Environment Journalist Andrew Revkin on Evolving Beyond Storytelling
” The scope of the difficulty is beyond traditional storytelling.” Revkin has actually come to worth interactive dialog with audiences over standard reporting.
As an environmental reporter, Andrew Revkin has concerned value promoting dialog with his audience over narrating.
Mr. Revkin has covered climate modification for over 30 years, mainly for the New York Times, however likewise for National Geographic, Discover Magazine and Science Digest. At Columbia Universitys Earth Institute, he has been hosting international discussions that browse concerns of ecological risk and vulnerability, made worse by a warming planet, on the Sustain What? webcast.
By writing for a brand-new blog site that introduced this summertime, Mr. Revkin is expanding the reach of his work to consist of the interaction of a broader audience.
He joined me for the following interview over Zoom from his house in the Hudson River Valley. This version of our discussion has been edited and condensed for clarity.
What was it about the climate crisis that initially drew you to collect such a large body of work?.
I definitely didnt come into this world planning to be a climate-focused journalist. The pull comes from the diversity of scales and measurements of the environment question. Its every concern really– technological, social, behavioral.
The much deeper you dig, the richer the questions end up being.
In 1985, you composed a cover story on nuclear winter season for Science Digest. How did this piece aid prepare you to blog about worldwide warming?
The main thing is that the computer designs that were being utilized to assess nuclear winter season were the same ones that were already being utilized to assess international warming.
One thing that was a very interesting learning experience for me as a young science reporter at that time was, the idea of nuclear winter is really stark, scary and dramatic.
[The late] Steve Schneider and Starley Thompson, [leading atmospheric scientists] and some other researchers dug in more on this idea. Even in the course of the time it took me to write the article, it was ending up being clearer to them that it was more like “nuclear fall.”.
Nuclear fall isnt a front-page story, nuclear winter season is a front-page story. Thats one of the rhythms of science. The designs get more refined, or you get more information, and unexpectedly its more nuanced.
A few years later, in 1988, you were a senior editor at Discover Magazine. While there, you wrote another cover story, this time on worldwide warming. Whats altered ever since in how you interact environment stories?
My story didnt have wildfires in it. So, fire is a huge part of worldwide warming now. The concept of abrupt change was not fully in the science yet at that point in 88.
, that suggested there were these disruptive minutes in environment, that things could happen in very brief time scales. That was less a part of that 1988 story than the concept of abrupt modification now.
You hear a lot about tipping points, and the Arctic was less prioritized then.
What has remained the exact same because you began reporting on climate modification?
The important things that havent changed are the extensive foundations of the environment problem. The greatest one is that we just value energy more than we value climate danger. Energy accessibility by whatever implies still outweighs our long-term climate issues.
Thats powerful enough to me that I diverted.
My friend Bill McKibben diverted towards, “We need to have less energy, weve got to truly tamp ourselves down,” and he began a motion. Hes been fantastic at all that stuff.
I became convinced that we are a high-energy species, that were not going to be tamped down.
Would you state that your writing is not activist journalism?
The emerging truth that humans will require more energy, not less, made me more of an activist for reality than an environmental activist.
Until energy can originate from non-polluting sources, and food can originate from non-deforestation sources dependably and affordably, its not like were going to alter ourselves to the degree that you would require to do to decarbonize through shrinking us as a phenomenon on the planet.
Ill be writing more about this quickly, I think, because the whole nature of life is in pursuit of energy.
Some types do it at hydrothermal vents, deep below the sea. Some species do it through solar energy, and then the majority of the others take in those as a way to get the energy they require, and a few of that is through fossilized plants and algae that we call nonrenewable fuel sources.
Thats a bothersome story due to the fact that I came of age in the 80s and 70s, when I was young, with the idea of ecological advocacy, making the case that this is a social-political problem, that we do require to change ourselves, and that numerous things have to change.
I just became more persuaded that path doesnt take us anywhere near where we need to go to build a genuinely sustainable relationship with the climate system.
My narrative, the method I shape the story in my own head changed too, through those years.
As your narrative was developing, how was your career evolving?
