27/05/2019

Morrison Sprints To Adani Approval

Saturday PaperMike Seccombe

The Queensland Labor government has taken the Coalition’s election victory as a warning it must fall in line and green-light the Carmichael coalmine.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison in Sydney on Wednesday. Credit: AAP Image / Joel Carrett
The sharemarket makes no moral judgements. Money is its only metric. And on the first trading day after the federal election, the market surged to heights not seen since before the global financial crisis, more than a decade ago.
Investors were clearly pleased with the Coalition’s win, seen as a victory for shareholders and the wealthy over the community at large. The finance sector jumped 5.6 per cent, with the Big Four banks doing particularly well, their shares up by between 6.3 and 9.2 per cent.
Analysts called it a “relief rally”, prompted by the fact Labor’s plans to limit negative gearing and lift capital gains tax would have cut the banks’ earnings. The property sector also bounced back, buoyed by the assumption that speculators might come back into the market for the same reason.
Health insurers did even better, on the understanding that – unlike Labor – a Coalition government would not prevent them from raising premiums for their customers. Medibank Private and NIB were both up, by 11.5 per cent and 15.8 per cent respectively.
Larger, though, than all those gains on the Australian market was that of one company listed on the National Stock Exchange of India – Adani Enterprises. On Sunday, the company saw its share price leap almost 30 per cent.
“The sharemarket is telling us the probability of the [Adani] Carmichael mine going ahead has just increased dramatically,” says Tim Buckley, the director of Energy Finance Studies, Australasia, at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.
It was not only the sharemarket telling us that. So was the behaviour of the federal minister for resources, Matt Canavan. On election night he tweeted, “START ADANI!” Canavan also celebrated the election win wearing a T-shirt bearing the same message.
In the days since, Canavan and his fellow pro-coal travellers in the Coalition have seized the political agenda.
Australia now is accelerating towards the Carmichael mine’s approval and, beyond that, the opening up of further coal projects in huge, previously unexploited reserves of Queensland’s Galilee Basin.
The Palaszczuk government has become suddenly, acutely sensitive to accusations that it has been stalling on the Adani approval process. “The community is sick of it, I’m sick of it, everyone is sick of the delays,” the Queensland premier said.
But Buckley says this is not only a consequence of the re-election of the Morrison government.
Last weekend also saw the release of exit polling showing Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) were on track to repeat their landslide election victory of 2014. At time of writing, projections show Modi’s party will secure four times the number of seats won by the second-placed Congress Party.
It is the interaction of these two phenomena, Buckley says, that is driving events. “The No. 1 paid-up supporter of Modi is Gautam Adani. If – when – the BJP gets back for another five years, [Adani’s] sun will shine very brightly, as the first among industrialists who stand behind Modi.”
Over the past five years under Modi, Adani’s empire has already expanded in diverse areas – from real estate to plastics to frozen food to aerospace to defence to cornering the lentil market.
“Adani is into everything,” says Buckley. But energy is the big one.
“It has become India’s biggest private player in the gas business, the electricity transmission business, as well as the biggest renewable energy business,” he says.
Adani already is India’s largest private producer of thermal power, in substantial part because of the relationship the conglomerate has with the government. It continues to grow rapidly towards a goal of 20,000 megawatts of power-generating capacity by 2020.
“Last month, Modi gave Adani a $US1.5 billion loan from the State Bank of India to fund a coal plant at a place called Godda, in the eastern provinces,” says Buckley. “And he’s been given a $1 billion tax concession, through the establishment of a free-trade zone around the power plant.
“The new project will use imported coal and export power to Bangladesh. Seven million tonnes a year, which they could source from Carmichael.”
According to Buckley, Adani’s already extraordinary access to state capital and his political power will be “through the roof”, assuming Modi wins. In all likelihood, given Adani’s ambitious expansion plans, there will be more coal generation plants to come.
That would be an environmental and climate disaster, particularly for India. According to research published last month in the prestigious journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, air pollution from the burning of fossil fuels already kills at least 690,000 Indians each year. Science tells us India and Bangladesh are among the countries most threatened by climate change.
But Gautam Adani is a creature of the markets, and the markets make no moral judgements.
“Fossil fuels or renewables,” says Buckley, “it’s all about the money for Adani.”
***
Only a day before the Australian election, speaking to a voter in Townsville, Scott Morrison pronounced himself “always puzzled when any power source attracts such particular partisan attention”.
“Why do we get into any value judgement about any of these particular sources? Because at the end of the day, they are a practical thing, it’s a power source thing,” he said.
Coal, like petroleum and gas, was “just a power source”.
