The Weather Channel’s Heather Cullen’s suggestion to include solar and wind reports is an interesting idea. I wonder if the Weather Channel, national weather reports, and local weather reports, included this information would it lead to individuals utilizing solar and wind power as alternate energy sources. If solar and wind forecasts become more mainstream it may lead to alternative energy companies advertising more during broadcasts, ultimately leading to individuals beginning to better understand those energy sources, and eventually using them in their own homes.

 

Fahn’s report on climate change reporting in developing countries is overwhelming. It would be a great challenge to educate journalists in these countries. The writers in countries like India know very little about climate issues because their countries’ governments aren’t very concerned about them. They are more concerned with becoming strong, developed nations. Who can blame them? They’re only doing what they see international powers like the U.S. doing – largely ignoring climate issues to benefit big business.

- Quentin

 

Climate change -- Whitby, Fahn

 

What I found most interesting in the Whitby article was the suggestion by the journalist who worked for the Weather Channel to include solar and wind forecasts in daily news. This idea struck me as a non-confrontational way to bring about CC issues by realizing the importance of how wind & the sun affect local climate. I was lucky enough to study abroad in Australia the past two summers and part of the study was comparing aboriginal culture and modern western culture. While I was talking to a cattle rancher I mentioned how local Aboriginal cultures had 8 seasons rather than 4, and she was surprised. This is typical of indigenous cultures (having an infinitely acuter understanding of local climate). The idea to include solar & wind forecasts seems like a modern way to re-include long lost environmental sensibilities.

 

- Chris Cox

 

While reading the Whitby article what stuck out to me the most was when they said "Steve Curwood, host of public radio's "Living on Earth," said that, unlike some stories where you can report and leave the story behind, with climate change "you can't leave the battle zone. It's really tough psychologically."" I think this is very true. No matter where you go in the world, the climate change will follow you. The Fahn article is a perfect example, people in the United states talk about it like it is just our problem, but the developing countries have the same problems with much less coverage. It is unfortunate that they do not get to be as informed simply because they do not have the resources.

 

I agree with Chris. They should include solar and wind forecasts, it is time people take the environment seriously.

 

--Koryn Stevens

 

 

I think it is encouraging to see that both within our country and in developing countries journalists are working to expand coverage on climate change. I agree that the idea proposed to incorporate climate coverage into weather channel broadcasts is a small but efficient way of bringing the facts of climate change into the home. One point that I thought was important was the need for journalists to avoid advocacy and to stay objective. It is our job to inform, not persuade. Hopefully, the information itself is enough to convince the public of the importance of this issue and those related to it.

I was shocked when I read in the Fahn article that people are still confused about the green house effect. This just supports the assertion that education on climate change is essential in order to initiate action. I like the idea of journalism training porgrams in developing countries as well as in our own. I am interested to see, first hand, at the SEJ conference what these programs are like.

 

--Maureen Halsema

 

 

 

 

Journalism plays an important role in educating the public and people all over the world need to be educated about climate change. I agree with the need for continuous coverage because there are so many topics to cover concerning global warming. People advocate everything from switching to renewable energies to becoming vegetarian in order to cut carbon dioxide emissions. This issue is so complex that it seems impossible to accurately discuss in the "one-and-a-half minutes" often allotted. However, it could be very productive to talk about a certain aspect of climate change in 90 seconds. This could be even more productive if climate change discussion was granted a 90 second slot at least once a week. Climate change coverage should be continuous because climate change is continuous. It doesn’t happen one day and not happen the next. If the public (global and local) is educated about it and reminded of it continuously, there is a much greater possibility that we will see a larger demand for climate change tools and policies.

 

~Courtney Mitchell

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem focused on in the Whitby article is something I have witnessed first hand, in Bulgaria. The tourism and development industry in general have wreaked havoc on Bulgarian nature because of the lack of environmental protection policies in place. During communism, development was centralized and much of the land was preserved, albeit unconsciously. With the type of “cut-throat” capitalism in place today (Bulgaria taxes rich people even less than the USA), Bulgarian nature is being sold off to the highest bidders (including English, German, Swedish developers) piece by piece and developed in a way that is unsustainable and unclean in order to make a quick buck.

The problem in Bulgaria is different from those that Whitby focuses on in Vietnam and Indonesia-- "Few have a science background or have received training in climate-change reporting so it is unsurprising to see errors in stories about the technical aspects of the issue." Perhaps the focus on “sustainability” is not as trendy among Bulgarian youth as it is in the USA and kids are not educated about recycling, etc. from a young age (a very important piece of our education!) but people are certainly aware of and have a good basic understanding of global warming trends. The problem is that sustainable development in eastern Europe is not profitable and therefore totally undesirable. In a historical context, this makes sense. Much of Eastern Europe under socialism watched western consumerist society with envy! The doctrine of consumer choice that the west has marketed and capitalized on freely for the past couple of decades is very seductive from afar. It has made some very wealthy and others very poor. The rich have become so powerful that they are insisting (through their economic policies via world bank, etc) that the whole world succumb to it. We all know what happens if there is any resistance.

Granted, there are many ecological groups in Bulgaria which are becoming larger and stronger as people become more aware…

Bulgaria is a relatively small country so it is not like people are unaware of the plague of pollution.

Unlike in Brazil-- where

"They do not really understand climate change. They think this is a developed country problem, not one for developing countries." Even when it is addressed in local media, it is covered as an abstract global issue. Gustavo Faleiros, a reporter for the Brazilian online environmental news site O Eco, says the same problem exists in Brazil, where there is "a lack of local studies and debates on local perspectives".