When I came to the New York Times I was writing about local stuff first, and then around 2000, I returned to this climate beat after blogging about the Hudson River returning.
Once I returned on the climate beat, really soon I got dug in with the energy concern, the energy difficulty, and that is such an extensive part of this.
The other part of the story that emerged was the climate in here [Revkin points to his head], the psychology, sociology and government part, which I had ignored as a press reporter.
You reported from the Arctic in 2003 while at The New York Times and in 2006 brought out a kidss book entitled The North Pole Was Here. How did your time there notify your work?
I was actually on the sea ice at the North Pole, landing there in an airplane with scientists for three days, and sending things via satellite phone. It was amazing.
While I was on the sea ice at the North Pole, there was an editor, Rebecca DuMoulin, an early website manager [at the Times] She stated, “Lets do a live reader Q&A while youre there,” and I enjoyed it!
I was on my sat phone and she would tell me a reader has actually emailed in this question, and I would tell her and she would type it. It wasnt like I was online, enjoying Reddit concerns come in and typing.
It was determined, however I loved the interactivity. Until then, historically, my relationship with readers was like any reporter. You write a story, you go home, you have supper, you get one call from the copy desk and youre done, possibly two if its going on the front page.
You started the Dot Earth blog site, at the Times, in 2007. During that time, you mediated some polarizing conversations. What methods did you utilize to navigate tricky discussions?
I guess a few of this obtains from the truth that Im a middle child in a household of three kids.
Some of it came through simply understanding that, on problems like environment or energy, no one is. Were all right-ish. And you can have lots of right-ish individuals, who, when you talk to enough of them, they sort of reveal an area in the middle among them.
Blogging felt like it was completing the blanks, not attempting to crystalize everything into a cool tidy story.
The whole concept of a story– Jay Rosen at NYU who composes the “PressThink” column [for the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute]– I agree with him totally on why do we presume in journalism that the story is our product? As opposed to something with larger dimensions than that.
I hope Im not perceived as a writer any longer. Im more of a story-convener, more of an expert of stories than a generator of story. Blogging ended up being more of a forum.
Due to the fact that Im learning in the process all the time, I see myself as a selfish blogger. Its assisting me be a much better human and a better journalist at the exact same time.
Which of those tricky conversations stands apart to you most?
I think it was 2014 when I wrote something about fracking and Mark Ruffalo, the Hulk, slammed his Twitter fist down on me.
Somebody had written something slamming me, and he was like, “Yeah, hell yeah!” Hes an anti-fracking activist. However after we had our little kerfuffle, then I connected to him and we had a discussion, a digital discussion.
Theres a Twitter thread with me and Mark from 2014, where he set out some things that I agreed with in terms of distributed energy, the capability to generate your own electricity, and what I might do here in the Hudson Valley, where I live, that I pursued and analyzed. It revealed me that even with the Hulk you can find a course. Not with everybody.
At first, it was a hard little minute and after that it was, “Lets talk” through Twitter. I did do a video interview with him, at least one, later. I met him in the city when the Pope was here [ in New York] to discuss sustainability.
That simply demonstrates to me that if you invest a long time listening, and not simply grandstanding, discovering commonalities is possible.
Do you feel that your work and the work of other journalists are having enough of an impact?
No. But that doesnt surprise or even distress me now.
The scope of the obstacle is beyond standard storytelling. Anyone who thinks a better story will fix the environment challenge has not yet fully challenged it.
After signing up with Columbias Earth Institute in 2019, you were interviewed by the Future of Life Institute. Throughout that interview, you mentioned that you began digging into social science late in your career to get beyond yes/no positions on polarizing subjects like environment modification. How has that research study directed your approach?
When it comes to fundamental things like energy, security, nothing I will compose is going to alter you. I can provide you details that will construct your sense of concern, conviction or enthusiasm from within, however its hard to do that externally as a reporter.
That doesnt imply that others cant or should not do that. There are a lot of young climate journalists today who are just fantastic firebrands, you understand Emily Atkin, whos extremely effective as an independent writer. Shes a very valuable voice. Its just not my role to be there.
I see myself as one node in this map of approaches.
