"System change is now inevitable. Either because we do something about it, or because we will be hit by climate change. '...

"We need to develop economic models that are fit for purpose. The current economic frameworks, the ones that dominate our governments, these frameworks... the current economic frameworks, the neoclassical, the market frameworks, can deal with small changes. It can tell you the difference, if a sock company puts up the price of socks, what the demand for socks will be. It cannot tell you about the sorts of system level changes we are talking about here. We would not use an understanding of laminar flow in fluid dynamics to understand turbulent flow. So why is it we are using marginal economics, small incremental change economics, to understand system level changes?"

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Journalists engage at last!

Not only has Kloor at least tried to take up the gauntlet, but Revkin has showed up as well.

And in two major advances on that thread, Keith admits he doesn't quite get what we're on about, and Andy Revkin admits his Gore/Will comparison was flawed!

6 comments:

Marion Delgado said...

Let me repeat the dictum of the Kloor J-School: When interviewing a source, you never have a definite story in mind. Nor should you tell your editor what story you're writing, beyond something vague like "it's about geology." In journalistic circles, that's like a chemist saying, once you learn your 4 elements, the rest is pretty much optional.

And boy, is he precious for someone who doesn't do reporting, but (routinely anti-environmentalist) op-eds.

Marion Delgado said...

The above towards not equating - not that I am saying you are - a journalist like Revkin with a magazine columnist like Kloor. I freely admit I represent dead-tree-and-transistors-but-not-specialty-magazines media, but there really is a difference. Even Audubon itself is a newsletter-type if glossy magazine, not a journalistic enterprise as such. The burdern the NYT operates under is substantially different.

manuel "moe" g said...

Thank you for your comments on that thread. Your (very large) ability coupled with your (large) patience is inspiring.

I also liked Bart Verheggen's summation:

"""
Let’s distinguish the following main issues:
- To what extent is climate change occurring, and to what extent is it man-made?
- To what extent is that (going to be) a problem?
- What can or should we do about it?

The first questions are strictly scientific; the middle has a judgment value to it, and the latter is primarily a political/moral judgement (and has more to do with technology than with climate science).
The public debate makes most sense on the third issue, whereas in reality, it’s centred around the first.
"""
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/05/18/why-climate-journalism-is-a-rotting-carcass/#comment-4953

Hank Roberts said...

"I like to start with Rachel Carson and Silent Spring. If you deconstruct Silent Spring, the whole book is nothing but three questions:

-- What’s going on that’s new, different, and scary?
-- What’ll happen if we don’t fix it?
-- How can we fix it?"

Jeremy Jackson
http://scicom.ucsc.edu/Q&A/2009/jackson.php

Nosmo said...

In the category of good environmental journalism how about NPR's Living on Earth program?

Hank Roberts said...

That interview was just reprinted, it can be found now along with more good work by this new science journalist, here:
http://www.lastoceanproject.org/newsroom/