{"id":21567,"date":"2018-08-04T12:53:26","date_gmt":"2018-08-04T17:53:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/?p=21567"},"modified":"2018-08-04T12:53:26","modified_gmt":"2018-08-04T17:53:26","slug":"musing-about-losing-earth","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/archives\/2018\/08\/musing-about-losing-earth\/","title":{"rendered":"Musing about Losing Earth"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The NY Times Magazine has a special issue<\/a> this weekend on climate change. The main article is “Losing the Earth”<\/a> by Nathaniel Rich, is premised on the idea that in the period 1979 to 1989 when we basically knew everything we needed to know that climate change was a risk, and the politics had not yet been polarized, we missed our opportunity to act. Stated this way, it would probably be uncontroversial, but since the article puts the blame for this on “human nature”, rather than any actual humans, extensive Twitter discussion ensues…<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Before we link to some of the more thoughtful responses, a quick reminder that a lot of people read the NY Times magazine (far more than follow any climate scientists on Twitter or Facebook), and that as David Roberts at Vox has pointed out, having differently-told climate stories – even if they are manifestly imperfect, might help broaden the conversation and basic awareness that this is a story worth delving into. Secondly, the last big NY Times magazine story I remember related to climate was the execrable profile of Freeman Dyson<\/a> – a fascinating topic in theory, but one which focused on the least interesting thing about him – a barely warmed up stew of stale climate skepticism.<\/p>\n

The article itself is supported by a lot of background work, some visually stunning photography by George Steinmetz and lesson plans hosted by the Pulitzer Center<\/a>. <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

So, here is some of the more interesting commentary:<\/p>\n

From Emily Atkin<\/a> at New Republic:<\/p>\n

\n\u201cLosing Earth\u201d is an impressive piece of journalism for several reasons. One is simply that it\u2019s the Times\u2019 longest-ever article\u2014and it\u2019s about global warming. This comes at a time when much of the news media is failing to live up to its responsibilities covering climate change, an issue that affects the entire population, hundreds of ecosystems, and every economic sector. Rich\u2019s story, too, is proof that the climate story can be told in an engaging\u2014fast-moving, human-centric, funny, and frustrating\u2014way.<\/p>\n

And the insights about human nature are worth pondering. \u201cWe\u2019re a medium-term species,\u201d he said in April. \u201cWe plan ahead, but only so far. We\u2019re willing to sacrifice comfort in the present for security in the future, but within reason.\u201d But the fossil fuel industry and Republicans know that, and have successfully exploited it for the last thirty years. \u201cLosing Earth\u201d is thus not the whole story of human\u2019s failure to act on climate change. Its flaw is that it\u2019s painted as such.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

From Leah Stokes: <\/p>\n

https:\/\/twitter.com\/leahstokes\/status\/1024803607894548481<\/p>\n

From Alex Steffen: <\/p>\n

\n

What is so off about this whole-issue @NYTmag<\/a> piece on climate? <\/p>\n

Let me share a few initial observations (thread).https:\/\/t.co\/H3r1o5Sdwt<\/a><\/p>\n

— Alex Steffen (@AlexSteffen) August 1, 2018<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n