Censored 2016 argued that the story of the “ ‘Most Comprehensive’ Assessment Yet Warns against Geoengineering Risks” was ignored by the corporate press. The story came from articles published in February and March 2015 by Tim McDonnell of Mother Jones, Robinson Meyer of the Atlantic, and Jeremy Schulman, of Mother Jones. The story focused on the debate surrounding geoengineering and what role it plays, if any, in reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The story is significant because geoengineering has been championed as a solution to the impending crisis of climate change. Since April of 2015, the corporate press has ignored “‘Most Comprehensive’ Assessment Yet Warns against Geoengineering Risks.” However, the independent press has covered the story.
Censored 2016 argued that “‘Most Comprehensive’ Assessment Yet Warns against Geoengineering Risks” was ignored by the corporate press. The story was based on two National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reports which outlined the risks of geoengineering as a proposed solution to climate change. Geoengineering is defined as the “technological efforts to counteract global warming by altering the atmosphere’s chemical composition.” The reports found that in the short term, simply planting trees is more effective than geoenginerring proposals. The problem is that geoengineering proposals are too expensive and large scale to ever actually accomplish their stated goals. Thus, precious time is wasted on geoengineering which allows the climate crises to worsen.
Since April of 2015, the corporate news coverage of “’Most Comprehensive’ Assessment Yet Warns against Geoengineering Risks,” has been scant. The story was covered by the online publication Slate Magazine, a subsidiary of Nashin holdings which also owns the Washington Post. The January 2016 article written by Christophe Jospe was titled “The Good, Bad, and Ugly Approaches to Geoengineering.” Jospe provided a very balanced approach of the debate concerning geoengineering. Since April 2015, Slate has ran a slew of articles focused on the effectiveness (article 1) of geoengineering and the reason why Hollywood science fiction films ignore it. However, their sister company the Washington Post released an article that criticized the National Academy’s report. They argued that cost should not get in the way and the country should move forward with geoengineering now rather than wait.
Since April of 2015, the independent news coverage of ’Most Comprehensive’ Assessment Yet Warns against Geoengineering Risks,” has been extensive. The independent coverage has focused on the debates concerning the actual implementation of geoengineering and its impact (article 2, article 3) on climate change. Other, mostly conservative independent outlets, have focused on the economic costs of geo-engineering. Given the implications to the future of human existence this is a story that needs to be covered more extensively.
Censored 2016 argued that “ ‘Most Comprehensive’ Assessment Yet Warns against Geoengineering Risks” was ignored by the corporate press. Since April of 2015, the corporate press has ignored “‘Most Comprehensive’ Assessment Yet Warns against Geoengineering Risks.” However, the independent press has covered the story. However, The independent coverage has focused on the debates concerning the actual implementation of geoengineering, its impact (article 2, article 3) and economic costs.
Student Researcher: Goody O’Brien Walowit
Faculty Evaluator: Nolan Higdon
California State University, Maritime Academy
Student Editor: Justin Lascano (Diablo Valley College)
