[Our ongoing series “Communicating Climate Change” with Dave Levitan will often feature conversations with journalists and other communicators who face the challenge of writing on climate issues. We have previously featured former New York Times climate reporter and Dot Earth blogger Andy Revkin as well as Climate Progress blogger Joe Romm. - Ed.]

Kate Sheppard covers energy and environmental politics in Washington, D.C., for Mother Jones. Prior to joining Mother Jones, she wrote for Grist in Seattle, and her work has also appeared online at the Washington Post and New York Times, as well as in the Guardian and elsewhere. You can follow her on Twitter @kate_sheppard. Links and emphasis are mine.

Dave Levitan: You went to Copenhagen, and participated in what was a brief deluge of coverage for climate change and related policy issues. How do you keep people’s interest or attention when there isn’t such a large and visible event to pin stories on?

Kate Sheppard: Well, usually I’m covering what’s going on with day-to-day politics in Washington. And even if what’s happening right now is going really slowly, there are almost constant updates on what’s happening on policy, and new perspectives on where that debate is going. So that is one way to keep people—especially people who are really focused on politics or policy—involved, is to just keep following that day-to-day.

I think for a wider public who might not be quite as tuned in with what’s happening here in Washington, it’s about making the connections between the policy and climate change and their everyday lives.

What does the clean energy future mean for you as person who is a homeowner or a driver, or a parent concerned about public health – it’s about connecting those things I think to what people experience every day. Climate change itself is something that’s big and far away and somewhat nebulous, but there are a lot of implications for politics and policy and everyday life.

DL: I’ve noticed that lacking in a lot of coverage of climate policy, and I’ve written about this here – do you try and get in explanations of WHY cap-and-trade, or WHY a focus on clean energy jobs, what it means in the larger view?

KS: I think in a lot of articles I do attempt to make that connection. And a lot of times covering the policy debate it’s about covering the individuals and the personalities that are played here as well, and sometimes stories focus more on that than on the direct outcomes. But I think making those connections wherever possible is really important.

And to some level a lot of the political stories people just care about because they follow politics closely and they want to see who is doing what, here in Washington especially. And an angle I feel I approach it from is looking at the impediments to acting on this problem. So, what industry groups, or lobbies or people or ideas are standing in the way of doing something about what is recognized to be a significant challenge?

DL: Can that sort of thing create any backlash? Do you get differing responses when you write about the types of people who are standing in the way?

KS: No, I’m writing to an audience that generally is concerned about the issues and wants to do something about climate. I probably wouldn’t have much success at getting the head of ExxonMobil on the phone. But I think our readers connect with pointing out who is standing in the way.

DL: I’ve gotten really interested in this, and asked others about it – the problem of preaching to the choir. At Mother Jones, do you see that as sort of the point, or is there an attempt to reach out to a broader audience?

KS: We have a more generally politically progressive audience who maybe isn’t following the climate debate quite as closely, but is following other really important political and social issues right now. So, it’s about bringing in readers to the climate conversation who maybe came for something else.

And it also reaches a wider audience. I think a lot of reporters read what we cover and can get new and different ideas and insights from what we write as well. We’re covering specific angles that they might not have been covering, and we have to do a lot of investigative work, so it is reaching a wider audience through that.

DL: How did you first come to the environmental policy beat? KS: I was a journalism and politics major in college, and my first job after college was working at Grist magazine out in Seattle. I had been interested in politics but hadn’t followed environmental politics quite as closely as some other things, but I just became really interested in the subject area. It was an area where there was constantly news, and I didn’t think it was being particularly well covered. And it has become the only thing I really want to write about right now.

DL: How has your approach changed in going from Grist to Mother Jones?

KS: I’m writing for people who maybe don’t follow things quite as closely, so you need to explain things a bit more in depth. I don’t think its too drastically different. I think my approach has been—no matter which place I’m writing for—that I’m writing to people who don’t necessarily have an in-depth understanding. That’s the important thing, to make it accessible to more people. I try to imagine I’m writing for my folks back home, or people who aren’t either obsessed with politics or obsessed with environmental news.

DL: Since I’m looking through the challenges of covering climate change, what are we in the media doing the worst at? KS: I think that communicating the science is one of the biggest challenges for everyone. Scientists have trouble communicating it to the public. They are by nature cautious, and everything is very measured, and it takes a long time to study these things and its often very hard to communicate that nuance and care, and that’s also hard for reporters. And scientific literacy in the US is not very high, so to figure out how to overcome those barriers and communicate theories accurately is huge.

DL: Do you think it is getting better?

KS: I don’t know if I’ve been around long enough to say if its getting any better. Especially with communicating science, there is a very loud echo chamber out there that is actively fighting against the science, and that definitely hasn’t gotten much easier.

Reprinted with permission from Ecopolitology

Follow Dave Levitan on Twitter @davelevitan. Image credit: Kate Sheppard; America.gov