madsimian's flingings

April 6, 2012

The science of climate change is pretty clear at this point: our current path leads to catastrophe. There’s plenty of uncertainty on the details, particularly in how fast and how much carbon reductions could affect the outcome. But that basic fact — status quo means disaster — is not in serious dispute. What if it were an asteroid heading toward Earth? What if it were a foreign power mustering an army to march on our shores? How would the media treat it then?

Answer that question and you’ve answered how it would look to take climate seriously. Just to take a small example: the failure on both the international level and the U.S. level to muster any serious climate policy is inevitably described by mainstream reporters as “a blow to environmentalists,” as though it’s some boutique policy meant to benefit a special interest group. If reporters took climate change seriously, they would say, “the failure to secure serious climate policy makes widespread suffering and destabilization in the latter half of this century far more likely.” I call this the “and thus we’re fucked” principle.

— What it means for media to take climate seriously (via socialuprooting)

(via dendroica)

9:18pm | URL: https://tmblr.co/ZcmXbyJDU7JQ

(Notes: 180)