By contrast, the country’s top news sources almost all had stories on the new climate reports—but they were largely pro forma treatments. The New York Times published a piece on page A19 that rehashed the basic findings and concluded with two quotes from “climate and energy legislation advocates” who “predictably” embraced the studies. Just what we need from the paper of record: the most predictable response to a significant new warning about one of the most pressing issues of our time.
The Washington Post ran Borenstein’s AP piece, which was one of the better ones. He wrote that the Academies had ditched “its past cautious tone,” calling on lawmakers to raise the price on carbon through a direct tax or cap-and-trade system and “to cut the pollution that causes global warning by 57 percent to 83 percent by 2050.” He mentioned that the recommendation is in line with the Obama administration’s goal, which brings up the political context, another reason why the story shouldn’t be sloughed off.
Last week, senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman introduced legislation with a comparable target that would impose a system similar to cap-and-trade, without calling it that. But its prospects are uncertain. Karin Zeitvogel at Agence France-Presse noted that “cap-and-trade was declared dead by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham two months ago,” which does not bode well for the bill, as Graham had been the sole Republican supporting major energy legislation. Many pundits doubt whether Obama can get another difficult vote this year from Democrats, given the tortuous health care reform process.
Several stories touched on the pending legislation, but left it at that. None of the coverage of the Academies’ new reports included what could have been a useful sidebar with an update on the troubles facing the energy bill, called the American Power Act, or whether the new reports might prod legislators to action. Borenstein’s piece, however, mentioned that White House science advisor John Holdren said he “hoped every member of Congress would read the reports or at least their summaries.”
Perhaps we will see more in coming days, but the initial response is not promising.
In a sense, it’s understandable that the Academies’ reports would meet with indifference in editorial meetings around the country. For decades, scientists have called for action on climate change, and these latest warnings are more of the same. But they are different in important ways, too. They call for more research to clarify inevitable (if still uncertain) impacts from changes to the climate that are foregone. They also call for a strategy to adapt to those changes, and mitigate further damage, that spans all levels of civic and government organization, “down to the town manager,” Andrew Revkin noted at his Dot Earth blog. From the time they started work on the new reports, he added, the Academies set out to “ensure that this report is not only effective at conveying what is known, but also in putting policymakers in a position where they cannot just say thanks and muddle on.”
In addition to the reports released Wednesday (which Revkin called “invaluable”), the academies will release two more later this year, including one about informing effective decisions and actions. This analysis may be the most important of all, Revkin surmised—“the report that tries to figure out how to overcome the persistent disconnect between knowledge and response.”
The press seems to be afflicted with a similar disconnect. It knows well the cardinal importance of covering how we understand and address climate change, and that the Academies’ reports are a significant development in those very regards. Unfortunately, instead of responding accordingly, the media appears to be saying thanks, and muddling on.
These generalizations about "the media" are always a problem because they look at the same outlets all the time. The SF Chronicle has been covering climate change for decades, long before there WAS an IPCC -- and with the Nat'l Research Council holding on to the three entire volumes for 10 a.m. on the very day and time they were released, it's no wonder the media gave it short shrift.MTK
#1 Posted by David Perlman, CJR on Fri 21 May 2010 at 05:52 PM
David, I'm sorry that we overlooked the Chronicle. I was happy to see that the paper ran your story on the front page, and the editors certainly deserve praise for doing that. But it was a rare decision; the Academies' reports were an online or deep-in-the-paper story for most outlets (although it looks like the Charleston Gazette fronted the LA Times article by Thomas Maugh).
#2 Posted by Curtis Brainard, CJR on Fri 21 May 2010 at 06:32 PM
Anyone that pays a drip of attention to the changes in weather, birds, water knows that HUMANS have caused most of the CO2 changes plus a number of others. Even if they deny it. The birds here in California know and their action was the same as one item in today's Times piece--45 days sooner. My birds used to come about March first-- give or take a few days. This year they were here in mid January and with the warm weather the Silicon Valley had in February--70 and 80 degrees for 14-20 days of February-- the flowers in the "bush-trees" in my yard they the finches--gold, lessergold, house and Cassin plus a few black-throated sparrows took all the flowers and the new leaves have been here since March, The hummingbirds that usually spend their springs here came to find almost nothing to eat. There have been fewer of these so some must just be a little slower learning than others. I have also found a phoebe here and they are usually in Monterey--not San Jose--That's about 60 miles. A man from Audubon doesn't believe that I can have any black throats--yet they have been here for 6-8 years. They do like bushes and in this 5 square block area there are more bushes and trees than almost any other place in San Jose. THE BIRDS know!! I also am guessing that Mother Nature tries to help us poor humans out by changing some of her patterns like cooler summers for parts of California even if the temperature average for the country has risen; the rain in April and May here is very unusual. Both the forecasters and I who has been here 40 years-- have never seen this much cool air and rain this late. The past few springs have also been cooler here and the summers since 2000 have had only 5-8 days of over 90 degrees in each of the summer months though October can often have more warm days than the summer ones. All those little signs say that things are "a-changing" whether we admit it or not. One item no one seems to mention is the collection of carbon or co2 into the ground and waterways not just from cattle but from smokestacks and volcanoes. Does anyone know how fast that smoke has moved through Europe and then to Russia, China and then the Pacific Ocean?? The volcano in the Philippines about 5-6 years ago brought cool air for all summer about 18-24 months after it dissipated from the Islands That not only cooled the air but also made it dirtier. But gravity is also a factor so how much of it as carbon landed in ground and waterways making our water and food less edible or even making some people ill??? Who's going to clean the plastic from the oceans?? We have all kinds of things that must get done but who is planning to get busy and do it. Some 20-somethings or 30-somethings could do a lot. BUT don't forget the mopping of oil that must get started in Louisiana and Mississippi and also Florida?? Or am I not supposed to think about that since I live in California??? At 67 and arthritic I can't do it myself and with no car I couldn't go to find others. But out of 200 million younger ones, there's no one???? I hope there is. Have a good weekend.
