Reporting Climate Change Debates

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by malee boonsiripunth on February 5, 2010 at 3:05am

one factor that reporters give onesided report dues to their limited knowledge about climate change, and/or do not really interested in the consequences of the problem ???

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ipsita Sapra on February 8, 2010 at 12:29am

Possibly...and in the present context, it is almost fashionable to find a flaw rather than present the wider picture. Reporters who write about the mistakes in predicting the metling of Himalayan Glaciers should also point out the experiences in Peru and Bolivia which they don't- often because they have no clue...It is important for the editors to ensure that given the serious nature of the issues- there are better controls on news that is published to ensure that the readers get a balanced perspective. The editorials are better but news items should also present a balanced view.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kunj Mann on February 21, 2010 at 2:13pm

Ipsita,

Reporters are not analysts. They report what they find significant. Nobody knows what exactly is happening and none of the theories have been able to explain it clearly. When it is known that even the scientists have no clue about the effect of El Nino in Peru and their forecasts have beaten the dust, then it is unrealistic to expect explanations for such things. We should rather focus on things which are in our control and with which we can do something to control global warming. Our simple practices can contribute a way great to check it and it must be matched with the commitment at the national level policies.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ipsita Sapra on February 24, 2010 at 7:45am

Thanks Kunj. Yes, reporters are not analysts. However they do carry enormous responsibilities vis a vis forming public opinion. The 'simple practices' that you talk about become 'way of life not up for negotiation' (remember President Bush) if the business as usual appraoch continues- something that such reporting encourages.Again, the idea is not about engaging in scintific detail, but proving a balanced perspective.Given the scale of the probelm, it might just be better to err on the side of caution. What do you think?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kunj Mann on February 25, 2010 at 2:29pm

Ipsita, so what is the "scale of the problem"? I asked this, because you might be among the few persons in this world who know about the scale, I guess. Well, it depends on how do you see the issue. It's not certain whether it is virtual (political/hypothetical) or real. Even if it is real, clearly, there are as many people who accept this as who downplay. I think this would be an outdated topic to discuss, given the fact that even the same climate scientists of IPCC have withdrawn their earlier claims about global warming and the rising of sea levels last week.

I too believe that we should play safe and take pro-active measures. But such measures can be away from those usually suggested by the mighty nations (and reported in the dailies) such as going green, using solar and wind energy which score low on a cost benefit analysis. Simple life practices can be those we know for sure which can make a difference. To a tribal woman in Orissa, it'll be difficult to understand the great global warming swindle and her coal oven. But the same woman can understand that using less coal can do more good. A college goer in Bombay may not like to switch-off his bike at a red light because it can submerge his home. He may rather be pleased to do the same to save some fuel and money, of course! Then, should we not focus on the simple practices which can be easily followed and more importantly, easily sustained? It's funny to wear uncomfortable clothes and use ACs to check the discomfort. Doesn't painting the house exteriors white also helps check the effects of global warming?

Definitely, the media shares huge responsibilities to sensitize the public, the policy makers and the development sector for the better, but who cares? They can always come up with the golden excuse that "we write, what sells". From the other side, how to not write what can sell or to present a balanced perspective? Worse still, there is no balanced perspective available ready-made. The readers themselves want to read about such issues forecasting dooms rather than improving their simple life practices. Remember, the movie 2010 drew great money. Should the development walas expect these things from the media walas? I don't see a reason because I fear we may loose our focus while accelerating on the highway.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Lawrence Kahn on February 6, 2010 at 12:13pm

Somehow, I feel most of this debate misses a crucial point. I doubt there are many scientists who do not believe that the world is going through a period of climatological warming..The records and the indicators seem clear. A major problem is that the debate over whether global warming is mostly a normal climatological event or is primarily caused by human activity is so intense that we missed another important call to action.. There is much evidence on both sides and it would seem that the expenditure of national and international resources depends significantly on which side wins the debate. But, are we focusing on the wrong issue?

To the extent humanity is denigrating the sustainable environment, we should take immediate and appropriate steps. However, to the extent it is impractical to eliminate these human activities and to the extent that the perceive change is due to normal climatological variations, the goal should be planning and preparing for a future on a warmer planet. While we spend years, and even decades, debating over the issue of who is responsible, we seem to ignore developing a strategic plan to deal with what may be inevitable. Shouldn't we be forecasting where the temperate agricultural areas will be over the next 50 to 100 years and start preparing? If sea levels are going to rise, should we be putting hundreds of millions of dollars into New Orleans and billions of dollarsi to continued coastline construction?

