Writing to Save the World

Last month, I flew to NYC to attend SUNYCON, the SUNY System's annual conference with academics and business representatives from all around the world. This was a time to merge ideas, listen to panelists, and come together as a think tank for the future of higher education. 

While I was there, I had the pleasure to meet and talk to Alan Alda (Yes, the guy from M.A.S.H.) from the Alda Center for Communicating Science. This wasn't just a pleasure because of how decorated he is or because he a world renowned actor, but because his work out of Stony Brook is based around getting people to understand science in a meaningful way. 

There has been a plethora of articles calling for the marriage of STEM and the humanities, but I've never found anything as simple and effective as Mr. Alda's improv workshops. While we were there, we had the opportunity to go to his workshops and take a look into the future for STEM, the humanities, and the world. 

You're probably wondering why I am rambling about Communicating Science instead of Critical Theory, but the point may be just as important as any other thing we've discussed so far. 

In June I was appointed as the SUNY Student Assembly's Chair of Sustainability, where it has been my goal to create a "sustainable" culture change. The intentions behind this change were to create a way for the science and policies to be easily digested so they can be easily executed. 

It hasn't been an easy transition, but we based our paradigm shift off of the Sustainable Development Goals created by the United Nations. The SDGs are a part of The 2030 Agenda that will be negotiated within the next two weeks, a treaty that will determine how the work addressed climate, poverty, pollution, etc. 

You've all probably suspected or heard of the covering up of climate science by Big Oil. With the release of this "scandal," there has been many follow up articles linking the Koch Brothers to climate denial, misinformation, and the funding of law makers. 

What does this mean for English? This means that the sciences have a lot of work to do. A LOT. 

In this article from The Atlantic:

   Some people might not be aware of what scientists think. In the Pew report, 37 percent of people        said they didn’t think scientists agreed on climate change, and 67 percent thought scientists don’t        have a clear understanding of GMOs’ health effects. Or, they think the scientists actually support        their beliefs. This is particularly true of climate change, Kahan says.

It is a PR issue, a science issue, and most importantly a writing issue. We need to figure out how to market, rewrite the science to people can understand it, and then distribute it in a sleek and sexy format that makes people want to read it.

That is what my job is in the Paris negotiations. On the 28th of November, I am heading to Paris for the COP 21, where I will be a reporter for what ever comes out of the deliberation room. I will blog, I will make talking points, and I will interview the officials— put it all into the blender and output a smoothie of easy to read climate policy.

The United Nations has gotten it; I've had weekly calls about this exact problem for the past few months. Now we need our scientists to get it, our campuses to get it, and our lawmakers to get it.