Science and Technology CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by David Fogarty (CLC0062)

The following is a submission to the UK Parliament’s Select Committee on “Climate: public understanding and its policy implications”. I am writing this in my personal capacity as a specialist science and environment writer. I was the climate change correspondent for Thomson Reuters in Asia (2008–13) and I’m now a media consultant and writer focusing on environmental issues. I started writing about climate change in the late 1980s. The following comments are for the public record.

Summary

Climate change media coverage has declined in many major media outlets right at a time of growing concern over wilder weather, energy costs and political paralysis in taking bold steps. The public needs clearer support for climate science from governments and better grassroots engagement to stem the feeling of alienation in the debate on tackling climate change.

The media is a major tool in educating the public about climate change but declining coverage and expertise has led to narratives being largely negative and sensationalised and, in some cases, vulnerable to non-credible sceptical voices.

The media should go back to basics and do rigorous assessment of climate change sceptics and energy, mining and chemicals sector lobbyists.

Reporting on climate change should be no more difficult or specialised than other media beats but cut backs, sceptical editors, apathy and misunderstanding the reach of climate change impacts have hampered reporting.

Media, and government, need to focus on positive narratives of ways to adapt to climate change in terms of economic shifts and lifestyle shifts and focus on the positive nature of the discoveries about how the planet works that come from climate research.

Not everything has to be couched in climate change terms. Sometimes it’s best just to sell the message about energy and fuel efficiency, for instance, as good economic sense and making the best use of finite resources.

Q: Are there particular difficulties when reporting complex science areas such as climate science?

A specialist climate science/climate change reporter should have no more difficulty covering their beat than other specialist correspondents. Climate science is complex but no more so than, for instance, mergers and acquisitions, specialist criminal or business law or international trade. Reporters should have a background that allows them to understand the technical details of the main issues of their beat; be able to quickly distinguish what is new and therefore news and what isn’t; have credible contacts who can offer insight on developments and offer contrasting opinions to help readers better understand any key developments.

1.The difficulties come from several areas. Specifically for climate science: A) Editors who have a personal bias against the subject matter and pressure the specialist reporter to include non-credible sceptical voices in the guise of offering balancing opinions. B) Sub-editors with little or no knowledge of climate science who try to cut back or rewrite the story, changing the meaning or introducing errors. Or worse, simply deciding to spike a story because they can’t see the relevance. C) Budget cut backs that mean the reporter can’t travel to specialist climate conferences to meet contacts (or make new ones). D) Senior editors and/or sub-editors who can only see climate change through the lens of polarised debates, such as climate sceptics vs climate scientists, or at the political level, such as rows over carbon pricing schemes and the costs on voters and industries.

2.These embittered debates often overshadow the real and ongoing developments in climate science—developments that add depth to our understanding of the issue and which can help policy-makers and companies better plan ahead for the impacts of climate change. Of late, the increase in severe weather has, to some extent, pushed aside the polarised debates in the minds of the public and focused on climate change impacts and adaptation measures. But the narrative is often still one of doom and gloom which, in an era of hardship in many major economies, tends to turn people off climate change. They have enough problems in their lives and I think many people feel helpless about climate change.

3.While not a new idea, there needs to be more effort in showing the public how they can individually respond to climate change, that there are small, collective and positive steps that can be taken, such as energy efficiency measures. This then provides a base to build community involvement and better education about climate change.

4.Fraught U.N. climate talks have also not helped the climate change narrative. There is also less focus on positive solutions and positive actions already taking place, such as renewable energy investment, energy efficiency, fighting deforestation through zero-deforestation supply chains and efforts to get companies to value nature, to name a few areas. A lot of reporters, pushed by editors who want a tabloidy approach, still go for the doom-and-gloom and scandal stories, perpetuating the cycle and turning off readers.

Q: What makes climate stories interesting and publishable?

5. The number one reason I feel climate science is interesting is because it helps us better understand how the planet works. Climate change scientists are pushing the boundaries in terms of understanding how the atmosphere works, how the oceans work and the interactions between the land, oceans and atmosphere. Despite the incredible advances in understanding climate change science, scientists are repeatedly finding gaps in our understanding of these natural interactions and how loading up the atmosphere with greenhouse gases can affect the way the planet operates, often with unclear consequences.

