On Tuesday night, ABC News aired a two-hour special called Earth 2100, describing the potentially apocalyptic scene that could await us at the end of the century.
The network abandoned cautious storytelling, opting instead to portray “the worst-case scenario for human civilization… if we fail to seriously address the complex problem of climate change, resource depletion and overpopulation,” as executive producer Michael Bicks described it on ABC’s Web site.
The program, which attracted nearly 3.7 million viewers, according to Nielsen, wove comics-style illustrations of a ruined landscape, the fictional life story of a woman named Lucy living in said landscape, and interviews from some of the world’s leading climate experts.
Online message boards and list-servs soon erupted with questions about the scientific validity of Earth 2100’s predictions and the overall effectiveness of the show. Many viewers were weary of the shock-factor incorporated into the story—constant war, pandemics, food shortages, etc. While many climate scientists agree that these are distinct possibilities for the future, there is very little consensus about the timing, severity, and location of these outcomes. As such, several commenters cried “fear mongering.”
With ABC posing hyperbolic and truly unhelpful questions such as, “Is this the final century of our civilization,” that is fair criticism. To its credit, however, the network posted annotated transcripts (an excellent technique that also been employed by Climate Central, which contributes to the News Hour) of the program explaining the sources for each prediction, scenario, and statement.
“The scenarios in Earth 2100 are not a prediction of what will happen but rather a warning about what might happen,” Bicks wrote on the ABC News Web site. “Though there is some disagreement about the specifics, there is a widespread agreement… that if we do not change course in the near future, the collapse of our civilization is a real possibility.”
Those caveats must have allayed some criticism as, all in all, most viewers seemed to have had relatively positive reactions to the broadcast. Comment boards on both the ABC News Web site and other media sites noted the effectiveness and creativity of using illustrations and a fictional character to depict the climate predictions. Several posters pleaded to know when the program would be re-aired or put online in its entirety. Still others congratulated ABC for devoting a two-hour, prime-time spot to the issue.
The media has been relatively quiet about the program. Other than some initial advertising for Earth 2100 in entertainment sections and green blogs, the conversation about the broadcast has been almost entirely limited to online comment boards.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Earth 2100 has been its evolution over the past few years. According to project’s original press release, Earth 2100 was meant to be an “unprecedented television and Internet event.” The key word there is Internet. ABC originally launched Earth 2100 as a “crowd sourcing” project where ABC viewers could submit personal videos online about what they thought life would be like in 2015, 2050, and 2100. The idea was then to cobble that together into Web-based, narrative description of the consequences of population growth, resource depletion, and climate change for society and the planet. The project’s original Web site (which has been disabled, unfortunately) centered on an interactive map where visitors could watch video stories from contributors around the world.
Last summer and fall, users slowly began to post submissions on the Web site, most of which contained camera footage reminiscent of The Blair Witch Project. Then came the delays. Originally, Earth 2100 was set to air in September 2008. Then ABC pushed it back until Spring 2009 (which, Bicks explained when CJR first contacted him in April, was due to personal reasons). Now, over a year after the project’s first call for video submissions, Earth 2100 went from an innovative, interactive multimedia event to a more typical television news special.
This raises an interesting question: Does the failure of Earth 2100’s Web-based, community journalism experiment represent the limitations of the seemingly limitless world of multimedia/Internet reporting? If so, was it the subject matter or the scope of the effort that got ABC into trouble? We’d love to hear your thoughts.
The ABC Special, “Earth 2100” is a brilliant exercise in contingency thinking.
To paraphrase the program producer, To avoid the worst, you should plan for it – or at the very least you must consider the possibilities.
After 9/11, it was commonly remarked how “unimaginable” this act of terror had been. Yet, in retrospect we know that our government agencies responsible for risk assessment in defense of the nation need only have looked to recent popular fiction to gain insights to potential threats. In the 1994 Tom Clancy novel, Debt of Honor, a pilot flies his Boeing 747 directly into the U.S. Capitol building during a joint session of Congress. In March 2001 a pilot TV series, The Lone Gunmen, was broadcast on FOX – in which screenwriter Chris Carter (writer and producer of The X-Files) imagined a plot in which a 747 jetliner leaving Boston hijacked with the intention of crashing it into the World Trade Center.
Clearly, there is value in considering a broad range of future possibilities in evaluating contingent courses of action. And the more these possibilities are informed by scientific fact, the higher their value. This follows the long-lost practice of Scenario Planning – from back in the days when a few corporations had the intelligence and ability to engage in long-term planning.
Beginning in the early 1970’s, Scenario Planning was used by Royal Dutch Shell as a tool for long-range strategic analysis. By considering multiple future scenarios, planners were freed from the blinders of expecting a future that follows in a single straight line from the present. They developed a more flexible mindset that enabled them to recognize when shifting conditions demand new and different responses. These practices were briefly emulated by a other companies. However, in the subsequent era of increasingly short-sighted corporate thinking, the use of scenarios or any other kind of forward looking methodologies virtually disappeared (as reported in a 2005 California Management Review article by Cornelius, Putte and Romani, "Three Decades of Scenario Planning in Shell").
In the days after Katrina, Bush administration officials said the scope of the hurricane’s damage could not have been anticipated. But, the very day that Katrina made landfall, Al Gore was scheduled to arrive in New Orleans for a meeting with the annual National Association of Insurance Commissioners. In keeping with the business mission and core actuarial skills of the insurance industry, this group was prepared to present their sober assessment, based on expert research, that global climate change was contributing to the increasingly serious economic risks arising from the growing frequency and severity of hurricanes.
