‘Report the best available version of the truth’: UW hosts panel of engineers, journalists on climate change solutions

The University of Wisconsin held a panel discussion, “Beyond 1.5 Degrees C: Covering Controversial Climate Solutions,” on April 17 at Memorial Union. The panel combined the expertise of journalism and engineers, culminating in a conversation considering the state of science journalism under this presidential administration.

Climate coverage is more important than ever as the world continues to approach the 1.5 degrees Celsius warming mark, 74th Sharon Dunwoody Science Journalist in Residence Alec Luhn said. Even under the best-case scenario with all implemented policies, Earth is set to reach 3 degrees of warming by 2025, according to a recent United Nations study.

“Every couple of years, say that it is no longer enough to do emissions reductions, we know that wind and solar is good, but we need to come up with additional kinds of fixes like carbon dioxide removal to keep the world livable for future generations,” Luhn said.

The delicates of reporting on potential climate change solutions have become amplified under the Trump administration, Editor-in-Chief of Floodlight Dee Hall said.

The funding of climate change initiatives, as with other scientific research, has become uncertain under the Trump administration, according to NPR.

It is vital that science journalists continue to report the truth, presenting criticisms of potential solutions without deterring the public’s sentiment towards the solution, Hall said.

She said it is important to understand that science reporting can be a factor that pushes research away from or towards funding, especially within the new administration.

“We must report the best available version of the truth,” Hall said. 

With a menu of new climate research and solutions for journalists to choose from, it is imperative climate journalism works to unite its audience on how these solutions should be funded, through government or otherwise. 

Unification becomes difficult when not fully vetted, faulty or non-scalable research is given extensive coverage, leaving the ‘tried and true’ solutions to lose their luster and marketability, Luhn said.