Feature, The Observatory — July / August 2008

Climate Change: Now What?

A big beat grows more challenging and complex

• Print
• Email
• Comments
• Single page

Media coverage of climate change is at a crossroads, as it moves beyond the science of global warming into the broader arena of what governments, entrepreneurs, and ordinary citizens are doing about it. Consider these recent examples: a decade from now, Abu Dhabi hopes to have the first city in the world with zero carbon emissions. In a windswept stretch of desert, developers plan to build Masdar City, a livable environment
for fifty thousand people that relies entirely on solar power and other renewable energy. Science correspondent Joe Palca reported from Masdar’s construction site as part of National Public Radio’s yearlong project “Climate Connections.”

The Christian Science Monitor’s Peter N. Spotts went to the Biesbosch, a small inland delta near the Netherlands’ city of Dordrecht, to research “How to Fight a Rising Sea.” In an effort that could be instructive for others, the Dutch are developing ways to protect their small country’s vulnerable coast against rising sea levels that could result from climate change.

Wang Suya lives in Japan but sends a YouTube greeting to fellow visitors at Dot Earth, the innovative blog started by Andrew C. Revkin, the New York Times environment reporter. Having traveled the globe to cover global warming, Revkin now posts and exchanges ideas on Dot Earth about climate and sustainability issues, particularly the energy, food, and water demands on a planet that may house nine billion people by mid-century.

These reporters are in the advance guard of an army of journalists around the world who are covering what Time magazine has dubbed the “War on Global Warming.” Journalists will play a key role in shaping the information that opinion leaders and the public use to judge the urgency of climate change, what needs to be done about it, when and at what costs. It is a vast, multifaceted story whose complexity does not fit well with journalism’s tendency to shy away from issues with high levels of uncertainty and a time-frame of decades, rather than days or months.

In 2009, climate-change coverage will grow in significance on a number of domestic and international fronts:

In science, the impact of global warming will be followed closely at the two poles as well as Pacific island hot spots, like the low-lying islands of Papua New Guinea, that are in the greatest danger.

In politics, after eight years of relative inaction by the Bush administration, the new U.S. president and Congress will be under pressure to pass legislation to curb emissions of greenhouse gases.

Internationally, the United Nations has scheduled key conferences—in Poznan, Poland, in December 2008 and in Copenhagen in December 2009—to hammer out a new international treaty that is practically and politically feasible. Shortages and high prices are bringing the role of biofuels in the global food crisis under added scrutiny.

Meanwhile, the efforts of countries, businesses, communities, and even individuals to reduce their “carbon footprints” will increasingly be examined.

Climate change will require thoughtful leadership and coordination at news organizations. Editors will need to integrate the specialty environment, energy, and science reporters with other beats that have a piece of the story—everything from local and national politics to foreign affairs, business, technology, health, urban affairs, agriculture, transportation, law, architecture, religion, consumer news, gardening, travel, and sports. “News organizations are increasingly asking what other beats are going to be affected by climate,” says veteran environment reporter Bud Ward, who edits a respected online journalism site, The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media. He notes that even Sports Illustrated has tackled climate change and its potential impact on everything from cancelled games to baseball bats. But, Ward worries, “it will be extremely difficult to explain the policy side of the debate” in the months ahead. Unless editors push hard for it, “there’s generally not the time or space for that kind of explanatory coverage.”

To that end, Ward has organized media workshops on global warming for top editors as well as reporters. A daylong meeting last fall at Stanford University attracted heavy hitters like Washington Post executive editor Leonard Downie Jr. and top editors from The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and metropolitan papers from Detroit to Des Moines. Eighteen news executives spent the morning with leading scientists, who emphasized the strong agreement among international experts that the earth is warming and that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are largely to blame. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) last year issued a widely publicized report (in four parts) that provided the most comprehensive scientific agreement to date on the causes and potentially devastating impact of global warming. Yet, recalls Stephen H. Schneider, a Stanford climatologist, “several editors were surprised there was so much consensus.”

In the afternoon session, the consensus dissipated when it came to a discussion of the potential economic impact of climate actions. One expert saw climate change as a profitable business opportunity; another warned that solutions would be difficult and costly: “There are no silver bullets…only silver birdshot.” Ward says that one editor later commented: “It looks like economists are going to need their own IPCC.”

