It’s been 27 months since I first came up with the idea of an environmental journalism seminar. I was taking part in the M100 Youth Media Workshop, practically overwhelmed with that basic idea of bringing together young people sharing a common interest from a number of countries to work together for a few days.
It was probably the first time that I was struck with the continuous narrow-minding process back home. After a few backpacking trips, it certainly wasn’t my first time meeting up with people from different countries. But it was that sense of cross-border cooperation – networking, if you will – that made me realize how badly this kind of multi-national gatherings are needed, and especially when it comes to issues like environment.
So, I sat to formulate the general guidelines, the core concept of The Green Ink and emailed it to the then Secretary General of the European Youth Press who, back at the M100 workshop, had called for ideas for such projects.
But I never heard from her. It took quite a while until I got a response from one guy “appointed by EYP” to join me in developing and implementing the Green Ink, and so we did. During all this time I had the chance to work on this project with a number of people from either the EYP or its member organizations – and I’m totally thankful for their truly kind help on this adventure.
But I also gradually realized that once I’m out of the picture – the Green Ink fades away. The EYP and the project’s other partners, I came to understand, are apparently not really as enthusiastic as I’ve been – for a reason still unclear to me.
Nevertheless, other trainings I’ve attended through the course of these two years strongly enhanced my feeling that this kind of project is not only needed, but also very possible. And keen enough on it, the Green Ink has been shaped and reshaped time and time again. The concept paper went through ten drafts until its final form as an “Environmental journalism seminar for young Euro-Med journalists” aside the Trondheim Conference on Biodiversity, planned to be held in the Norwegian city in early February.
It took several hundreds of emails and phone calls across four continents: to UNEP headquarters in Kenya, Conservation International in the US, the Budapest office of CEEweb, the Cairo-based Arab Media Forum for Environment and Development and many others.
In fact, the majority of the organizations we contacted (not including those mentioned above) never responded. Those who did were indeed supportive and encouraging, but in none of the cases it was translated into the vital financial contribution. I’m tempted to say it somehow reflects the global lack of interest in the deteriorating state of our environment. The economic meltdown (or its virtual echoes) might also be a reason. But that would be too easy. Even if these two contexts had some part in the outcome, I take full responsibility for simply not making it.
After spending countless days, energy as well as my own private money, this journey now comes to an end. Failing to mobilize the funding required to materializing this project (31,700 Euro), I came to the decision that even though I still sincerely believe this is an utterly important initiative, it’s time for me to conclude this phase and move on.
But I can’t say it was for nothing. This journey led me to meet some truly dear people who left their unique mark on the project (I’d like to particularly thank Maria for being super helpful and ultra-optimistic through the past few months). I also got to learn a great deal about numerous organizations worldwide working on environment, journalism, youth, Euro-Med and various combinations of these. Additionally, I had my lesson about knowing my own capabilities (and fundraising is apparently not one of them) and about volunteering (which cannot serve as a base of operations).
Frankly, in the course of these two years I’ve already announced twice before that I’m abandoning this project. There won’t be a fourth time, but I’d still be glad to see this seminar happening. Anyone willing to stand up to the challenge can find the last draft of the concept paper here [PDF].
Totally naïve, plain stupid – you decide – but I’m head on for the next project, whatever that would be. Maybe just a bit more modest this time.
And now to the forecast: Due to a rhetoric high pressure over Copenhagen, we are nowadays witnessing the peak of global word emissions, expected to freefall by Christmas time.
The impacts of climate change are indeed very evident already. In the past few months, green talk has been flooding the media all over the world, building up to the UN Climate Change Conference now taking place in the Danish capital.
Countless journalists – along with scientists, activists and whoever else concerned with climate change – are flocking in the city in hope that stakeholders do the right thing (even though there are probably as many different definitions for that “right thing”).
Indeed, the issue of climate change has been receiving unprecedented attention in recent months (with the best proof being the counter-movement of the climate skeptics and its peak show the so-called “climate-gate” of the hacked emails), and there have been numerous different campaigns and reports addressing the equally numerous aspects of climate change, its causes, impacts and solutions.
But one has to wonder whether this – truly urgent – call for action has actually been effective. Basing on previous examples – from the Kyoto Protocol crippling implementation to world leaders failing to meet the Bali Road Map deadline at Copenhagen – the pledges to be formally made by the end of the COP-15 summit cannot be really considered a reliable indicator for success.
It’s certainly possible that progress on certain issues – for example, deforestation – will eventually be made in the current round of talks. The optimistic ones would refer to the statements that a final, legally-binding deal will be sealed in half a year.
This move could keep the climate buzz going. But at the same time it could also clear the climate debate off the media and public agenda once the curtain falls on the Copenhagen meeting.
There’s nothing in IPCC reports or any other climate research about a catastrophe to happen on December 19, when thousands of foreign visitors start leaving the Danish capital. However, failing to see the unfolding, dangerous consequences of climate change all over the world, most media outlets will probably abandon the focus they’ve put on the issue until now.
On one hand, it’s only natural that the media clings to one timely event and then moves on to the rest of the daily happenings. On the other hand, there are certain topics that get ongoing comprehensive coverage by certain media. In Israel, there’s no single day without a handful of different items related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In Germany, whenever you open a newspaper you’re most likely to spot at least five news – yes, news – items somehow related to World War II.
Climate change certainly meets the same criteria of a continuously unfolding, complex story, and indeed some well-established publications – like the Guardian – have already recognized that.
From the Israeli point of view, Israel – many people believe – will/doesn’t feel climate change implications too much. Or, more precisely, it’d be too difficult to attribute what we see here to global climatic processes. It simply isn’t as perceptible as our regional conflict, and therefore climate change (much like most environmental issues) is too often considered more of a luxury concern.
Moreover, Israel isn’t one of the developing countries that climate change jeopardizes their very existences (such as the Maldives, Kiribati and other small island states).
Also (and beyond Israel’s truly tiny contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions), Israel – too many Israelis, and policymakers among them, like to thing – will always somehow manage. After all, we went through Pharaoh, so we’ll get through this, too.
Apart from a few news websites, the Israeli media coverage of the Copenhagen summit [H] exactly reflects this kind of notion. Maariv, it should be noted, joined The Guardian’s collaborative editorial initiative on Copenhagen’s first day. And Maariv’s internet outreach, NRG, is indeed one of the more active media covering the international conference. But while justly criticizing [H] the Prime Minister’s embarrassing indecisiveness regarding the trip to Denmark (and its cancelation), it’s probably as embarrassing to realize that out of the approximately 5000 accredited journalists in Copenhagen, only one is there on behalf of an Israeli newspaper (and it’s not Maariv).
But even if there will be a few more reporters coming on board the President’s airplane later this week, don’t expect climate change issues to hit Israeli headlines afterwards – unless a legally binding agreement entails the state with some serious economic implications.
But this is not an Israeli endemic illness. It’s actually more of a pandemic, and just as part of the western lifestyle, the shallow media coverage of climate change issues is simply unsustainable. It’s not only the ecological footprint of green preachers themselves (and the daily mass print of newspapers is an honorable contributor), but the perilously compromising reporting that many uninformed journalists think we can afford, thus practically saying apres moi le deluge.
