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.”


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.
Posted by alexlockwood
on Wed 9 Jul 2008 at 05:45 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.
Posted by Mike Lemonick
on Wed 9 Jul 2008 at 09:15 AM
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.
Posted by Marwan
on Fri 11 Jul 2008 at 02:07 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.
Posted by Marwan
on Fri 11 Jul 2008 at 02:10 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.
Posted by nejking
on Thu 17 Jul 2008 at 02:32 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.
Posted by RD
on Thu 17 Jul 2008 at 08:52 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/
Posted by Matt Kirby
on Fri 18 Jul 2008 at 03:28 PM
Are you shure that the deforestation in Amazon is responsable for one fifth of the carbon footprint in the atmosphere?
Posted by Angelo Müller on Mon 28 Jul 2008 at 09:55 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.
Posted by Anna Haynes on Wed 30 Jul 2008 at 05:15 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.
Posted by Anna Haynes on Thu 31 Jul 2008 at 11:42 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.
Posted by woodwose on Fri 8 Aug 2008 at 10:28 PM
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.
Posted by Tim on Sat 9 Aug 2008 at 10:07 AM
"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.
Posted by John H on Sat 9 Aug 2008 at 06:41 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.
Posted by forprity on Mon 11 Aug 2008 at 01:39 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
Posted by adrianne on Thu 21 Aug 2008 at 02:16 PM
Dear Editor:
Having read the article, I still can't figure out what the author means by "climate change". It sounds like some sort of catastrophic weather, but with no
specifics. Why does one have to go to some remote Pacific island to see if a purported 25-foot rise in the sealevel is to hit North America? So far it's
nearly zero. What's even more troubling that the author thinks there is only one side to these enormous issues. It's a strange posture for a professional journalist to espouse. Is there any other public policy issue that has this one-sided bias? What about those 31,000 scientists on www.oism.org who say that devastating climate changes are either imminent or human-caused? Who has
determined that the current global temperatures are the best of all worlds, and all ups and downs are frightful? Does Dr. Pangloss still live? Voltaire would
be proud.
Sincerely,
Carl Olson
Journalism '68
Posted by Carl Olson on Sun 21 Sep 2008 at 03:05 PM
Our own self-discipline could be the best solution in avoiding illness. Basic preventions can be the safe way in every situation. In autumn season, the influenza virus during flu season is one of the most dangerous diseases that have ever plagued the earth, and the death toll from it has, according to most estimates, already eclipsed the Bubonic Plague. Yearly, the United States records almost a quarter of a million hospitalized from it, and over 36,000 deaths as a result of the influenza virus. One of the preventive measures is washing our hands. Doctors, experts and the CDC recommend getting an annual flu shot. A vaccination for mom, dad, and three or more children at $20 - $30 per shot will get expensive, fast. A hospital visit could be even more expensive. If you don’t think you can cover these sorts of things, a PAYDAY CASH LOAN COULD be the best medicine. Remember to wash your hands, get yourself and your children vaccinated, and stay healthy. Click to read more on Personal Loans
Posted by Lisa P on Thu 13 Nov 2008 at 05:10 AM
what challenges does a reporter who major's in science and technology reporting such as issues like global warming?
Posted by martha Banda on Tue 18 Nov 2008 at 04:04 AM
New Guinea is not one of the low-lying Pacific Ireland under threat. Islands such as Tuvalu are the ones threatened by rising sea levels.
Posted by Terry Ryan on Wed 24 Dec 2008 at 05:48 PM
Vegetarians have long pointed out that a meat-based food system is wasteful. In the United States, over 90% of all agricultural land is devoted to livestock agriculture in some form. That includes two-thirds of the cropland and all of the grazing land. Most water consumption in the United States and the rest of the world goes to livestock agriculture; and agriculture is the leading form of water use everywhere, as water needs continue to expand in the face of dwindling supplies. We have financial options, such as if we need payday loans as a source of some emergency cash, we have that option, and if we decide to go to Wal-Mart instead of Safeway, we can do so. There are many across the globe who wouldn’t even know what to do with those sorts of choices, because theirs are so limited. There are some who will do anything to stave off death by starvation, that they literally have been eating dirt, like people in Haiti are doing. They mix salt, shortening, and dirt into cookies, bake them, and eat them, and feed them to their children. Just recently, the UN voted on a resolution as to whether or not food was a fundamental human right, and 180 countries voted so. Only 1 didn’t, and it isn’t going to be anytime soon that many forget it. The one nation that didn’t agree with the idea was the United States of America. The reasoning is that the resolution wasn’t properly worded, and as it was, it couldn’t be accepted by the government of the United States. Take this idea to heart - that if you feel ashamed eating Ramen from time to time, or having to get payday loans to stave off a sudden cash crunch, it is a blessing that you have those kinds of options. For more about the UN and world news, read this article at the payday loans blog.
Posted by Mandy O. on Sat 3 Jan 2009 at 04:54 AM
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.
loans-service-online.com
Posted by Aliok on Thu 15 Oct 2009 at 01:39 AM