It came down to cost, said Morrison, and there was no “need to engage in a moral debate about it”.
Former prime minister and Warringah MP Tony Abbott touched on the same theme on Saturday night in his concession speech after losing his seat to the independent Zali Steggall, who campaigned strongly on the need to address climate change.
Abbott noted the Liberal Party had done relatively better in places where climate change was perceived as an “economic question”, and worse where voters saw it as a “moral question”.
There is a solid basis for that interpretation. A detailed analysis by Guardian Australia journalist Nick Evershed showed many of the largest swings towards the Coalition occurred in seats with coalmines. He also found the seats that swung harder to the Coalition were more likely to have higher unemployment, lower income and lower levels of education. And vice versa for those that swung towards Labor.
This was a political contest flagged as “the climate change election”, yet it has yielded a perverse result. Instead of pushing government towards greater action on climate change, it has pushed the other way. The pro-coal voices in the Coalition are more strident, and panicked members of the Labor Party, both federally and in Queensland, are preparing to retreat.
The prospect of Australia implementing credible measures to address climate change – Labor’s targets were for a 45 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and a 50 per cent renewable share of energy generation by 2030 – seems lost, at least for the next three years.
***
Of even greater concern is that approval of the Adani mine will open the way for other mine proponents, notably Clive Palmer, whose Waratah Coal has plans for an even bigger mine than Adani’s.
If the huge reserves of the Galilee Basin were fully exploited, according to an estimate by the Climate Council, it would result in the emission of an additional 705 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, equivalent to 1.3 times Australia’s current annual emissions. But it also would generate vast revenue.
The political pressures are obvious. After the election, Labor is left with just six of 30 seats in Queensland. Its primary vote in the state has fallen to just 27 per cent, far below its national support at 33 per cent.
When asked by Fran Kelly on RN Breakfast on Tuesday why Queenslanders voted as they did, Matt Canavan, a Queensland Nationals senator, summed it up in one word: “Coal.”
Canavan went on to note there had been huge swings away from Labor in other coal seats, such as the New South Wales electorate of Hunter, where the primary vote for the Labor member, Joel Fitzgibbon, fell 13.9 per cent, and 9.8 per cent after preferences.
But there was no Labor “attack on coal jobs”, no imminent threat from the opposition to existing employment in the mining industry.
A week before the federal election, the Queensland Labor government actually greenlit a new $1 billion mine, which will produce 15 million tonnes a year of high-grade coking coal – that is, the kind of coal used to make steel, rather than the low-grade coal Adani seeks to burn to generate electricity. Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk trumpeted an expected 500 new construction jobs and 1000 operational jobs from the Olive Downs mine.
While Labor was not offering the prospect of new government-underwritten coal power stations, as demanded by Canavan’s Queensland Nationals colleagues, a new coal power station was never on the cards – no matter who won the election. And Canavan knew that. Back in March, when Morrison announced a shortlist of 12 new generation projects, potentially eligible for government support, there was no new coal project on it.
Six proposals involved renewables with pumped hydro storage and five were gas. One related to an upgrade of an existing coal plant in NSW.
The only concession to Canavan, his fellow Nationals and the coal lobby was $10 million to study Queensland’s future power needs, including for a new coal generator in Queensland.
But this will never come to anything, barring an act of financial lunacy, for new coal is simply not cost competitive.
At the same time, renewables are already producing jobs around the country. In Victoria, in the two years since the closure of the dirtiest power station in the developed world, the giant Hazelwood brown coal plant, unemployment in that region has fallen from 8 per cent to 5.7 per cent. As energy transition specialist Simon Holmes à Court recently noted, this was “in no small part due to the efforts of the Latrobe Valley Authority, set up by the state government to help ensure a ‘just transition’ for the workers and local community”, and its various programs to retrain and redeploy people rendered jobless by the corporate decision.
Among federal Labor’s election promises was a similar independent Just Transition Authority, which would support “workers and communities affected by the inevitable closure of ageing coal-fired power stations” across the nation.
Canavan was able to twist the proposal into evidence that the opposition was intent on putting coal industry employees out of work.
***
But there is an argument to be made that the opening up of the Galilee poses a real threat to the jobs of miners in other parts of Australia, because it would bring more supply into a declining market.
In July last year, The Australia Institute produced a report claiming new, highly automated mines in the Galilee would reduce overall mining employment, particularly in Joel Fitzgibbon’s bailiwick of the Hunter, where 9000 jobs would be lost. The report found NSW would be most affected, because it mostly produces thermal coal, whereas most of Queensland’s existing production is coking coal, used for steel-making, for which there is greater demand.
