Kolbert Says Media Should Set Climate Change Agenda

Elizabeth Kolbert, an award-winning journalist—currently a writer for The New Yorker, previously a political reporter for The New York Times—spoke with Scoop08's Environment Correspondent Garrett Broad about the nature of science reporting, best-case scenarios for 2008, and the need for students to get angry.

Garrett Broad: What do you see as the importance of journalists like yourself talking about climate change? Why can't the scientific experts do the job?

Elizabeth Kolbert: I think even most scientists would tell you that scientists are not great communicators. They may be in person, very personable, very eloquent. But the language of science is extremely technical, and if you were to read the entire climate literature in the scientific journals, it would paint a pretty bleak picture, but the vast majority of people wouldn't understand it.

GB: What is different about the way they write?

EK: They communicate in numbers and graphs, most of us are much more interested in words and images. I think it's almost like speaking a different language. I often see what I'm doing as a form of translation. The fascinating experiences that scientists have, a lot of work they do will get some press, but in very dry language. When you're out there with them, it's quite amazing stuff, amazing experiences and amazing places. Everyone would agree, [both] scientist and journalists, that you need people to translate that.

GB: While we have seen a lot of global warming coverage by journalists and others recently, this is not the first time climate change has been in the papers. Is there a chance that it could drift away from the public's consciousness again?

EK: I often have people say to me, excuse the pun, "I'm kind of burned out on global warming coverage." The reality of the matter is that this issue is not going away in people's actual lives. In terms of really serious problems that real people are going to experience, they are not going anywhere. They are only going to get more noticeable, more serious. In a very grim sense I can assure this is not going away.

GB: What about the presidential candidates? The Democrats may seem the likely choice for environmentalists concerned about climate change, but hasn't Sen. McCain been on the leading edge of this issue for the Republicans?

EK: McCain was out front – I've spoken to him about this issue actually. He understands the issue, he understands the danger, and he understands the political dangers. You could make the argument that if he really took this on, he could sort of be the Republican who turns this around.

GB: Many politicians, Republicans particularly, have been influenced a great deal by groups whose guiding mission is to discredit climate change science. Are they still having an impact?

EK: I think they've really lost strength. I don't think anyone who is alive and who has any experience can say that the world isn't warming up at this point. It is so counter-factual, and it's even counter to people's experience. I think they are on their way out. That doesn't mean they won't keep plugging away - they're really indefatigable, I've got to give them that.

GB: But the U.S. remains well behind European nations and others in our commitment to fighting climate change. Why have we lagged behind?

EK: We've fallen into this kind of political discourse, into this kind of politics where there is sort of a mocking notion of the common good or of investments for a common purpose … Europeans, who live much closer together, they do not make money off of their resources, frankly because they don't have those resources. They've come up against those limits. We're still a young country living off of a frontier mentality, even though we don't have the frontier anymore. But we're going to bump up against our own limits. Hopefully that will lead to some sort of political change.

GB: What do you see as the best-case scenario for the next administration?

EK: A really serious commitment that would put in a lot of energy, and we would see an unleashing of a lot of talent, a lot of ideas, and investment and things. That would bear a lot of fruit over time – public transportation, all the obvious things we need to do, alternative energy. There would be a lot of experimentation; there would be many successes and some failures. And we would inspire other countries by our example – the rest of world is really waiting on the U.S., and there is a lot of resentment.

GB: How would you grade the level of environmental discourse in our debates? Have your journalistic peers been performing on par with your expectations?

EK: No, that's evidently not happening. When journalists were allowed to ask questions, they didn't really do a good job, and it really shocked me. I think if this were at the top of people's minds then they would be asking more questions. But you could say that journalists could take more responsibility.

GB: Could they make it a priority if they chose to concentrate on it?

EK: I certainly believe in the power of the media to set the agenda. I do think that more attention to the issue would make a difference.

GB: What about young people's involvement in bringing attention to global warming?

EK: I speak at fair number of colleges and I am always struck that there are some kids who are really involved. But in general, campuses are not political places these days. I think that's a really bad thing, a scary thing. Climate change should be a young people's issue. It's an intergenerational issue – my generation and my parent's generation – are leaving it to you guys. Young people need to get angry and get active. I can get kind of parental about it – unplugging your iPods, unplugging your video games, getting out there and getting active.

Kolbert is the author of "Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature and Climate Change."