These are recent, past reminders that we must at least consider the possibilities ...
#1 Posted by David Hobbs, CJR on Fri 5 Jun 2009 at 05:26 PM
I am shocked, simply shocked that "Earth 2100" chose to show a "long tail" extreme of possible outcomes. However, I guess they decided that showing a milder outcome with slightly warmer temperatures resulting in milder winters would not draw as many advertisers. And David Hobbs, will I agree with the need for assessment and contingency planning, I am not sure how this "Blair Witch" climate project qualifies.
I also find it ironic you finish with the hurricane example. After 2005, there was a tremendous increase in the press of the potential for violent hurricane seasons to follow; a hurricane out of smokestack was the label for "An Inconvenient Truth"....and, of course, there was a decrease, not an increase, in hurricane activity.
Perspective is an important part of assessment, as it allows you separate signal from noise. This show was clearly noise.
#2 Posted by Henry Buttal, CJR on Mon 8 Jun 2009 at 12:20 AM
I do wish the entire program was available online, rather than just snippets.
(while the I-think-entire transcript _is_ available, video has a lot more impact, for most.)
There are people I'd want to send the URL to.
:-}
#3 Posted by Anna Haynes, CJR on Tue 9 Jun 2009 at 07:40 PM
I believe there's a distinction that needs to be made between "news" and "advocacy journalism," aka propaganda. Unfortunately, "Earth 2100" falls firmly into the latter category.
Significant SCIENTIFIC evidence exists that anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is not nearly as severe as the Gore climate change fanatics have been claiming, and that the science is far from "settled", as Gore arrogantly claims.
BTW, since when is science ever "settled?" Isn't the whole point of science to continue to question and test theories to see if they are valid?
If the science were truly "settled" regarding gravity, for example, we wouldn't have the study of quantum physics.
To say that AGW is "settled" makes me think that it's based more on blind faith or adherence to an ideology than it is to real "science." Why else would these atmospheric "scientists" not want to tackle the evidence that MARS' ice caps are melting at the same rate that Earth's are?
I'm sure that our activity here on Earth has a lot to do with THAT.
#4 Posted by Steve Shute, CJR on Thu 18 Jun 2009 at 10:49 AM
Hi CJR: Thanks for the thoughtful write up of Earth 2100.
To address your direct question, on an effective means to work crowd-sourcing into reporting on global warming: As the editor of a blog about climate change, globalwarming.change.org, and a long-time online moderator and journalist, I've given this some thought.
Happening-driven journalism is often a productive way to get citizen witnesses involved in reporting. Witness the post-election protests in Tehran. But as a journalist, one doesn't want to over-hype the connection between a particular hurricane or drought, say, and global warming, because attributing one particular event to the changing climate is scientifically almost impossible.
Then again, just to cite the most obvious example, Hurricane Katrina and its aftermaths (human-propelled and natural) really exemplify what we probably have to look forward to in the coming century's climate disruptions -- environmental refugees, affordable housing crises, wrecked infrastructure, unprepared government agencies, and the divide between the impoverished and the better off in terms of who suffers the most.
One could encourage citizen contributions from such events, while always making the scientific disclaimer; but that could get a bit tedious.
A partial answer may lie in pro/am collaborations on solutions, on positive actions people are taking. Witness the popularity of DIY blogs and web sites like Instructables, Make, Craft...the growing number of urban homesteading, frugality and "self-sufficiency" blogs...
#5 Posted by Emily Gertz, CJR on Mon 22 Jun 2009 at 01:58 PM
I thought that "Earth 2100" was well made and entertaining. Putting it in the perspective of somebody born on the day of the broadcast gave it a feel of immediate effect. Some of us have siblings or children or grandchildren that were born that week. For that reason we know that people we love could be effected. Yes it was a little sensationalist, but they did say several times that this was a worst case scenario. Personally I think that once the oil stopped flowing agricultural production would drop and the population would soon follow. This makes the occurrence of the plague far less likely. With the timescales they are talking about it is imposable to look at every variable. What would make it less sensational? If New York didn't flood everything would still suck, same if the plague didn't happen. As for many of the other things we are seeing the beginnings of much of that now. Overall I think the program was well made and its intent was to make people think and talk more than to scare them.
@ Steve Shute
I have been reading up on many astronomical journals over the last several years for my minor and I have never seen anything that indicates that the martian ice caps are melting. The surface temperature has only gone above -5 C twice in the last ten years. Every article that talks about warming on the martian surface points to the dust storms on the surface as the major cause. In the 70s and 80s storms were known to cover the whole planet and last for up to 15 months. In the last few years there have been fewer storms, and the ones that did occur didn't last very long (2-3 moths). Fewer particulates in the air means that more sunlight gets through and the temp goes up a little. At least that is what the information I have read is saying.
#6 Posted by Colin W., CJR on Fri 26 Jun 2009 at 09:34 PM
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist SaysKate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
February 28, 2007
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.
Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)
Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.
In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.
Solar Cycles
Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.
Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.
"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.
By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.
Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.
[ of couse not - Climate Change has become an Industry unto itself - 'budgets' need to grow to feed it - not diminish ]
"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.
"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].)
[see: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/the_ipcc_should_leave_science.html - The IPCC Should Leave Science to Scientists ]
Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."
Planets' Wobbles
The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.
"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)
All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.
These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.
Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.
"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and h
#7 Posted by J Francis, CJR on Wed 9 Dec 2009 at 01:47 AM