It was just modelling, of course, from a left-leaning and anti-coal think tank. But big mining players such as Rio Tinto and BHP also forecast a declining coal market. And the laws of supply and demand are eternal.
In March, another Galilee mine proponent, the Chinese-owned MacMines Austasia, quietly withdrew from its proposed $7 billion China Stone development, a move seen by some as an indication that the basin was not commercially viable.
Regardless of reality, though, voters in coal seats turned strongly against Labor. The scare campaign worked, in part because Labor sent mixed messages. Bill Shorten variously indicated he personally did not “like” the Adani project, that it should not receive any government assistance, but that he supported coal jobs, was wary of the sovereign risk of canning the Carmichael mine, and would allow it to proceed if it “stacked up” environmentally and commercially.
In contrast, Labor’s shadow environment minister, Mark Butler, was strongly opposed, saying: “I don’t support Adani, Clive Palmer or anyone else opening up a brand-new thermal coal basin in the Galilee just at the same time the world is moving to renewable energy. It just doesn’t make sense!”
As Greens leader Richard Di Natale noted on ABC Radio this week, Labor suffered by saying different things to different parts of the country, “trying to walk both sides of the fence”.
And since the election debacle, a number of people on Labor’s Right, notably Fitzgibbon, have publicly flayed their own party for its “equivocation”.
The Coalition has its own divisions, too. They exist between the climate deniers and coal boosters of the hard right, and the moderates who would have the government make more show of embracing environmental issues. For example, emphasising its own commitment to renewable energy and expediting initiatives such as Snowy Hydro 2.0 and the so-called “battery of the nation” hydro storage proposal for Tasmania.
As the result in Warringah showed, Liberal MPs in affluent inner-urban seats face a threat from climate-focused competitors, which will no doubt grow as evidence of climate change mounts.
But it is Labor that has the more serious problem, particularly in Queensland, where the swings against the party were the largest. It was also where Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, which owns most of the state’s newspapers, wasted no time after the federal election redoubling a virulent campaign against the state Labor government. On its front page on Monday, the Sunshine Coast Daily ran the headline “Anna, you’re next”, and a picture of Palaszczuk with the crosshairs of a gun sight superimposed on her head.
Consequently, the Palaszczuk government has become suddenly, acutely sensitive to accusations that it has been stalling on the Adani approval process. On Wednesday, wearing a hard hat and fluoro vest to give her words verisimilitude, Palaszczuk held a media conference at which she demanded her own bureaucrats pull their fingers out.
“The community is sick of it, I’m sick of it, everyone is sick of the delays,” the Queensland premier said.
“Everyone has had more than enough time to resolve these issues and for some reason that has not occurred. That all ends now.”
She publicly ordered the state coordinator-general to take a stronger role across the approval process, and to meet, pronto, with Adani to set out a time line.
The company responded with a belligerent media release, complaining that the state had taken two years to review its final management plans for the mine, and insisting on a short time line for approval.
“Any time frame for a decision on these outstanding management plans” longer than two weeks would be viewed as “nothing more than another delaying tactic by the Queensland Labor government designed to delay thousands of jobs for Queenslanders”.
At time of writing, a meeting had taken place between Adani, the coordinator-general and the Department of Environment and Science, and, according to the company, substantial progress had been made towards a time line. Further details to come, we’ll see how it goes, but the company seemed happy.
Tim Buckley suspects the Queensland government’s capitulation on an expedited review process will not be the end of it. Adani previously sought $1 billion from the federal government’s Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF) to build a rail line to transport its coal. The Queensland government blocked it.
Given recent political developments, though, he sees the prospect of government involvement in a rail line now as being back on the cards.
Canavan has long championed it. Back in 2017, he said he would be “happy to see” the NAIF invest in rail as “a nation-building initiative”.
“But what I’d expect to see, with the federal government wanting to open the Galilee Basin, is that the rail line’s open access that other mines can use it…” Canavan said.
“I think the logic suggests Canavan now will push for the Commonwealth to fund common-user rail. It would be dressed up as a measure to prevent Adani having monopoly control of the railway line,” says Buckley.
“Then three or four other billionaires – including Palmer – are happy because they get the taxpayer to fund a railway line.”
Maybe, he suggests, that was Palmer’s endgame in spending more than $60 million during the federal election.
Palmer himself told media this week that the intent of his campaign was to “polarise the electorate” and thereby ensure a Coalition victory. In that he succeeded, and now he would be entitled to think the Coalition owes him.
Time will tell how the debt is repaid.

