Home' Technology Review : January February 2010 Contents NOTEBOOKS 15
WWW. TECHNOLOGYREVIEW. COM
wait until we have a climate problem and
then simply fix it?
Over the past half-century, people
have "fixed" a number of other problems
with environmental implications. We
have reversed rivers in Russia, inadver-
tently destroying the Aral Sea in the
process; we have built roads and encour-
aged farming in tropical areas, inadver-
tently depleting the soil and destroying
millions of acres of rain forest. If, with
typical shortsightedness and hubris, we
count on geoengineering to save the
planet, can we be sure that the outcome
will be what we intend?
Despite the mistakes of the past, the
answer is not to treat geoengineering
like chemical and biological weapons
research, surrounding it with a global
taboo. If a country experiencing a pro-
longed drought, for example, seeks to
engineer the planet's climate unilater-
ally, we will need to be familiar with the
potential consequences in order to mus-
ter informed counterarguments. And if
our more extreme climate-change pre-
dictions become reality and a sudden cli-
mate emergency puts billions of people at
risk, the world should not find itself col-
lectively embarking on a crash program
of geoengineering in ignorance.
We need to know much more about
geoengineering. Until recently, most sci-
entists and research managers have been
reluctant to do research in this area, for
fear that knowing how to engineer the
climate would encourage people to do it.
But today, the risks of avoiding research
outweigh the risks of pursuing it.
We need to take two steps now. First,
we should establish a loosely coördinated
international program aimed at research-
ing how to shade the planet, how much
it would cost, and what the intended
and unintended e ects would be. This
research should also address what the ris-
ing atmospheric concentration of carbon
dioxide means for terrestrial and oceanic
ecosystems, since reflecting sunlight will
do nothing to stop it. About one third of
emitted carbon dioxide is absorbed by
the oceans, which become more acidic as
a result; they are already 30 percent more
acidic today than they were in preindus-
trial times. If current emissions continue,
most coral reefs could be gone by the end
of the century, along with all the ecosys-
tems they support.
Second, we need to get the foreign-
policy community working on a
collective approach to regulating geoen-
gineering. My colleagues and I have
started that process with two interna-
tional workshops involving climate
scientists and foreign-policy experts.
Further informal discourse will lay the
groundwork for a formal framework.
M. GRANGER MORGAN IS HEAD OF THE DEPART
MENT OF ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC POLICY AT
CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY.
The New News
JAY ROSEN PU LLS APART
JOURNALISM AND THE MEDIA.
Journalism, the practice, is not "the
media," although for many years most
of the journalism that got done was done
inside the media industry. Now that
industry is in trouble, but not because
people no longer want to be informed
or entertained (they still do). Rather, the
social pattern that sustained the media
industry has been disrupted by technol-
ogy (see Briefing, p. 59).
The media used to work in a one-to-
many pattern---that is, by broadcasting.
The Internet, though it can be used for
one-to-many transmission, is just as well
suited for few-to-few, one-to-one, and
many-to-many patterns. Traditionally,
the media connected audiences "up" to
centers of power, people of influence,
and national spectacles. The Inter-
net does all that, but it is equally good
at connecting us laterally---to peers, to
colleagues, and to strangers who share
our interests. When experts and power
players had something to communicate
to the attentive publics they wished to
address, they once had to go through the
media. Now they can go direct.
Because for a long time the media
industry was relatively stable and was the
setting in which journalism was prac-
ticed, we got into the habit of calling jour-
nalism the "news media," and then just
"the media." Journalism and the system
that carries it became equated.
In the 1970s and '80s, a number of
classics in press scholarship were writ-
ten by social scientists who went into
newsrooms to study how decisions were
made. They all observed that "routines"
drive what happens in journalism, and
that these routines ultimately served the
demands of a particular production cycle:
the daily newspaper, the 6 . . broadcast,
the monthly magazine.
Ideas about what journalism is---and
even what it can be---get trapped within
these routines as they become second
nature. What happens when the pro-
duction routine shifts radically, as with
the Web, and news producers confront
a di erent social pattern? Journalists
insist that their habitual practices are
not artifacts of a technological era but
the essence of good journalism. They
shouldn't do that, and they wouldn't, if
they understood what I said at the start:
journalism is not the media.
JAY ROSEN TEACHES JOURNALISM AT NEW YORK
Links Archive November December 2009 March April 2010 Navigation Previous Page Next Page