Daniel P. Schrag, a climate geologist who directs the Harvard University Center for the Environment, says, “We’re in a transition in which the climate science is no longer the primary issue. More and more it’s about how we stop it, not whether it is happening.”

And Matthew C. Nisbet, an American University communications professor, says, “We have had more science coverage on climate change than at any time in history. The next challenge is to find ways to cover the story across news beats and in ways that engage new readers.”

Here are some thoughts as to how coverage might be sharpened in the year ahead in the broad areas of science, politics, and business.

Science and Technology

 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5 

Comments

alexlockwood

Wed 9 Jul 2008 05:45 AM

Dear Cristine,

this is an important and timely piece. I've perhaps gone a little overboard and written a reasonably long response at my blog, www.alexlockwood.net, which I hope you get the opportunity to read.

My main response is that there is much more to be said, particularly around the 'how' journalists report climate change, that won't fit in the confinements of this article. Especially around the interface between the structural changes occuring in journalism and the even larger structural changes we are facing in the way we live our lives--moving to a low-carbon economy.

Local living may mean the renewal or rebirth of local/community media franchises, where local/global are connected via the digital media presences/brands that people trust. So while journalism reinvents itself, low-carbon living could, repsonsibly, be at its centre.

Thanks again for a considered and thought-provoking essay.

Mike Lemonick

Wed 9 Jul 2008 09:15 AM

Actually, TIME was widely accused of crossing the line into environmental activism on climate change nearly two decades ago, when we declared Earth "Planet of the Year." The response of science editor Charles Alexander was, in essence, "Yeah, and we're not ashamed of it."

So that horse left the barn long ago.

Marwan

Fri 11 Jul 2008 02:07 PM

Since the oceans take about 800 years to reach thermal equilibrium, and hence expand and cause a sea level rise, aren't we seeing the results of climate change that occurred perhaps in the 12th and 13th century or before? Whatever effect we have on the oceans will not even be detected for centuries. Since Antarctica and Greenland appear to be getting thicker and actually accumulating more ice than they lose, it's unlikely that the sea level increase is caused by global warming (at least for now). This is a complicated subject and I wish we would NOT "get beyond the science", since the science is so poorly understood.

Marwan

Fri 11 Jul 2008 02:10 PM

I should have added that I am one of those scientists who are skeptical of the popular viewpoint - I guess the consensus isn't as complete as it could be.

nejking

Thu 17 Jul 2008 02:32 PM

Time magazine is quite possibly the worst example of judicious journalism (see: http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/1653/218/). In the last year alone, more and more research is coming to light that is actively discrediting the notion that CO2 is the cause of the now-stilted global warming. It's a lot easier to show both sides of an issue rather than having to backpedal from a stance you have taken. And that applies to both sides.

RD

Thu 17 Jul 2008 08:52 PM

The article fails to note the damage sustainable energy projects are causing. Massive CO2 releases from clearcut forests to grow crops for biodiesel and ethanol; kill zones from runoff from fertilizer used to grow biofuel crops; increased acetyldehyde and formaldehyde emissions from ethanol; deteriorated fuel systems from ethanol caused corrosion; increased N2O (296X more effective as a global warming gas) emissions from the fertilizer used to grow corn; more water usage; more natural gas usage; etc.

Matt Kirby

Fri 18 Jul 2008 03:28 PM

Thank you, Cristine, for this thoughtful and timely piece. You're right that it's time to move beyond the science and into some action. Although that action must remain rooted in science. It's nice to get a thoughtful, level-headed article when so much of what surronds the global warming debate is rhetoric (from both sides of the aisle).

I also want to respond to RD. You criticize "sustainable energy projects" and the problems they are causing. However, the only project you cite is ethanol production. As a community, many environmentalists have moved way past thinking ethanol is a viable, sustainable alternative. And all the problems currently surrounding it are caused by wrong-headed agricultural policies and the current administration's ridiculous ethanol-use mandate.

http://www.sierraclub.org/wildlegacy/blog/

Angelo Müller

Mon 28 Jul 2008 09:55 PM

Are you shure that the deforestation in Amazon is responsable for one fifth of the carbon footprint in the atmosphere?

Anna Haynes

Wed 30 Jul 2008 05:15 PM

Thanks Cristine - well done, and timely.

