The end of the world as we know it?

The existential threats posed by climate change, pollution and environmental degradation have seen the emergence of environmental journalism, a field in which Jonathan Watts is a rising star. His recently published book “When a Billion Chinese Jump: How China Will Save Mankind or Destroy It” (Faber & Faber), an examination of the heavy price in terms of despoliation of land, air, water and other natural resources that China has paid for its helter-skelter development, has won very high praise. Watts is Asia environment correspondent for The Guardian and a former president of the Foreign Correspondents' Club of China and vice president of the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan. His multimedia career includes seven years in China, seven years in Japan, five trips to North Korea, the 2004 tsunami, the 2008 Tibetan unrest, the Sichuan earthquake and the Beijing Olympics. He has worked for the BBC, CNN, Mother Jones, The Christian Science Monitor, The South China Morning Post, The Daily Yomiuri and The Asahi Shimbun. Since taking his current post in 2009, he has covered the Copenhagen climate conference, renewable energy developments and more rubbish dumps than he cares to remember. IIJNM students interviewed him about reporting on the future of the planet.

Namrata Nandakumar:  There is no dearth of issues to cover when it comes to the environment. Unfortunately, certain issues, such as tiger conservation and global warming, seem to grab all the attention because of celebrity endorsements and the like. Do you feel that reading and talking about the environment is becoming trendy, but in a shallow way—more a fashion statement than an expression of genuine concern? If so, what is a journalist’s role in highlighting the not-so-sexy but equally important issues?

Jonathan Watts: Since I started this beat, I've come to think of the environment not so much as a subject, but as a way of looking at the world. It's a very different prism from economics or politics, but more fundamental than both. More people are starting to consider the environmental implications of their behavior as strains on resources and eco-systems become more apparent. You are right that much of the eco-babble is superficial and trendy, but there is more to it than that. These concerns won't go away until we have solved them, which does not look like happening anytime soon. A journalist's role is to identify the problems and scrutinize the potential solutions. That means tiger conservation and global warming, which stir up powerful emotions of sympathy and fear, but also scrutiny of issues closer to home, such as consumer habits, and less iconic topics, such as the demise of insects, reptiles and plants. 

Paul Richard Dharamraj: After the lukewarm response post-Copenhagen last year, do you think this year’s climate change summit in Cancun will produce any major or binding outcome?

Apologies for the late reply, but at least I can answer with the benefit of hindsight! The outcome from Cancun was as good as could be expected in the circumstances.  Progress has been made—particularly with regard to forests—and some of the bad blood and mistrust of Copenhagen has been put to rest. But there is a long way to go to secure a comprehensive binding agreement. The current set of pledges for emissions cuts falls significantly short of what scientists say is needed to keep the global temperature rise below 2 C—and even that may be too high.

PRD: Would you agree there is a general lack of global accountability in tackling climate change? How do you think this could be changed?

I agree. The problem is the weakness of the United Nations, a lack of trust among countries and the deep-rooted influence of the fossil-fuel industry. Beyond a new model of global government, which is not in sight, there is no quick fix. But incremental progress could be made with a rigorous system of monitoring and reporting. This, however, has proved a controversial sticking point.

PRD: In the context of your book on climate action and China, what part do you think India—the second-fastest growing Asian economy—will play in saving the world or destroying it?

I hope India can learn from the mistakes made by developed nations and by China. Humanity is living far beyond the planet's means and squeezing out other forms of life. Western consumer culture is economically and environmentally unhealthy. Humanity needs something different. China and India are more likely to provide an alternative. This is partly because of their different cultures and mostly because there is less scope for them to follow the same ruinous path now that resources are scarcer and waste is more expensive to deal with. I hope living standards continue to rise in India, but there should also be greater awareness of the risks of unhealthy growth and more focus on economic balance, leanness, biodiversity and reduced reliance on fossil fuels. 

Prabhu M.: Industrialization is hitting hard around the world. How do think carbon emissions can be controlled, and how is China tackling this challenge?

A solution requires action at several levels. Nations must coordinate their plans for emissions reductions at U.N. forums such as climate change talks. Businesses and scientists need to innovate attractive alternatives to the current sources of energy supply. Individuals can make an immediate impact by reducing their power consumption, cutting back waste and eating less meat. So far, the biggest impact has been made by the global economic crisis, which has trimmed emissions in the worst-hit, developed nations. China has adopted ambitious plans to reduce its dependency on fossil fuels mainly through supply-side engineering projects, such as hydroelectric dams and wind farms. But without trimming economic growth and material consumption, its emissions—already the biggest in the world—are likely to double before 2025. 

