering the global marketplace by boosting their own economies require more energy. Yet, prevailing economic and political theories suggest globalization will reduce energy production and consumption with more efficient technologies and better environmental regulations.

York analyzed energy production in 14 Asian economies and found that bargains in the global marketplace run up a big environmental tab. For example, trade with other nations requires much more intensive production of exported goods, which leads to greater energy production. Similarly, countries with lots of debt need more energy to build currency and pay back loans to the international community.

In contrast, he finds little evidence for the popular economic assumption that globalization lifts all boats. Economic growth, too, leads to more energy production and more environmental problems.

The author reminds us that quality of life has little to do with economic development, but it does depend on a clean and safe environment. Just ask the athletes who brought their gas masks to Beijing. W.L.

selling integration in life magazine

Although images of blacks serving whites are no longer common in American magazines, John Grady (Visual Studies, December 2007) shows that contemporary ads rarely depict whites and African Americans interacting, especially in private spaces. Instead, African Americans are often portrayed as overcoming adversity to become exemplars of adult responsibility, typically for other blacks (above). In one case, the different between threatening and “lifesaving” is astonishingly ambiguous (left). W.L.

what we learn from political stink-eye

You can’t stand “that candidate from the other party,” but when you can’t tear your eyes off Sunday morning political talk shows, blame the camera work and lack of civility.

In a series of experimental studies, Diana Mutz (American Political Science Review, November 2007) recorded people’s opinions after viewing staged political debates between two candidates running for a distant congressional seat. The actors hired to play the candidates were either civil or uncivil (rolled their eyes, interrupted the other “politician,” raised their voice), and camera work featured either numerous or no unflattering close-ups of them.

Audiences who watched uncivil debates with frequent close-ups paid closer attention to the conversations and indicated a better understanding of their least favorite candidate’s positions on the issue. However, Mutz points out, this increased understanding was offset by audiences turning more strongly against the candidate they didn’t like in the first place.

Mutz’s study underscores that emotions and social processes are important conduits for making sense of political television. So the coming months should teach us more about the position of the “other candidate,” but we’ll also end up disliking him or her more than we already did. K.C.

birds of a feather take off together, or so it seems

National polls suggest Americans share similar views on most subjects, yet pundits like Bill O’Reilly insist we’re in the midst of a culture war. According to Delia Baldassarri and Peter Bearman (American Sociological Review, October 2007), the presumed culture war has a lot to do with “takeoff issues.”

Takeoff issues are hot-button topics that make the front pages for a short time and appear to divide the public (think abortion, stem cell research, or the Iraq War). The authors use computer simulations to show that takeoff issues dominate the public discussion for a short time and give the illusion of widespread polarization.

These issues determine what we discuss most with others, and people are far less likely to discuss sensitive topics with those whose opinions differ from their own, the authors say. Yet, opinions on more mundane subjects are less polarized, thus most of us rarely experience polarization in our day-to-day lives.

So while Mr. O’Reilly may be correct in pointing out public disagreement over some hot topics, these issues don’t take off very often. J.W.