I ran across an article by environmentalist David Suzuki which illustrates perfectly the structure of so much editorial writing today. As you know, the world is full of apparently insurmountable problems. More and more, we see concerned people urging us to address those problems before it's too late. Such writing almost invariably displays a very specific structure which illuminates where our species stands in the 21st century.
Suzuki's Huffington Post editorial (Canada) is called Putting Climate Change in the Budget Now Will Save Lives and Money. The title itself tells us what's up. Before I get into the details, I want to emphasize that I am not ridiculing Suzuki, whose opening paragraph telegraphs where he stands.
The failure of world leaders to act on the critical issue of global warming is often blamed on economic considerations. Over and over, we hear politicians say they can't spend our tax dollars on environmental protection when the economy is so fragile. Putting aside the absurdity of prioritizing a human-created and adaptable tool like the economy over caring for everything that allows us to survive and be healthy, let's take a look at the economic reality.
The word "absurdity" tells us everything we need to know, but Suzuki "puts [the absurdity] aside." Economic considersations are of course the main reason humans will never do anything about climate change, but Suzuki aims to dispute this hard, non-negotiable truth in his editorial.
Standard editorial writing is structured as follows—
Part I — There is some very bad news.
Part II — An alternative exists which you would be wise not to ignore, and here's some more bad news in case you've missed the point.
Part III — There are things we can do and we {should, must, have to, ought to, need to} do them now.
Let's go through Suzuki's editorial part by part.
Very Bad News
A new scientific report concludes that climate change is already costing the world $1.2 trillion a year and is eating up 1.6 per cent of global GDP, and rising. It's also killing at least 400,000 people every year, mainly in developing countries. That's not counting the 4.5-million people a year who die from air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels.
As Michael Zammit Cutajar, former executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, told the Guardian: "Climate change is not just a distant threat but a present danger — its economic impact is already with us."
But we're to believe that corporate profits, ever-increasing growth, consumer culture, disposable products and often meaningless jobs to keep it all going are more important than the health and survival of humans and other species, and true long-term economic prosperity.
The bad news is made explicit here—global warming is already adversely affecting human economies. This problem will get worse over time. Note the important reference to "true long-term economic prosperity."
The Alternative, More Bad News
The report, "Climate Vulnerability Monitor: A Guide to the Cold Calculus of a Hot Planet," was compiled by 50 scientists, economists and experts for the Europe-based non-governmental organization DARA and 20 countries that joined to form the Climate Vulnerable Forum.
As stated in the preface, it "challenges a conventional view: that global action on climate change is a cost to society. Instead, it enlightens our understanding of how tackling climate change through coordinated efforts between nations would actually produce much-needed benefits for all."
The report's authors also conclude that the challenges of global poverty and climate change "can be tackled simultaneously with the same policy framework that would shift our development path to a low-carbon footing," creating "jobs, investment opportunities, new possibilities for international cooperation and technological deployment to the benefit of all."
Win-win! If we tackle climate change now, we would get "much-needed benefits for all," including jobs, investment opportunities and all the rest. Switching to a "low-carbon footing" would not cause Industrial Civilization to collapse. That's merely an unsubstantiated rumor being spread around by people like me
In short, we have a viable alternative future. More importantly, outside of tackling climate change, there's no apparent need for you to change your behavior. Those jobs and investment opportunities will support expanding human populations and economies. It's more Business-As-Usual, with a twist. Don't worry!
(Sorry about the sarcasm. I said I would not make fun of Suzuki. But Part II of the standard editorial is always where you find the most egregious bullshit. Mea culpa. Suzuki may have known he is bullshitting us in this editorial but I don't know; I'd have to talk to him. Watch the bonus video below.)
And here's some more bad news in case you're asleep at the switch.
Although the researchers note that adaptation must be part of any climate change strategy, they caution that "treating only the symptoms but not the cause of the climate crisis would result in spectacular economic losses for the world economy."
It shouldn't be surprising to realize that using finite resources in a wasteful manner and at a pace much faster than the Earth's ability to replenish them is economic folly. Nor should we be surprised to learn that polluting, damaging and destroying the natural systems that keep us alive and healthy will not be good for our long-term prosperity, economic or otherwise.
This text warns about unrestrained growth on a finite planet. Such growth is not sustainable—we're using finite resources faster than the Earth's ability to replenish them. This text contradicts the message we received in Part II, which referred to putting a halt to climate-induced economic losses, more jobs and new investment opportunities. This kind of incoherence is common.
Rapid population growth and technological innovation, combined with our lack of understanding about how the natural systems of which we are a part work, have created a mess. We have altered the physical, chemical and biological properties of the planet on a geological scale. We have left no part of the globe untouched. French scientists who recently completed a two-and-half-year journey covering more than 112,000 kilometres through the Atlantic, Pacific, Antarctic and Indian oceans found plastic debris in a remote ocean area that was thought to be pristine.
Researchers on the boat Tara, who were studying the effects of climate change on marine ecosystems and biodiversity, found plastic fragments in the Southern Ocean and Antarctica at levels comparable to the global average. "The fact that we found these plastics is a sign that the reach of human beings is truly planetary in scale," said Chris Bowler, scientific co-ordinator of Tara Oceans, quoted in the Guardian. It also reminds us that we live on a planet where everything is connected.
There's bad news everywhere you look. It's not just global warming; the whole planet is polluted. The world's oceans have become a waste dump, even the Southern Ocean where humans are scarce.
Here's What We Need To Do
We must learn to shift our ways of thinking. We have to stop using so many disposable plastic items and fossil fuels. We need to conserve resources and energy and stop being so destructive. The DARA report offers many recommendations for governments, policy-makers, civil society, the private sector and the international development and humanitarian communities.
Its advice for communicators applies to all of us: question received wisdom, recognize awareness of risks as an opportunity and take a stand.
Economies must function to serve people, not just short-sighted and often-destructive corporate interests.
Note the language—must, have to, need to, and so on.
That last sentence refers to "corporate interests." It implies that it is only such interests that are preventing our doing something about climate change and other problems (e.g. plastic in the oceans). That's not nearly the whole story, but I don't want to open up that can of worms today.
DOTE Post Structure
I will finish up by contrasting typical DOTE post structure with standard editorial structure. Here we go—
Part I — There is some very bad news.
Part II — Here's some bad news about the bad news—humans are not likely to do anything about the serious problem introduced and explained in Part I. Various insights, obstacles to change and sarcastic or darkly humorous remarks are usually included in this section. Sometimes I include little smilies
![]()
Part III — The bottom line? There's no happy ending to this story! Give it up! Tough luck! Looks bad! We're truly fucked! This is it, end of the line! We can't have our cake and eat it too! Do the best you can! Save yourself!
These conclusions f0llow from the nature of the problem (part I) and a good-enough understanding of the Human Condition (part II).
I hope you got some insights today about how the world works. And on that note, I will conclude this post.
Have a nice weekend.
Bonus Video — David Suzuki "wants to celebrate Homo sapiens as a species."
The little smilies really help.
Also, I think you can go ahead and ridicule David Suzuki, who had 5 kids despite his conviction that "...there are too many of us...".
Posted by: Gail | 10/12/2012 at 11:38 AM