You understand this idea of this only ranger reporter rushing into a problem, saving the world, doesnt have much meaning when youre taking a look at something complex and as huge as international warming.
Im comfy not feeling like Im leading some pack. Now when I was a reporter at The New York Times, I was breaking stories, I was leading the pack in a small way on the politics of climate modification under the Bush administration, that example, however ultimately at this phase in my career I d rather not concentrate on that. I seem like its a smallish, vital element of the storytelling and reporting on the problem, but its not the one I feel best matched for.
Throughout that exact same Future of Life Institute interview, you highlighted a Yale research study, “Climate-Science Communication and the Measurement Problem,” that discovered increased environment science literacy is unrelated to greater public acceptance of human-caused global warming. It seems easy to assume that structure agreement to act upon environment change is about providing more info, but that does not appear to be the case.
More info does not necessarily resolve an impasse.
[An individual] at Columbia whos taught me a lot is Jeff Schlegelmilch, who now runs the National Center for Disaster Preparedness here. Hes a long-time professional in disaster readiness, danger reduction and disaster interaction.
He said, “Sometimes the last thing you need is more information, especially in an immediate issue,” and at the very same time, thats what we appear to reflexively look for.
There are presidents whove just wanted individuals to discard more documents on their desk.
I think that shows more generally the worth of having the capacity for sustained, trustful conversation on anything essentially that can develop the capacity to navigate the difficult things when they occur.
At Columbia, it seems like youre working to assist individuals have those conversations, is that right?
Yeah, and some of those are discussions throughout Columbias landscape, like between the arts, the liberal arts, and the sciences.
The first thing I did when I came here 2 years earlier was to start to develop a little a network, a sustainability communications network. A few of that was face-to-face things that of course went away best away with the pandemic.
When lockdown occurred, I did my first Zoom-ish thing using StreamYard. To me, it was like returning to where I had been because a lot of my journalism work had actually been online that this new webcast world was sort of like what I was doing, just more video discussions than a Dot Earth blog summing up a lot of input.
Ive done lots of these [Sustain What?] shows, theyve been great and theyre worldwide. I had on individuals from Bhopal, India live when they were utilizing an existing social media to develop a food circulation network throughout lockdown.
[Show styles consist of] policy problems like how do we browse this pandemic, how do we handle disinformation, climate things, and after that the huge concerns like, can we essentially build a digital body immune system for the world?
Can we have a sensory system so that we can have a much better sense of some seriousness around early signals, whether from a pathogen spreading in China or from the Amazon, or gold miners invading an Indian preserve?
Whats next for you?
I have a brand-new gig. Im still here at Columbia, however Im cutting back on my hours here due to the fact that Im launching a new column, sort of like what I made with Dot Earth.
Theres a brand-new platform called Bulletin. Its like Substack or Medium, a platform for writers.
[My new column is] Called Sustain What? And its really integrated with the webcast. Sustain What? is a concern. I initially used this in 2015, when I taught a course for intermediate school students when I was at the Times, and I called it Sustain What?
It gets individuals out of the practice of simply utilizing words without thinking of them.
Sustainability has no meaning till you begin to state, “Sustain what?” “For whom?” “How?” Youre in fact talking. Sustainability has no significance, its like what is that, although my title has that word in it. Its all, “Lets discuss this.”.
It must be fun. When I was doing the Dot Earth [blog site], it was so naturally simply part of how I lived, that it was tough to offer it up. At National Geographic I was doing some composing that was comparable to what I finished with Dot Earth, and now here I am returning to it.
I keep migrating back to this, developing an efficient discussion area, aiming towards betterment
.
The tug comes from the diversity of scales and dimensions of the climate concern. Whats altered considering that then in how you communicate climate stories?
The things that havent altered are the profound foundations of the climate issue. Some of it came through just comprehending that, on issues like climate or energy, no one is. Now when I was a reporter at The New York Times, I was breaking stories, I was leading the pack in a little method on the politics of environment change under the Bush administration, that kind of thing, but ultimately at this phase in my career I d rather not focus on that.
by
Russell Kuhner|September 7, 2021