Links

Graphic Design Could Be Holding Back Action On Climate Change – Here’s How

The Conversation

The perceived authority is important in helping us determine how trustworthy a graphic is. WWF
Can the design of a climate change message change someone’s beliefs? Absolutely, and with a surprisingly powerful correlation.
My research found climate change messages that spark fear and disgust were more likely to be seen as trustworthy by some audiences, compared to a graphic perceived to come from a corporate source.
Digital technology has surged, and we are exposed to a much higher degree of designed visual messages than we used to be. But climate change is incredibly politicised – especially in Australia – and despite a wealth of literature on climate change communication strategies, little is understood about how visual communication contributes to uptake of the message.
My findings show critical components of visual communication, such as colour, imagery, logos and how they all work together, can convey unintended meanings and lead to distrust, even when the viewer believes climate change is real.
Images that enhance feelings of disgust are linked to promoting trust. Author provided
Interpreting ‘authority’
A CSIRO study from 2015 showed while 81% of Australians agree climate change was happening, more than half weren’t concerned about the implications. And less than half attributed climate change to human influence.
These statistics are alarming, so it’s important effective climate change communication is rolled out, with trustworthy designs.
And it matters who or what authority is perceived to be behind the climate change message: whether they are perceived as originating from a grassroots or a more corporate end of the spectrum.
Previous studies have suggested a clear understanding of which type of organisation is speaking can engender trust in a climate change message, particularly in an era when trust in corporate authorities has diminished.
However, my study showed the situation is more nuanced than this.
Even a grassroots message can be misinterpreted due to its visual design, leading to a loss of trust in what could otherwise be considered compelling evidence.

