Since 1999, as a staff writer for New Yorker, Elizabeth Colbert informs us of our changing planetary science, the complex role humans have played in climate change and potential solutions for our future. I’ve spent decades on it.
Colbert travels the world in pursuit of these stories, writing countless essays and articles, and has published several famous books including the Pulitzer Prize-winning general non-fiction Pulitzer Prize-winning “The Sixth Extinction.” It has been published. The Washington Post was named her 2021 book, Under a White Sky. Colbert has also been awarded two National Magazine Awards, one National Academy Award and the BBVA Biophilia Environmental Communication Award.
Monday, February 24th, Colbert came to Columbia Climate School. Lectures on the Signature Speaker Series“Under the White Sky: Solargeo Engineering and Other Bright Ideas.” The planetary state is about her upcoming lecture, how she sees her role as a scientific reporter, and how she sees her career. Since starting out, I have spoken with Colbert about how he viewed the shifts he saw in the climate science public opinion.
How did you start as a science writer and journalist?
It’s a kind of long, winding story. I started as a newsman at the New York Times. For about 10 years, I was a political reporter of the era., It covers state and local governments. In 1999 I went to work for New Yorker and began to think about stories that would have longer shelf life than the latest political conflict. In 2001, I went to Greenland with the New York Air National Guard. The trip made a big impression on me and set me on the path to becoming a science writer.
You recently returned to Greenland with climate scientist Marco Tedesco. trip With a heartfelt essay New Yorker. What was that experience like, and has it changed your understanding of climate change that we see worldwide?
A trip to Greenland has always been a great experience. When Marco puts it in his work, it exerts a kind of spell. Reading about the changes taking place in the Arctic is one thing, and it’s completely different to see them for yourself and talk to people living through them. Marco and I visited Russell Glacier, one of Greenland’s most accessible glaciers. Even for non-experts like me, it was pretty clear how backwards it has been. You can see that where there used to be ice, now there is silt.
In “The White Sky Beneath” we discuss the human struggle to correct the very environmental crisis that helped them create. What was the important message of the book, and what attendees should expect to learn in your future Climate school Do you want to talk about the complex opportunities and obstacles that Geoengineering presents?
“Under the White Sky” is not exactly a book with a message. More “What is your message?” book. It brings the problem of seeing human intervention in nature, which often calls for new interventions. One example I am writing is the reversal of the Chicago River, aimed at solving the city’s sewage problem. Reversal had all sorts of unintended effects. For example, species exchanges between the Mississippi and the Great Lakes basin are now possible. These unintended consequences led to a new generation of monumental projects aimed at countering the initial impact.
This pattern raises many questions, and on its surface it seems difficult to maintain. How many interventions can you add on one side? At the same time, it is not clear that there are practical options at this point.
Geography engineering is the ultimate example of intervening in nature to counter previous interventions. It shows the pattern I just implied, and I think it shows where things are heading.
“Geoengineering is the ultimate example of intervening in nature to counter previous interventions… For better or worse, I think it shows where things are heading.”
You won the Pulitzer for the book “The Sixth Extinction.” This concerns mass extinction events caused by current human beings. Do you think such awards will help boost critical climate research and counter climate misinformation?
I think prizes like Pulitzer will let people read things that might not otherwise be. In that sense, yes, they counter misinformation. But as we see it, its effectiveness is limited.
Where do you think the media is lacking in climate science? Since you began your career, what has been the biggest change in science writing and public perception of journalism?
I think that the media coverage of climate science is comparable to the vaccine science coverage. If your readers/viewers want good information, there is plenty there. Unfortunately, many false alarms are also available. And to many people, misinformation seems more appealing.
Undoubtedly, attitudes towards science, and all other attitudes, are far more biased. I regret saying I’m not sure how to fight it. All I can do is try and keep the information there.
Elizabeth Colbert delivers: Lectures on the Signature Speaker Series Monday, February 24th, from 4pm to 6pm at the Columbia Climate School forum. The event is open to free.
