We've been hearing about the onslaught of global climate change for some time now and it seems it is becoming increasingly accepted that this devastating course is at least in part man-made. One thing that is not talked about as much is the specific trauma that certain worst-case scenarios could bring to humanity.
Recently, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a startling report chronicling some of the possibilities. One of the more disturbing outcomes involves an effect to the world's food supply. Maize and wheat yields have already been forced down, while other crops could be seriously affected, leading to severe price swings and increased unrest in impoverished countries.
The report went on to discuss a dire need for a reduction in emissions in the near future or else risk a rise in the world's sea level by more than two feet.
A response by some who wish to make this a politically charged issue might be that such data is sensationalized or altered but I find it increasingly hard to believe that hundreds of independent scientists are all in cahoots to fund a liberal agenda. This is real change and real devastation that we will begin to see in our lifetimes and most definitely in those of our children and grandchildren.
With all this information, it's important we begin focusing on how we can make a change. Two of the crucial elements that need to happen in response to these findings must involve efforts by world governments to cut emissions, as well as a plan already lined up to adapt to world climate change. Ways to cut emissions include increased funds for public transport, stricter emission regulations on new cars, and harsher penalties for factories that do not process energy in a safe, clean way.
Adapting to some of the inevitable changes might prove to be a bit more difficult. Those living in coastlines will have to spend a good deal of money to raise properties and build dams and levees. In some extreme cases, folks may need to move further inland altogether.
The bottom line is, while some of the more severe changes might be 50 or 100 years away, there are things we can do to help dwindle possible damages and in other cases prevent devastation completely. There is still time but the clock is ticking.
Saturday, April 12, 2014
Friday, April 4, 2014
Should Photographers Interact with Their Subjects in Moments of Grief?
Recently, NPR broached a very interesting question regarding journalistic ethics: In times of grief, should photographers go out of their way and ask their subjects for permission for the photos they use?
The answer in a primitive, gut reaction sense seems obvious. If you're taking someone's picture, surely it's more sensible to ask for their permission as opposed to hiding in a bush, grabbing a picture and scurrying off into the night.
And yet, as I say that, I'm trying to think of myself in that situation, put on assignment at a scene where hours previously, parents had learned their children were dead. Would I be inclined to interrupt the grieving process? Probably not.
But is that because it's the easy thing or the right thing? Here's where it gets tricky. It can be both and is completely situational. There are scenarios where it might be best to ask for permission. The picture in Newtown, referenced by NPR, might actually be one of them. The woman was not a mother of the children and was not attending a private funeral, but rather grieving in a public space. It would not be a comfortable conversation but I don't think anyone enters journalism for its comforts.
Conversely, a situation where it might be best to avoid communication with the subject might be in the direct aftermath of a gunshot crime or a car wreck, where a victim lies down dead, whilst his or her loved one is standing over them grieving. This is an extreme setting but nonetheless one where it might be more respectful AND more ethical to simply stand in the shadows and capture the images, using discretion during the editing process about whether or not to distribute them to an audience.
This acts as just another reminder to be cognizant and respectful of one's subjects and to remember that, while journalism serves a very powerful purpose, it is a collaboration with subjects and many times, they should have a say in your work.
The answer in a primitive, gut reaction sense seems obvious. If you're taking someone's picture, surely it's more sensible to ask for their permission as opposed to hiding in a bush, grabbing a picture and scurrying off into the night.
And yet, as I say that, I'm trying to think of myself in that situation, put on assignment at a scene where hours previously, parents had learned their children were dead. Would I be inclined to interrupt the grieving process? Probably not.
But is that because it's the easy thing or the right thing? Here's where it gets tricky. It can be both and is completely situational. There are scenarios where it might be best to ask for permission. The picture in Newtown, referenced by NPR, might actually be one of them. The woman was not a mother of the children and was not attending a private funeral, but rather grieving in a public space. It would not be a comfortable conversation but I don't think anyone enters journalism for its comforts.
Conversely, a situation where it might be best to avoid communication with the subject might be in the direct aftermath of a gunshot crime or a car wreck, where a victim lies down dead, whilst his or her loved one is standing over them grieving. This is an extreme setting but nonetheless one where it might be more respectful AND more ethical to simply stand in the shadows and capture the images, using discretion during the editing process about whether or not to distribute them to an audience.
This acts as just another reminder to be cognizant and respectful of one's subjects and to remember that, while journalism serves a very powerful purpose, it is a collaboration with subjects and many times, they should have a say in your work.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)