The changes of the past 10-15 years in post socialist Europe are tangible and easy to notice, even by the untrained eye. Sunny Beach, for example, the largest resort on the Bulgarian Black Sea coast, accommodates about 200,000 tourists at peak season while the hotel canal system can only sustain about 10,000. Imagine the smell.

 

 

 

Bulgaria and other post socialist countries are interesting cases to study because one can correlate the rapid rate of change in the economy to the changes in the natural and/or built environment. They lie somewhere in the middle of the spectrum between “third world” and western countries. The west heralds their sustainable practices (after hundreds of years of accumulating wealth from the “third world” and developing “unsustainably”- so now they have the funds to do so) allowing it to cover up the fact that the current system of capitalism which has made it rich is ultimately unsustainable, to use an overly used word while expecting the third world to play “catch up” economically (by joining in IMF, World Bank) and develop sustainably at the same time. This is merely a continuation of western entitlement and tool for controlling development to keep certain places underdeveloped in order to maintain the wealth in the hands of the wealthy.

 

 

 

"Many media support projects are ad hoc and not very suitable to local needs." The IIED's Shanahan concedes, "There is a tendency for trainers to 'parachute' into a country, run a workshop and then disappear again on a plane". "This approach, if there is no follow-up training or long-term capacity building, is far from ideal."

 

 

 

I found this excerpt to be the most interesting because I also believe that we need regional approaches to all (including environmental) problems. I think we ought to avoid an authoritative one world government because I don't think that globalization is going to aid in the fight towards global warming. I think we ought to be hesitant of the assumption that western knowledge is “better” than the rest and am concerned that global warming may be used as a machine towards one world government when it should be a peoples movement.

 

-Deana

 

 

 

 

 

First off, I really like the idea of implementing climate change education through weather forecasting in Whitby, and never thought to do so. I think it’s a very innovative way to get even the most unattached citizens informed and INTERESTED in the reality and impacts of climate change. Everyone watches and checks the weather! So obvious, so simple!

 

As far as reporting on the “climate change beat” all I can say to those complaining is welcome to it dudes! Climate change and environmentalism extend far beyond just going green or switching from nonrenewable to renewable resources. If we approach it only scientifically and mechanically, then we are never truly getting to the core and solving the PROBLEM. Climate change isn’t an issue, its an outcome. We are in a social movement here guys and climate change is just one outcome, not cause. Climate change is a result of an inherent disconnection of the citizen to our “democracy” and governance institutions of our Nation. We are where we are because of of the roots of our great Nation, and a lack of collaborative problem solving from the founding fathers. A completely individualistic, be all you can be, American dream mind set has left us empty hearted and with a hot planet Earth. We are still fighting the same value battles we were back in the beginning. However because of the exponential growth of populations and technology our implications are far more devastating (climate change) than they used to be. Not only this, our problems are much deeper now. We deal with oppression, hate, discrimination and intolerance, all widening the value gap in which we already have, in turn exacerbating the impacts of our social dysfunctions.

 

For the Fahn article:

"There's a real awareness about changes in the climate, but it isn't necessarily construed as 'climate change'," In other words, although rural villagers are keenly attuned to shifting climate patterns, they are often unaware of warming's anthropogenic origins and its likely long-term impacts.

 

I take huge issue with this section because I feel like it is a perfect example of the problem itself that is causing outcomes like climate change in the first place. It’s interesting that those cultures, who are not familiar with the technical term “climate change”, are deemed as uneducated on the real problem going on in the world and they need to learn the science, reality, and future implications of why the climates and weather patterns are changing. However “climate change”, a westernized term for the phenomena happening on our planet with changing climates, is witnessed-no FELT!- by these people, who are more in tune with Nature and the environment than we ever could be. These are the people who know the earth, and know how to work cohesively with it so will be the firsts to sense disruption with its natural cycles. Who are we to move in and tell them what they do and don’t know about climate change, because their culture does not acknowledge a term or title on a subconscious feeling they already have.

 

Then we continue to impose our western culture through polling and surveys on their opinions of what is going on with the planet? Posing questions in language that shapes information in ways they have never thought in the first place (Orwell?). It is this lack of understanding and respecting cultures and locality that has brought us to the social and environmental implications we face today.

 

I am all for the opportunities of education, but we must acknowledge there are key differences in forms of education (west vs. east) Again as Orwell might agree, the language in which we use to approach the changing climates shape how we also see a reality (key letter ‘a’ and not an all encompassing reality), and the same is for these people in the developing world. Telling them they should know or don’t know something else is a prevalent flaw. We need to first converse and learn about these people-where they are coming from,the patterns of their daily lives, so that we are learning a bit ourselves, before we move in interpreting and defining terms and realities.

 

 

-Jackie

 

 

That is startling to know that many people of the world, especially those set to be the hardest hit by climate change, have the slightest idea or understanding about the issue.  Especially startling are the numbers of respondents that had heard little or nothing about the issue, and how the numbers may be even worse than those.  That is hopeful that the series of workshops are being run to work with the journalists to bring them up to speed, but what else can be done to further educate these journalists in the developing world?  The people of these nations really need to understand what is currently happening.  I really like the idea of the Climate Change Media Partnership.  I think it is incredibly unfair that these people will suffer the brunt of the devastating effects of climate change, but played a minimal role in its creation.  Many of the hardest hit don’t even have electricity or consume very many natural resources.

 

 - Angie