I am critical of this mode of covering climate because I find it paralyzing and totalizing. Even a World War II scale transformation in the global economy, in a context of complete international agreement and cooperation, would not be enough to get to zero net emissions.
-
-
The world of token measures where half of California is on fire but I'm not allowed to buy a gas stove in Berkeley is not the one I want to live in.
Show this thread -
The long lag time with climate impacts means that even if humanity disappeared tonight, we'd have decades of heating ahead of us. So no matter what policies we adopt, "the world is burning!" climate journalism has a bright future. Every year the hot takes will get hotter.
Show this thread -
This is the kind of climate coverage I find vexing. It's like constantly telling someone "get scared—you have incurable cancer!" instead of talking about what it means in practical terms, letting the patient know what to expect, and helping them learn to live in this new realitypic.twitter.com/4OpLbuh7tV
Show this thread -
Apocalyptic climate coverage is only going to encourage denialism and apathy, as well as a backlash once people notice that their lives go on pretty much as before in a warming world. We have a chance to get this right and channel people's alarm in a more constructive direction.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.