Inspired by the new major report on climate change, and the questionable coverage of it in serious outlets, here's a few thoughts on how to talk about this important topic without misleading the public.
[Short thread.]
nyti.ms/2zmesuU
[Short thread.]
nyti.ms/2zmesuU
First, the obvious yet important bit:
Climate change poses huge risjs. If we do the right thing, there's lots we can do to combat it. It's up to us to meet this important test.
(That's why I've often taught a whole seminar on The Politics of Climate Change at Harvard.)
Climate change poses huge risjs. If we do the right thing, there's lots we can do to combat it. It's up to us to meet this important test.
(That's why I've often taught a whole seminar on The Politics of Climate Change at Harvard.)
Second, the not so obvious bit:
Scientists are usually very scrupolous about the language they use to describe climate change.
But in a noble attempt to drive the urgency of this challenge home to people, journalists can sometimes wind up misleading the public.
Scientists are usually very scrupolous about the language they use to describe climate change.
But in a noble attempt to drive the urgency of this challenge home to people, journalists can sometimes wind up misleading the public.
An example: How do you interpret this sentence, from the NYT?
"the damage [from climate change] will knock as much as 10 percent off the size of the American economy by century’s end."
America's GDP in 2100 will be:
"the damage [from climate change] will knock as much as 10 percent off the size of the American economy by century’s end."
America's GDP in 2100 will be:
According to the study, the effect of climate change will be to make America's GDP 10% less *than it would otherwise have been*.
So the right answer, according to the study, is: many times bigger!
So the right answer, according to the study, is: many times bigger!
Or what about this: "New York and London could be underwater within DECADES due to climate change."
The headline implies that the Empire State Building will be under water. So does the accompanying photograph.
The headline implies that the Empire State Building will be under water. So does the accompanying photograph.
What the actual study showed that less than 10% of New York City, overwhelmingly in areas that aren't shown on this photograph, would be underwater.
Now let me be very clear: My point is not to suggest that we shouldn't worry about the effects of climate change.
It's the opposite: The likely effects of climate change are so serious that we don't need to represent them in a misleading way to drive home the urgency of action.
It's the opposite: The likely effects of climate change are so serious that we don't need to represent them in a misleading way to drive home the urgency of action.
The new report makes for very scary reading. Losing 10% of our 2100 GDP is a big deal. Losing any part of NYC is horrifying.
But if we play up the already horrible risks, we are as likely to sow distrust or fatalism as we are to inspire the political action we desperately need.
But if we play up the already horrible risks, we are as likely to sow distrust or fatalism as we are to inspire the political action we desperately need.
