Several days before the last televised Republican presidential primary debate of 2015, virtually the total international community convened in Paris to address the fate of the world. The 195 nations in unprecedented fashion unanimously ended up agreeing to tackle arguably the most formidable challenge facing mankind--climate change.
Yet in the immediate aftermath of this historic occasion, the Republican debate participants were not asked the obvious question. If elected president, would they pull the United States out of the Paris accord and in all probability unravel the entire agreement?
In fact, during the course of the two-hour debate, there was not a single mention of climate change other than a fleeting sarcastic aside by John Kasich. The Ohio Governor briefly digressed from a diatribe on national security solely to deride President Obama for focusing in Paris on climate change rather than terrorism. (The president actually did address both topics while in the French capital).
CNN presided over the debate and chose to devote the entire proceedings exclusively to fear and terror. It was a shameless strategy to titillate viewers in order to build ratings. Republican candidates on the podium--all of them climate change deniers in varying degrees--were more than happy to cooperate.
Actually, the cable network's under-reporting of climate change was not unusual in the American media, especially against the backdrop of the 2016 national election.
Ironically, it has been a British newspaper, The Guardian, which has stepped into the breach with its American edition. It has provided the most extensive coverage of climate change, even in regard to the American political scene. The newspaper has assigned seven reporters to track down every angle on the climate-related beat, both in the United States and overseas. It is a staff supplemented by more than two dozen outside stringers. The newspaper also runs numerous articles promoting investor divestiture of oil stocks as impetus for keeping much of the remaining petroleum deposits in the ground to curb carbon emissions.
The Guardian seems impervious to the factors discouraging expansive American media coverage of climate change. These include the often incremental adverse pace of the phenomenon that does not lend itself to sensational headlines. Lifestyle changes to address climate change involve conservation and moderation that pose a potential threat to advertising revenue, the media's basic income stream. The fossil fuel industry is a major advertiser, which makes it tempting to erroneously dismiss wind, solar and other renewable energy sources as insufficiently advanced for mass application.
Finally, it is just human nature to turn away when challenges that lie ahead demand hard choices. Hints of apocalyptic outcomes in the face of inaction further scare off audiences.
The Guardian runs at least one feature on climate change every week come rain or come shine. Our media should follow suit for the edification of the American public and benefit of future generations. Done in a reasoned, responsible manner, the public will respond.