6. In short, there is still so much more to learn and climate change science is an ongoing process of discovery about our planet. For instance, the warming of the Arctic and the impact on the Jetstream winds, affecting winter weather in the Northern Hemisphere. This process is still a major area of investigation. Or the reasons for the so-called pause in global warming and the increase in deep ocean heat levels. When will this heat be returned to the atmosphere and at what rate and what is the influence of huge ocean gyres and La Nina episodes in the cooling and transfer of heat to the deep ocean?

7. Climate change science is also about opportunity and adapting. How can we build economies that are less polluting, more efficient, profitable and less wasteful? We can. Economies are continuously evolving. With the right amount of consumer pressure, supportive government policies and voter buy-in, economies can adapt. There is plenty of scope here for deeper narratives. Just as there is scope for deeper dives into exposing exactly how powerful business-as-usual groups are funding mis-information about climate change for their own ends and manipulating the media. The public can and should understand this process. Doing so will reveal who are the trusted sources of information and validators of climate science—and who isn’t.

8. At Reuters I tried to take climate change reporting in a new direction, away from the doom and gloom, looking at the science as it evolves, how climate change will affect businesses, food and agriculture and communities and what can and is being done in terms of responding.

Q: Has there been a loss of scientific and environmental expertise in newspapers and news agencies? What has been the impact of this for the coverage of climate science?

9. Among major news outlets, yes. This has happened in part because of staffing and funding cuts across many news outlets but also because of the misperception that climate change was no longer a big news story—not helped by the confusing and disappointing outcome of the Copenhagen climate conference but also because of deep economic woes in many major economies. In some cases, there has been a clear ideological shift, where one or more senior editors are sceptical about climate change, hampering climate change coverage and allocation of resources. And in some cases, I believe there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the reach of climate change.

10. I think some editors still view it as a slow-moving train crash but fail to see climate change touches every facet of an economy, from energy production and use, urban planning, tourism, food production, building design, to the insurance sector. These are rich areas to explore for reporters because businesses in all these sectors are increasingly aware of the risks of climate change (and poorly designed climate policies) and want more information.

11. It should be noted that, particularly in the United States, a number of specialised climate change reporting news outlets have emerged, somewhat filling the void created by the major news outlets cutting back. These include http://www.climatecentral.org/, http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/ and the more specialised investigative http://insideclimatenews.org/ . But none of these has the reach or readership of major media outlets. That said, it is clear The Guardian has proved to be an exception, devoting sizeable resources to climate and environment and earning wide play with their stories.

12. Overall, the cutbacks have had a negative impact in a number of ways. Fewer specialist climate reporters means reduced coverage of major climate meetings and major climate science findings (such as those published in scientific journals) or junior or less experienced reporters are assigned to cover these, often struggling to understand the subject matter.

13. In turn, with less specialist coverage (or none if the media outlet has re-assigned or made the post redundant), media outlets have little or no in-house resources for climate change knowledge and little or no ability to make good news judgement calls. This leaves editors vulnerable in terms of assessing the value of climate stories and/or trends and vulnerable to a vocal minority of sceptical voices trying to sow doubt. It also leaves media outlets less prepared to respond to a major climate change-linked event, such as coverage of a major government or U.N. report, or how to accurately report on a weather disaster and to carefully frame this in a climate change context.

14. Overall, there has been a dumbing down of climate change coverage into some pretty clichéd themes. That does not serve an anxious and often confused public. Most people want to know how to respond to the threat of climate change and they look to governments, trusted academics, top-level NGOs and the media to explain things in an unbiased way. People are anxious about what is happening now with the weather and they want to know what is likely to happen in the future and how they are likely to be affected. They also want to know the costs and the solutions. Businesses do, too.

15. In many ways, the public is caught in the middle. Powerful business-as-usual interests are trying to delay climate action by creating confusion over the science and creating doubt in the minds of policy-makers (or just buying them off), while climate scientists are besieged by a vocal minority that are given undue amounts of airplay. Reporters need to go back to basics and look at the quality of the sources of sceptical information. Who are these people? What are their credentials and background? Are their views to be trusted or are they simply lobbyists?

