Climate change is very implicit in the context of the article, even if not explicitly stated.
Was the article incorrect in any specific way? If that is the case, I would love to know where it was wrong, specifically.
If the point isn't to talk about climate change there isn't much to this article. Australia frequently experiences droughts. They are taken with a high quality camera but all the photos are basically classic Australian bush scenes.
Sure there is. The article talks about non-climate-change human impacts, like the use of upstream water for irrigation. There's discussion to be had around that.
However the article is a puff piece and is at best alluding vaguely to those more interesting issues. It is only inspiring discussion of them as people are trying to find lenses to interpret it that aren't climate related. It'd be lovely if HN suddenly decided to take a deep interest in irrigation systems but I'll wait for a few more articles on the subject to hit the front page before I start believing it. The comment threads look more like we are playing a game of finding links that aren't climate related.
As an Australian, it baffles me that we're trying to grow cotton and rice in the desert. I personally don't believe that farmers who make poor business decisions should be consistently bailed out by the government. I'd rather we pay for research into drought resistant crops, growing the right produce in the right climates, and failing that, retraining farmers and agri workers into new industries like solar. Lots of sun, not much water.
> At Menindee, 830 km west of Sydney, despair has turned to anger as residents
> blame the government for exacerbating the drought by drawing down river water
> in 2017 for irrigation and other uses downstream.
When the stakes are so high, where we are literally risking the future of the human race, I'd definitely lean towards the side of action and change even if they sensationalize some facts sometimes in order to motivate change in others.
The problem is that reporting on both sides is garbage laden with misunderstandings and outright lies. This fuels the anti-climate movement, especially when it's coming from the 'pro' side like in this case.
I've been ringing bells about catastrophic climate change since the early 00s after being involved in a relevant research project, I'm the polar opposite of a denier, but the way that even 'pro climate change' media covers the topic is harmful to actually conveying it to the public because the media wants to put hyperbole on everything.
When the media over-stimulates the public by exaggerating every little thing to a BIG DEAL, the public becomes non-responsive to actual BIG DEAL issues.
This actively hinders action to manage catastrophic climate change. This is the same as the CIA handbook tactic to redirect activist movements to ineffective causes so that they're too activism-fatigued to act on an effective cause when one is presented.
Is there a network of climate change science think tanks dedicated to framing the climate change debate in a way that benefits the climate change community?
Do climate scientists run social media "consultancies" to make a pro-climate change case on the major social platforms and smaller forums?
If any of the above happen - questionable, but let's pretend - they're at tiny outlier scale compared to the organised lies, smears, denial and general FUD put out by the denialist corporates.
You say you've been warning about catastrophic climate change since the early 00s. What in your opinion would be the best way to counter climate denial PR?
Because clearly simply informing the public of the facts isn't going to do anything against the noise being made by the denialist side.
With education. And with a factual description of the problem and the available solutions. With outright rejection of denialism. With rejection of feelgood non-activism like plastic straw bans and tree-planting measures. Don't get me wrong, those things are good and a step in the right direction, but they're far too little far too late compared to what must be done, and so they're inactivism that wastes public energy on measures that don't move the needle in addressing the problem.
This doesn't even fly with 'enlightened' crowds like HN out of the box because they'll tend to kneejerk about things like nuclear power + electrochemical CO2 sequestration despite it being the only realistic option to dig ourselves out of the hole we're in. Worth noting that the mainstream crowds in China/Russia are a lot more pragmatic about this than AU/UK/US.
I'm pretty sure this comment is going to be downvoted just for mentioning it, but I'll drop it anyway to genuinely answer your question. A lot of the folk I know in the field have basically given up hope to avert this and become gloom and doom in the last 5 years, including people you would've seen on TV at the Paris Accords. They are probably right. It's pretty depressing info to handle. I'm sorry I don't have a better answer, but people much smarter than me don't seem to have one either.
tl;dr: Like Bill Gates puts it, misdirected climate activists are actually a bigger problem than climate deniers at this point.
"At Menindee, 830 km west of Sydney, despair has turned to anger as residents blame the government for exacerbating the drought by drawing down river water in 2017 for irrigation and other uses downstream."
Especially in Australia where 'drought' === 'climate change' === 'farmer issues'.
It doesn't blame anything on climate change. It just says this:
> ... residents blame the government for exacerbating the drought by drawing down river water in 2017 for irrigation and other uses downstream.
That's it - the only mention of human fault in the entire thing.
If instead we spoke about the issue factually, to the point and without trying to influence people's opinions with emotional devices, more stubborn people might listen to the idea.
It's a shame, because if ever there were a real enough reason for an evangelical to scream in the streets at strangers that the world is ending, this might be it. But it doesn't work, people don't listen to the screaming crazies.
I find this behavior deeply hypocritical and irresponsible. Worse, it is unproductive, because even a minimal sensationalization may trigger a lot of misguided (but sincere) opposition from climate deniers. Heck, even many rational people may be alienated by this!
As a matter of principle, I am disgusted by propaganda that contains falsehoods or exaggerations, even when it is for a good cause.
Any issue important to more than a few dozen people will involve propaganda, falsehoods, and exaggerations from both sides of the issue. Simple fact of statistics and human nature.
Letting that affect your evaluation of the facts is a mistake.
I never said I will change my opinion about the issue because of that. Only that I am disgusted by this behavior.
As a more practical effect, just a tiny speck of falsehood in the discourse of "my" side, turns any attempt to convince anybody on the "other" side as an endless discussion about that silly speck, agreeing that it is false, but nonetheless the main cause remains true. It is very tiring. Exaggerated propaganda is useful to create stronger echo-chambers, but not to convince people who are outside.
2) It would be even better if Australian farmers also recognised that and didn't grow water intensive crops there.
3) The "climate change issue" is not polarised.
On what basis do you think your vote will change other peoples beliefs?
Vote differently please.
You seem looking for a reason to bash climate change and journalism in general.
"Reduced to a string of stagnant mustard-coloured pools, fouled in places with pesticide runoff and stinking with the rotting carcasses of cattle and fish, the Darling River is running dry."
This river runs dry regularly and has even before the industrial revolution. Guess what happens when rivers run dry? You get stagnant mustard colored pools. The sentence is trying to pull on emotional heart strings with nonsense. You know what else you find naturally in dried up rivers? Dead fish and animals. You know what you find in every body of water around the world today? Pesticides from farm runoff. Does it matter? Sometimes.
In short, just untrustworthy nonsense. I personally am concerned about my impact on the environment, but I consistently vote against collective action because articles like this make me really afraid of how crazy people are and what nonsense they'll believe.