The Media and Global Warming

If you haven't been living in a cave the last five or so years, you've heard about global warming. Call it climate change if you like. One professor I had preferred global climate collapse - he felt that the words "warming" and "change" are deceptively benign. Either way, the reason you've heard about this phenomenon, if you're like most of the country, is because you've read about in the papers, heard about it on television, or otherwise had a journalist inform you. If you're someone who has known all along that the climate is behaving in frightening ways and that humans are to blame, you've probably spent some time now either rolling your eyes at the "controversy" or have attempted to keep the media fires burning by jumping into the flames yourself.

As a double major in Environmental Studies and Journalism, I am constantly barraged by both sides of this issue. Yes, my shoe-less, be-dreaded, soy-gobbling Environmental Studies comrades, you're right. The media has kind of screwed this up. We pretty much ignored the scientists right up until Al Gore got on his electric expanding ladder thing before the whole nation and prevented us from ignoring it any longer. Ph.Ds who have dedicated their whole lives to studying the destruction of our climate system couldn't get our attention for more than a second, but the minute one of our own gets up there, it generates what must be a multi-million dollar media buzz. Then everything gets the prefix "green" or "eco-" or "sustainable", until suddenly the American public goes from being mildly interested to severely annoyed. I know I did. What the hell does "sustainable growth" mean, anyway, aside from being a pretty cute oxymoron?

Not only did the media industry completely wear out the phrase "global warming," but they also cast a completely inaccurate shadow of doubt on the science behind it. In what is probably an honest effort to be fair (or oil industry meddling, depending on who you ask), journalists often cite sources that straight up deny all or parts of accepted atmospheric science. Getting a schizophrenic person to comment on a story about the strange noise coming from the basement that everyone else attests is a malfunctioning boiler, and then citing him as an expert next to the plumber and the building engineer is not the way to tell both sides of the controversy. It creates a controversy where there never was one. And its been horribly detrimental to efforts to fix the hypothetical boiler.

But, my environmentalist friends, you have to admit - those crazy climate paparazzi did do some good. Nobody has even been able to run for election in the 2008 race without at least mentioning an environmental policy. More people are thinking about when they drive and why than ever before, and not just because gas prices are through the roof. "Green" is the new marketing buzzword, and in some cases, the products it sells might actually do some good for the climate.

But that's all the back patting I will shell out, fellow New York Times-toting, glasses-wearing, good-naturedly competitive journalists. Because you haven't been listening to what the hippies over at the ENVS department have been saying at all. The solution to global warming, along with most other impending environmental catastrophes, is not to consume differently but to consume less. Scientists simply aren't asking us to buy a hybrid car, or invest in schemes that offset individual carbon emissions by growing plankton, or to reconsider nuclear energy. If most logical people actually read the scientific research, they would have to conclude that the human species must completely change its lifestyle in order to avert a complete shift in the way natural systems work. We, as the teachers and informers of the nation's adult population, need to advocate anti-consumerism, not more consumerism. No car, not hybrid car; locally grown, not "sustainably" grown in Chile; turn down the heat, forget the new reactor.

I'm not sure whether this shift is even possible, given the structure of the media in this country. We don't just promote consumption, we depend on it. If people don't buy newspapers, internet access and cable subscriptions, they won't be getting our content in first place. So all I'm asking for is a little less sillyness on our part, intrepid reporters. Stop abusing the honest Environmental Studies people with "eco-" catchphrases and false experts. Maybe we really actually can slow down climate change, but only if talk of global warming stops being a trend and becomes a permanent feature in society.

Oh, and ENVS friends, please put on some shoes.

mission statement

For me, journalism two things. First, it is a sneaky way to for me to indulge my complete nerdiness and be in a job/educational path where I constantly learn about new things. If it weren't for journalism, I'd be one of those all-over-the-place college students, switching from art to science to economics to English and graduating in seven years with no idea which area I'd want to sit down and focus on for the next four decades of my wage-earning years.

The other reason I pursued journalism was because the only thing that really has been constant in my relatively short life has been an interest in reading and writing. I read everything. I really think my brain is abnormal because when I look at a magazine page or a posted sign or whatever, my eyes go straight to the text and ignore the pictures altogether. I read things that no reasonable person would read: the safety card in the airplane, the junk emails in my inbox, shopping lists found on the grocery store floor. I just love to see how other people express themselves, especially when they're no doing it expressly for editors or serious readers (as journalists and book writers usually are). Writing is pretty fun for me too, but I get a little awkward writing about myself or about fictional things. So non-fiction seems ideal.

My journalistic dream is, very generally, to travel somewhere interesting and write about it. This could be in shorter freelance pieces or for a book, eventually. In five years, it's difficult to tell. I should graduate in two, with degrees in Magazine Journalism and Environmental Studies and a minor in Economics (ok, so I went all over the place anyway). Anyway, after graduation I'd like to go to a smaller magazine somewhere in the Northwest for a couple of years, interning or maybe even getting paid. Lately I've been thinking I'd really like to do an internship at High Country News. At the end of that, I would ideally be hired by National Geographic. I know this probably won't happen, and I also know that if my tastes and goals continue to evolve at the rate they have been, I don't want to make plans now that I'll blow off in a year. So normally I evade the "where do you see yourself in five years" question by making a serious face, giving the National Geographic answer, and then we all have a good laugh and the questioner moves on.

So there's the mission. It's based in a lot of things I've thought over quite a bit, so although it may not be the most solid plan ever, I have faith that it will work out in a way that's best for me. If not, and I end up working at a porn shop in Eugene, I'll have good material for my book.

J361

Once again, a professor has required me to take an action that I've been meaning to do for a while but never quite had adequate reason. This is a little bit bigger than going to the art museum or visiting an instructor's office hours, but I think it will be at least a learning experience, if not something I continue doing forever.
I've actually never been a blog-loving person. My life has always closely revolved around the internet (which, I admit, adds a certain element of laziness as well as nerdiness to my personality), but I never understood why the blog craze happened and is still happening. After all, we don't pay much attention to the random verbalizations of the scruffy-looking person on the bus or the thousands of books that are published every day. Why then, when placed in a digital format, does the chaff of people's minds become so attractive? Why are we so obsessed with updating the world on what we did this morning, or giving them instruction on how to make a chocolate pie, or complaining endlessly about politics?
I'm sure there's something to this blog thing. Maybe now that I keep one, I'll start reading others. Maybe someone will tell me which are worth reading, because I really have no idea and don't want to waste time finding out when I could be reading something that was written by an experienced writer, using credible sources, and checked by an editor.
Time to wrap up. I sound like the crabbiest person alive, which kind of sucks for the first blog entry. I'm not, and I won't complain about this topic anymore, at risk of falling into the trap of the self-serving blogger.