What makes a design trustworthy?
Over a month, I asked a group of participants from the UK and Australia to discuss examples of real-world visual messages on climate change.
These participants were chosen based on their relatively good exposure to media, and stated a range of attitudes towards climate change. I showed them a selection of climate change visuals and focused on how they interpreted its meaning.
Emotion was one of the conditions viewers used to judge the visuals.
Fear and disgust campaigns are typically thought to obstruct communication of more complex issues, prompting viewers to turn away and avoid the message. But this study highlighted that viewers have come to expect a level of emotion in climate change messages, using it to signify a more grassroots-based message than a corporate one.
Emotive imagery triggering disgust, like the image in “Keep Buying Shit” pictured above, actually promoted trust.
More importantly, imagery that wasn’t emotive indicated the message was from a corporate origin for some viewers, corresponding to distrust. This was shown in the image below, which actually came from a more grassroots, pro bono campaign (The Consensus Project).
A more ‘corporate’ appearance can reduce trust. Matt Birdoff, author provided
Another way the viewers judged the message was through the visual identity, or logo.
Where a logo was visible, the ability to judge trustworthiness was simple. Where there was no logo, or a logo they had not seen before, several viewers moved directly to a position of distrust.
Others relied on aesthetic style indicators like colour, typeface, or decorative elements to determine who the author of the message was.
One study participant, a climate change believer, lost trust in The Consensus Project message (above), even though it promoted compelling evidence.
She perceived the colours to be too “corporate”, and what was intended to be a decorative image of an oil well furthered the distrust. She said:
Well, it looks like a corporate website, so it could be a corporation who are trying to justify their position. I mean, it’s got the little oil wells down here, so to me that looks like it perhaps […] could be someone like Texaco or Shell
Understanding these findings is critical to tackling the most important issue of our time. Knowing our audiences better and being informed about how we deploy colour, imagery, logos and other elements in the graphic design of climate change communication helps boost our understanding and engagement.
Without that understanding, we all lose.

Links

What If We Covered The Climate Crisis Like We Did The Start Of The Second World War?

The Guardian*

In the war, the purpose of journalism was to awaken the world to the catastrophe looming ahead of it. We must approach our climate crisis the same way
‘In the war, what was journalism for, except to awaken the world to the catastrophe looming ahead of it?’ Photograph: AP 

Preface
Today marks the official launch of Covering Climate Now, a project co-sponsored by The Columbia Journalism Review and The Nation.
Joined by The Guardian and others partners to be announced, Covering Climate Now will bring journalists and news outlets together to dramatically improve how the media as a whole covers the climate crisis and its solutions.
The following is an abridged version of the conference keynote speech by iconic TV newsman Bill Moyers, as prepared for delivery.
A video version of the speech is available here. See here for more about the Covering Climate Now project.
Bill Moyers:
I have been asked to bring this gathering to a close by summing up how we can do better at covering the possible “collapse of our civilizations and the extinction of much of the natural world,” to quote the noted environmentalist David Attenborough, speaking at the recent United Nations climate summit in Poland.
I don’t come with a silver bullet. And I’m no expert on the topic. Like you, I am just a journalist whose craft calls for us to explain things we don’t understand. There’s so much I don’t understand that journalism became my continuing course in adult education. The subjects were so fascinating, and the work so fulfilling, that I kept at it “full speed ahead” for half a century, until two years ago, at the age of 83, I yielded finally to the side effects of a long life and retired (more or less). This is the first opportunity I have had since then to be with so many kindred spirits of journalism, and the camaraderie reminds me how much I have missed your company.
Many of us have recognized that our coverage of global warming has fallen short. There’s been some excellent reporting by independent journalists and by enterprising reporters and photographers from legacy newspapers and other news outlets. But the Goliaths of the US news media, those with the biggest amplifiers—the corporate broadcast networks—have been shamelessly AWOL, despite their extraordinary profits. The combined coverage of climate change by the three major networks and Fox fell from just 260 minutes in 2017 to a mere 142 minutes in 2018—a drop of 45%, reported the watchdog group Media Matters.