PM: There is mass urbanization in China. In this context, self-sufficiency in food grains will decrease, so should China depend on genetically engineered crops rather than importing food grains?

The government has been cautious about genetically engineered crops until now, but food pressures are growing for the reasons you outline along with declining soil quality and water strains. Grain prices are rising and imports would reduce self-sufficiency and potential vulnerability to trade disputes. Given these trends, I think it will be hard for China to resist GM crops if they are proven to substantially raise yields. But they should not rush as widespread adoption of GM rice and wheat would pose a major threat to biodiversity and eco-system maintenance.

PM: Despite China’s very strong economic growth, the World Bank estimates that 8-12 percent of China’s GDP will be eaten up due to the effects of pollution. What is your view on this scenario?

The World Bank and Chinese Ministry of Environmental Protection estimated in 2007 that the cost of pollution was equivalent to about 5.6 percent of GDP. This figure is disputed, but it is very clear that much of the costs of pollution and other negative environmental impacts do not appear on corporate or national balance sheets. This defrauds future generations, who will eventually have to pay. It is essential that more of these externalities are factored into economic calculations as soon as possible.

Mattia Michielan:  How many environment-related articles do you write in a typical month?

I guess the average is about a dozen stories a month, and a video every two or three months.

MM: Do you think Asia offers more job opportunities for environment journalists than Europe?

It offers different opportunities. I think Asia is a good place to see the consequences. But Europe is better to report on the causes.

MM: What tips would you give to someone like me looking to become an environment journalist?

Be determined and nimble. There is no clear route into this field, which is changing fast. My job did not exist two years ago. Who can tell what the media and environmental landscape will look like two years from now? But you can widen your chances by building a strong skill-set in terms of languages, multi-media abilities and knowledge of the key issues. I have heard of universities in the U.S. that offer specialized courses. But nothing beats experience and contacts, so try to do as much relevant freelance work as possible before applying for posts.

Ananda Siddhartha: From your experience, do you think it is possible for countries to take measures in cutting emissions and proceed towards a more sustainable world? If not, why? 

Many people are trying, but it is a monumentally difficult task for the reasons I have outlined above. I am pessimistic, but not without hope. I don’t think we can rely on politicians. They key has to be a change in common values—through education, religion and economics. I don’t think this will happen by choice, but growing environmental pressures, conflicts and shortages will force people to value nature more and expect less.

AS: Will China take concrete steps to cut its emissions?

It is doing a great deal to reduce carbon intensity, but unless there is an economic meltdown, I doubt that actual cuts will be possible before 2025 and possibly long after that.

AS: There seems to be a growing disconnect between people in the big metropolises and nature. In what way can the media help in highlighting this problem?

This is crucial topic. Globalization distances people in wealthy nations from the consequences of their consumption. Urbanization does much the same thing. Air conditioning isolates us from the impact of climate change. Yet most of the world's biggest decisions are made by wealthy urbanites in air-conditioned offices, conference halls and shopping malls. One role of the media—and NGOs—is to close that gap by drawing attention to what is happening in the world outside these comfort zones.

AS: There is one question that has been bothering me for quite a while now. Tribal peoples all over the world have lived in harmony with nature for thousands of years. However, in recent years modern “civilized” peoples have made it impossible for them to continue with this style of living. I would like to know what you feel about this issue. Also, how this issue can be highlighted in the media.

This is another key issue. I have a horrible feeling that the demise of indigenous groups is the result of a self-destruct gene in human DNA. Communities that live in harmony with nature are, almost by definition, peaceful. Those that destroy their own environments tend to be aggressive and forced to invade other lands. The latter are almost always better warriors because their survival is based on conquest, not sustainability. This carbon-fueled, capital-financed model of conquest that started in my country (Britain) 200-odd years ago was the most unsustainable and powerful model of expansion ever seen, but there is no longer much of the Earth left to conquer. Either "civilisation" changes or we will be forced to turn on ourselves. 

Other Journo Speak articles...

New Yorker staff writer e-chats
with Magazine Writing students

Good page design is no accident

How to stand out in the crowd

Tokyo blogger shares secrets of his trade

‘E-books are democracy in action’

How to stay sane when the world goes mad

Many people tell me ki what I write is exactly what happens in their life

Indian journalism needs quality wars, not ad wars

Wear your biases on your sleeve as badges of pride

Reasons to be cheerful?

The brave new world of multimedia journalism

A peep behind the facade of a Potemkin village

How reporters, news organizations can leverage social media