I didn’t read one story today that was depressing with regards to climate change. What is depressing is the incredible lack of intelligence or useful information in all of the climate stories I read today.
COP 21 is underway–one would think that would stimulate editors and writers to come up with something interesting or informative. No. ABC tells us that negotiators are negotiating and it lasts until late in the evening.
What are they negotiating about? No prize for the right answer, it’s too easy. Developing countries want the richer developed world to pay for ‘climate justice.’ Amazingly, the rich world wants the poorer world to share the burden. But not one word in the story talks about any movement, proposals, counter-proposals that the negotiators are bringing forth. Brazil and India, two countries with everything to play for, are not mentioned. The only quote is from the head of the UN’s Development Program, Helen Clark. “Let’s all work to get developing countries into the very best position they can to access the financing that’s there to do things that are vital for development.” This story actually made me stupider for having read it.
The same can be said for a story found on Quartz titled ‘A sneaky new rhetoric is holding back progress on climate change,’ arguing that cynicism served up, not by ‘climate change deniers’, but lukewarmers like Bjorn Lomborg is undermining progress by mentioning that China’s emissions are still growing or that electric cars often get their electricity from sources powered by fossil fuels. It breaks new ground only in the world of chutzpah by saying “For decades, the media has soft-peddled both the urgency and science surrounding climate change.” Falser words were never written.
From Wired articles (Three Smart Ways Design Can Help Fight Climate Change, showing no real way design can help fight climate change) to EcoWatch (Bill Nye: Paris Attacks Linked to Climate Change, rehashing the Syrian drought myth), the current crop of news is horrible at communicating facts and not even good at propagating a message.
It all reminds me of the Dotcom Era right before the Internet bust, when press releases were churned out by the hundred, all using the same template guaranteeing success for companies bound to fail, all with the same language and poor writing, all aimed at the stupidest of potential investors.
That a serious issue with impacts for all of humanity, guaranteed to cost billions and almost guaranteed to change the composition of the Fortune 100 over the next decade could produce such vapid and mindless discourse is worse than depressing. Please, somebody–point me to a good story written today!
Not a good day for journalism. Not a good day for climate. Not a good day for the planet.