One area of coverage that's probably _more_ important than any of those you mentioned, though, is the industry effort to disinform the public on this topic. It's been covered in Newsweek by Sharon Begley, and in the alternative press, but most people I talk to - even the sharp ones - haven't the foggiest idea that this is just Big Tobacco all over again.
Before you can inform the public, you need to shine a little sunlight on the disinformation effort that's befuddled them - you can't heal the wound without first disinfecting it.

See Naomi Oreskes on this.

Anna Haynes

Thu 31 Jul 2008 11:42 PM

There may be lots more to cover.
The final countdown -
"Time is fast running out to stop irreversible climate change, a group of global warming experts warns today. We have only 100 months to avoid disaster."

Also worth reading - Cal alumni mag article on research - revealing indications that runaway climate change may be coming - by John Harte of UCB's Energy and Resources Group.

woodwose

Fri 8 Aug 2008 10:28 PM

"Journalists will play a key role in shaping the information that opinion leaders and the public use to judge the urgency of climate change, what needs to be done about it, when and at what costs."

Let's get something straight here, journalists are not trained in climate science, sociology, engineering, manufacturing, medicine, psychology, forensics, chemistry, biology, physics, political science, meterology, geophysics, astrophysics, cosmology, tarot card reading, dog catching, food science, agriculture, ergonomics, economics, astrology, microbiology, management, law, foreign languages, cryptography, deep sea fishing, computer science, mathematics, sanitation, public health, or even finding their bottoms with both hands and a flash light.

They are trained to observe and report. PERIOD.

So where in the world does the author of this inane article get the idea that journalists are supposed to "shape opinion?"

They do not have the qualifications necessary to do so. If they did, they would be doing something more useful than being a journalist.

I say that sarcastically, because there is nothing more valuable than a truly objective journalist who can present all sides of a debate to help everyone (even those directly involved) understand the different points of view in it, is the most valuable person in the world.

But an unqualified journalist that makes up her mind and takes it into her own hands to "shape opinion" is a totally worthless waste of space and a complete disservice to her profession.

Tim

Sat 9 Aug 2008 10:07 AM

Dear Christine,

Why not lobby for a law to outlaw scepical speach. These dangerous subversives should be jailed.

Or perhaps it's you that is the really dangerous one. Yes I'm sure it is. Green is the new religion except it takes an approach to heretics that reminds me of the 1500's. Disgree and we'll burn you at the stake. Fear is really the motivating factor here. Your've been so terrified by the melting world polemic you don't even want to spend enough time to find out if it's even true.

John H

Sat 9 Aug 2008 06:41 PM

"In science, the impact of global warming will be followed closely at the two poles as well as Pacific island hot spots, like the low-lying islands of Papua New Guinea, that are in the greatest danger."

Are you seriously trying to imply that the 13,000+ ft Owen Stanley mountains of New Guinea are low lying? Really? Do you have any idea, any idea at all, what you are talking about? I doubt it.

I guess you also completely missed little things like the first snow in Buenos Aires since 1918 and the first snow in Baghdad since the 1800s, the Antarctic has record levels of ice, etc.

Did you know that when Hansen gave his most recent speech to Congress the global average temperature was actually lower than when he gave his "landmark" speech there 20 years ago according to all the major services except the one he runs (GISS)? Coincidence? I think not.

forprity

Mon 11 Aug 2008 01:39 PM

Mr. Kirby. "And all the problems currently surrounding it are caused by wrong-headed agricultural policies and the current administration's ridiculous ethanol-use mandate."

Oh goodness - help us all. Most intelligent environmentalists long ago understood that ethanol was a dead end. That's why, when VP Al Gore started pushing mandates (cast the tie breaking vote in 1995), so many were in shock. Pres. Clinton, as with his love fest with corporate/lobbyists on his push for genetically modified foods, jumped on the same bandwagon on behalf of his ag support.

Just a few short months ago, there was a wild foot race amongst the Democrat (and some R's) as to who would push for the most invasive mandates for how much ethanol and how fast it would come on line.

The D's led on this major blunder. It was a waste of time. It caused much grief - perhaps even much death - in the world, and it severely hurt the effort for the long awaited well thought out for and intelligent dialog amongst "we the people" on what and how and in what time frame is reasonable and possible.

adrianne

Thu 21 Aug 2008 02:16 PM

Christine, I would be very interested in your response to Ron Rosenbaum on Slate, who completely blasted you because of this article. http://www.slate.com/id/2197130