Most simply put, my question is whether the debate over the cause is obscuring the need to prepare for global warming?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ipsita Sapra on February 8, 2010 at 12:34am

You are very right about the need to prepare ourselves. At the same time, it is important that we work towards getting our actions right to control warming. Mitigation actions are often very expensive and beyond the reach of many. This is important given that the poor suffer the most from climate change and that they have relatively less voice in policy making and implementation. Unless there is a proactive emphasis on changing our lifestyles and the way we do business - the impacts can be beyond our control.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Greg Stevenson on February 17, 2010 at 2:01pm

Seems we have
Plan A: Produce less Green house gases. Our performance thus far has been terrible. We haven't stopped increasing let alone started decreasing in a dozen or so years of trying. Given the supposed risks we would be stupid to put all our eggs in this basket.
Plan B: Mitigate the effects of the green house effect or artificially lower the amount of green house gases once the world has produced them. Ideas such as seeding the oceans with iron and seeding the atmosphere with sulfur come to mind.
Plan C. Plan to move agricultural areas and concentrations of populations. Wildlife will do it or become extinct. Both they and we have overcome the huge climatic changes of the past. We all stemmed from Africa and climatic conditions dictated our migration across the whole of the world. We must do it again. The better the planning the cheaper the end result in both wealth and life. Why did New Orleans get rebuilt? Emotional rather than practical reasons? It will be interesting to see how long it takes nature to knock the sentiment out of us.

Are you saying we need to stop blaming and put some thought into Plan C?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ipsita Sapra on February 24, 2010 at 7:54am

Greg, the point is that mitigation activities are far too much expensive for anybody. Needlees to say, it is beyond the reach of the poor. Also transfer of mitigative measures is such a controversial issue between the developing and the developed economies that while the countries debate and negotiate, the poor would pay the high price for inaction. As far as mass scale migration is concerned, well, honestly, I do not know. The scale we are talking about is enormous and given that we have no idea of what would survive and what would perish, I get the feeling that it would disrupt the already fragile ecosystem. .

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kunj Mann on February 21, 2010 at 2:04pm

The ongoing climate change is not so much explained by the theory linking it to global warming by emissions as much as it is explained by the theory including the enhanced solar activity. Clearly, very little is known about the Sun and thus very little can be done to check the effects of solar activity. It is better that we control the component of contribution in climate change because of emissions. The rich countries must bring down their emissions of dangerous gases, the developing countries should go with sustainable development approach and the poor countries should follow the minimal energy use practices. Emissions as well as the energy consumption can be controlled by simple practices such as checking the wastage of energy at public places. The thing which people from all the countries, whether developed or developing, have to understand is that – they have to adapt. While, most of the adaptations require just a shift in behavior, some of them might be expensive – but this expense will prove to be worth every penny. This adaptation can be a very small contribution like making more use of the public transport and mass transit systems. It can begin from an individual like us to ensure that all the lights are switched-off when we move out of our houses. The use of low energy consuming fluorescent bulbs should be encouraged. We can save more energy if we dress properly during summers and winters so that we can reduce the use of artificial cooling and warming. The leaves which can be easily buried should not be burnt. Use of environment-friendly items should be fostered. Above all, we can create awareness regarding the efficient use of energy, talk to people and tell them how they can reduce their energy usage and participate in the fight against an invisible but not necessarily an inevitable threat. With these efforts, we will not only be able to avert an expected catastrophe but also help build a better future for the world.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ipsita Sapra on February 24, 2010 at 8:09am

Kunj, I totally agree with you. Finally, it boils down to these small yet profound points. These are steps that "WE" can undertake. The perception that WE are important change-agents and can really make a difference is so so crucial.

Having said that, we must acknowledge that lifestyle changes are not easy. At the household level for example, people using electronic cloth dryers ( a power guzzeller) find spreading clothes under the sun to dry so much more inconvenient. It is also a matter of 'asthetics' in many 'posh' places where it is not allowed to sun dry clothes.

I also think that there is a need for incentivizing actions that promote adaptive behaviour. This is especially true of the urban areas in the developing countries. There should be more rewards for a corporate to have Green buildings in addition to good press. Similarly, organizations with huge glass structures that consume more energy and radiate heat should be made accountable for the environmental damage they cause.

The idea is- at the level of society, we need proactive and sustainable citizenship.

▶ Reply to This