#3 Posted by Patricia Wilson, CJR on Fri 21 May 2010 at 06:52 PM
Curtis, thanks for this good beginning at pointing out a huge problem that can't remain a problem and that should (I mean this quite literally) be addressed.
The media's failure on this can't be considered, at this point, an unfortunate one-time accident or passing negligence. Instead, it's a persistent paradigmatic problem, a problem of major negligence, and indeed an ethical problem.
When I have time over the weekend, I'll read your piece more closely and offer a few other comments. This is the sort of problem (that is, the media's dismal treatment of climate change) that can't just be pointed out and then slowly fixed five years later. There's much too much at stake. The accurate, pressing, fair, and necessary criticism of the media on these counts should only increase, and quickly, until the media actually respond with coverage that will compellingly serve the public good. Until then, names should be named and excellent analysis should inform the critiques. It's unfortunate that the media are not living up to anything close to coverage that can be considered to genuinely prepare the public to make wise and responsible decisions.
Thank you for this beginning.
Be Well,
Jeff
#4 Posted by Jeff Huggins, CJR on Sat 22 May 2010 at 12:11 AM
Unfortunately, we live in a world where media ownership trumps media obligations. The commercial media requires patrons to survive and the disinformation industry has plenty of patrons. We are at the point where we cannot wait for the institutions to change. They won't until they are underwater, and even then they'll fight the flood tax.
People have got to stop talking about, "WE GOT TO DO SOMETHING!" because anyone with basic knowledge should know that already and those who don't aren't going to be convinced by another report.
People need to talk about what they are going to do. Renewable micro-power generation in every community, solar towers which use mirrors to focus sunlight on steam turbines, urban gardens, electric cars, mass transportation projects, consumer choices that minimize plastic use, etc.. There are small projects people can do in their own backyard and with their wallets and there are semi large projects people can push their municipalities towards.
We cannot expect the media or the government to save us. They are set upon presenting a fatalist message or a denialist message, the result of either is the perception that our actions seem pointless.
This is the critical time where full action is required. We need to save ourselves in spite of our institutions, not through them; they are captured by the Koch's, the Massey's, and the BP's. We need to push action without them in the hopes that they will follow our lead.
Because, if they don't and no one does anything, we're all dead.
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 22 May 2010 at 02:59 AM
Dear Curtis,
I re-read your piece, and still appreciate it, but the media seem to be forgetting a very key part of their "reason for being" and their (presumed) vital role in a modern democracy. And, your piece accepts parts of that forgetfulness and makes, or at least enables, some of the same mistakes and problems.
So, rather than trying to point out those problems clearly in these little boxes and comments, I have a better idea: I'd like to offer to do a guest post (subject to your review and approval of course) to set forth the concrete points and arguments. It will be clear, and concrete, and draw from some of your own comments. And then, of course, you (and others) can respond and comment, if you see anything faulty about my critique.
Isn't that the way things are supposed to work?
I'm offering some healthy and excellently-reasoned criticism, positively intended. The issue is far too important for the media to just "muddle on", as you say, and anyway, they aren't really muddling "on" in any positive sense of the word "on": Time is important and can't be turned back. The consequences of their "on-ness" are not positive. It's more accurate to say that the media are "muddling off".
That said, the critique I'd like to offer is much more concrete and clear than such phrases.
This is important for another reason too. It's not just that the media are "muddling on" (to stick with your phrase). It's ALSO that the critiquing of the media's "muddling on" is itself "muddling on". And muddling on about muddling on is not going to get us as far as we need to go.
So, would you be willing to read, and consider, a concrete and specific (proposed) guest post that will help point out some clear fundamental issues that the media, and CJR, can consider in order to improve the situation?