16. Governments should continue to support credible, peer-reviewed scientific work on climate change and promote this work to the public. The public needs to know who they can trust and sometimes the public needs a little guidance on this. They also need to understand there are clear reasons for action when it comes to formulating policy, such as energy and transport policies.

Q: Has there been a change in climate science and policy news coverage in the UK recent years? If so why do you think this is? How effective is the press in the UK at distinguishing legitimate concerns about climate and energy policies and less accurate criticisms of the science?

17. I can’t answer these questions directly in the context of the UK. But by way of comparison, as an Australian, I can give you a very brief overview of what’s been occurring in Australia where, as in Britain and the United States, there has been a fall in the number of specialist environment and climate reporters at major media outlets. The Murdoch press has unashamedly led the way in promoting sceptical and largely inaccurate views on climate change and carbon pricing. There has been too little effort, in my view, by the federal government and other media, to directly challenge the views of the Murdoch press (particularly The Australian newspaper) to counter the rise in public scepticism of climate change. A sceptical political Opposition (now the new government) has also greatly hindered public education on climate change and the impacts on Australia and the need to respond (ironically so despite the large number of extreme weather disasters in recent years from droughts, wildfires, epic floods and storms).

18. The media response in Australia has been mixed, largely failing to really challenge the climate policies of the Opposition. Instead, many reporters have allowed themselves to be trapped by the poisonous political row over carbon pricing and the impacts on the economy and jobs. The public has been left confused and ultimately turned off by the endless political bickering and misinformation by powerful business lobby groups and sceptical media outlets. In short, the climate change debate in Australia has been hijacked by petty politics and a largely ineffectual media more keen to satisfy tabloid tastes than to truly challenge and expose the shallowness of the debate.

19. By way of some defence, the Labor government did try to educate the public and support climate change science and scientists through several means, including the creation of the Climate Change Commission, a respected grouping of scientists which has published regular non-technical reports on extreme weather, the causes and impacts, as part of its brief to explain climate change science to a lay audience. Their efforts are to be applauded and they have been pretty effective in getting media attention and educating the media by and large.

20. Another positive development is the creation of alternative media outlets, such as Crikey.com.au (subscription based) and The Conversation, in which academics tackle climate change and other pressing issues in an unbiased and sometimes hard-hitting manner. So at least Australians do have access to quality reporting and writing on climate and environment if they look outside mainstream media.

Q: Do you have a view on the reasons James Painter found in his research that the UK and US press represent 80% of sceptical voices in the countries he included in his study?

21. My view is that is not surprising. Many of the world’s top energy and mining firms are based in these countries (plus Australia and Canada). What’s interesting is the low level of climate change scepticism in Asia. I live in Singapore and I hardly come across sceptical views here in the media, if at all. Similarly so in Indonesia. Both countries accept climate change as a fact and as a threat and have policies or goals aimed at addressing it in myriad ways. In Singapore’s case, it is energy efficiency, restrictions on transport emissions, long-term planning in terms of raising sea wall height for new reclamations, addressing coastal erosion and test-bedding electric vehicles. The government is also actively researching likely rainfall and temperature scenarios going forward and constantly trying to improve drainage to cope with more extreme flooding. This level of action (plus a compliant media) reinforces in the minds of residents that climate change is something that is real, is a threat and can be responded to with effective policies.

22. As a final point. While it seems obvious, a well-informed public is critical in terms of crafting and winning acceptance of climate policies. Media play a major role here as educators and as conduits of (ideally) unbiased, balanced information. Policy-makers in government are more likely to respond to the clear wishes of voters than muddled views. It is a fair expectation of the media to report on major issues, such as climate change, with all due resources and with all due care. If they don’t, they should be called to account by government and the paying public.

23. And not everything has to be couched in climate change terms. Sometimes it’s best just to sell the message about energy and fuel efficiency, for instance, as something that makes good economic sense and makes the best use of finite resources.

September 2013