Thank you,
Jeff
#6 Posted by Jeff Huggins, CJR on Sat 22 May 2010 at 08:35 AM
I think our job is to generate the collective will to effectively address climate change. There are far too many deniers and disbelievers to be able to make any real kind of change happen. The will is just not there. The whole climate change thing has never entered the realm of what I would call a movement. The kind of movement of people's hearts and minds necessary to create real change. We need to start talking, helping those around us including family, friends, neighbors, anyone who will listen, and we need to start talking in a collective fashion. For it is not us against the deniers or disbelievers, it is us against climate change. Helping everyone understand that addressing climate change is in everyone's interests is the key. We will never convince a denier of the reality of climate change, but a denier can and will convince him/herself of climate change given an open, non-judgmental environment...one open to learning and change. Climate change is best addressed by changing our interpersonal climate from oppositional to one that enhances human learning and understanding. Brought to a large scale, this process will generate the movement necessary for real change to happen. No one said this was going to be easy, and the ills of our world are many...we need to get everyone on the same page and we need to do it fast.
#7 Posted by Diane Bastiaanssen, CJR on Sat 22 May 2010 at 09:20 AM
The media will never save us. The media has been bought by financial interests that promote controversy and oppositional thinking...anything to sell a paper, tv show, etc. Despite the best efforts of journalists, media personalities, etc. that is just the way our world works. Great forces of financial interests have created a world of consumerism that has pitted neighbor against neighbor to have the best and the most and more to never ending levels of self satisfaction. But we cannot escape our systems, they are here and will not be leaving anytime soon. So we have to work within the systems we do have and we also have to create other systems that will work better. So I agree that we each need to do what we can to put renewable energy projects in place, to dismantle CO2 emitting systems and work hard at generating a collective movement that will change our systems to better reflect the will and interests of that collective. It is all possible. We just need clear thinking and focus, determination and will. Because the only way to save ourselves is together.
#8 Posted by Diane Bastiaanssen, CJR on Sat 22 May 2010 at 11:12 AM
Today's NY Times has an article bemoaning the trend in Britain - Britain - toward a lack of appropriate hysteria about the coming apocalypse. I'm still waiting for an honest acknowledement from media organizations that uncritical reporting and even hyping of threats and potential threats to health and the environment have helped create a 'whatever' sensibility toward these issues, regardless of how you feel about the global warming debate. The latest example, this past winter, was the exaggeration of the threat of the H1N1 flu virus.
#9 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 25 May 2010 at 12:07 PM
You have a point, Mark, in that threats exaggerated sell papers for a time, but at a cost of the print's credibility if the exaggeration becomes clear.
That is not the case when it comes to climate change, in which the actualities have exceeded the predictions as unpredictable feedbacks (reduced arctic ocean albedo and the like) start to take effect.
The 'whatever' feeling towards this issue is mainly a result of being informed of a problem for which no personal, practical action is given as part of the solution and no institution seems to be doing much about.
In Europe, the oil shocks of the seventies produced a bicycle/train dependent transportation culture and a drive towards non-fossil fuel based energy production. Wind and solar produce 40% or so of energy in Germany.
In America, people aren't encouraged towards action based on the problem, therefore they feel unconnected with this problem they can't do anything about anyways. That's a fault in the reporting. Information should be empowering.
#10 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 25 May 2010 at 03:00 PM
Generally speaking, in my opinion, people do not see their role or their capability as agents of change and activists for a better tomorrow clearly enough because of socio-economic layers and generations of people who don't clearly understand that a problem exists. Sure, people are somewhat aware about climate change, but generally speaking, they are too old, too busy, too tired, too stressed and too bombarded with seemingly more urgent issues (healthcare, personal safety, finances, etc.) to care enough to do anything about it.
I agree that people feel unconnected with the problem, and I think that is because of a missing link in the story. The story has been about oppositional thinking and debate. The story needs to be about how we are all connected and about how the ills of the world connect us all and how dealing effectively with climate change will serve to effectively re-connect ourselves with our environment and with each other. Because if we are effectively dealing with climate change, we will be dealing with poverty, hunger, health, safety, all those other issues that people have somehow compartmentalized as issues separate from our enviroment and separate from ourselves.
I think people generally need to be educated to better understand that we are all connected, that we are all interdependent, that what we do affects our neighbor and someone halfway around the world. In my search for answers as to why we are in this mess, I have met so many people who clearly do not understand this concept...they look at me as if my fear of climate change is unfounded, and they see no link between my fear and their reality. My fear is not for myself, but for my children, their children, friends, neighbors, our communities and the future of our world. I think so many people have their own immediate fears to deal with, they really are unable to deal with the very real danger of climate change.
I think the responsible role of media is to educate people about how we are all disconnected from each other and our environment, how climate change can help us bring about a process of reconnection and how there really is nothing to fear because we are dealing with the issues. The media could take on this role by promoting the positive works that have been taken on by individuals and groups to address climate change, by making clear statements about goals and targets and how they can be achieved, by becoming solution oriented instead of debate and opposition oriented. This approach would help people become connected to the problem, because the outcome is promoted by a positive process instead of fear.
#11 Posted by Diane Bastiaanssen, CJR on Wed 26 May 2010 at 01:56 PM