Bill Moyer on covering climate change

Meanwhile, about 1,300 communities across the United States have totally lost news coverage, many from newspaper mergers and closures, according to the University of North Carolina School of Media and Journalism. Hundreds of others are still standing only as “ghost newspapers.” They no longer have resources for even local reporting, much less for climate change. “Online news sites, as well as some TV newsrooms, are working hard to keep local reporting alive, but these are taking root far more slowly than newspapers are dying,” observes Tom Stites of Poynter in a report about the study. And, alas, many of the news outlets that are still around have ignored or misreported the climate story and failed to counter the tsunami of deceptive propaganda unleashed by fossil-fuel companies and the mercenaries, ideologues, and politicians who do their bidding.
But events educate, experience instructs, and so much destructive behavior has been caused by climate disruption that more Americans today than ever seem hungry to know what’s causing it, what’s coming and what can be done about it. We journalists have perhaps our last chance to help people grasp the magnitude of the threat.
My friend and journalist-turned-citizen-activist Bill McKibben told me last week that because of the looming possibility of extinction, and in response to it from the emerging leadership among young people, we have reached a ‘climate moment’ with real momentum, and our challenge as we go forward is to dramatically change the zeitgeist—“to lock in and consolidate public opinion that’s finally beginning to come into focus.”
So, while I did not come with a silver bullet—there’s no such thing—I do want to share a couple of stories that might help us respond to this daunting task.
I’ll begin with how I first heard of global warming—before many of you in this room were born. It was 54 years ago, early in 1965, at the White House. Before I became President Lyndon Johnson’s press secretary (“over my dead body,” I might add,) I was his special assistant coordinating domestic policy. One day, two members of the president’s science-advisory committee came by the office. One of them was the famous oceanographer, Roger Revelle. Famous because only a few years earlier he had shaken up the prevailing consensus that the oceans were massive enough to soak up any amount of excess of carbon released on earth. Not so, Revelle discovered; the peculiar chemistry of sea water actually prevents this from happening.
Now, he said, humans have begun a “vast geophysical experiment.” We were about to burn, within a few generations, the fossil fuels that had slowly accumulated in the earth over the past 500 million years. Burning so much oil, gas, and coal would release massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, where it would trap heat that otherwise would escape into space. Earth’s temperature could rise, causing polar ice to melt and sea levels to rise, flooding the earth’s coastal regions.
President Johnson took scientists seriously; as vice president, he had been chosen by President Kennedy to chair the intergovernmental committee overseeing NASA’s charge to put a man on the moon. So Revelle and his colleagues got the green light, and by the fall of 1965 they produced the first official report to any government anywhere on the possible threat to humanity from rising CO2 levels. On November 6, Lyndon Johnson became the first president to mention the threat in a message to Congress.
President Johnson urged us to circulate the report widely throughout the government and to the public, despite its controversial emphasis on the need for “economic incentives” to discourage pollution, including—shudder!—taxes levied against polluters. (You can go online to Restoring the Quality of Our Environment—1965 and read the entire 23-page section, headlined Appendix Y4—Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.)
This was in 1965! Nearly six decades ago! The future in plain sight.
But we failed the moment. One year later, largely preoccupied with the war in Vietnam, the president grew distracted, budgets for other priorities were squeezed, and the nation was fast polarizing. We flunked that first chance to confront global warming. Our failure to act—and the failure of administrations that followed us—metastasized into the crisis of today, the crisis journalists must figure out how to cover as if life on earth depends on it, which it does.
Which brings me to the second story I hope will be helpful in confronting this daunting challenge.
It’s about the Murrow Boys: Edward R. Murrow and the young men, none of them yet famous, Murrow hired to staff CBS Radio in Europe on the eve of the Second World War.
I was a kid of about six in Marshall, Texas, when my parents bought a used console radio so they could listen to Franklin Roosevelt’s speeches and I could follow the Saturday serials—especially “The Green Hornet,” my favorite masked vigilante. That’s how we discovered the Murrow Boys, by listening to the news every evening on CBS. Although I didn’t yet know what to make of the events being reported, I showed up faithfully to sit on the floor between my parents in their chairs, all of us listening together.
I can still hear the voices coming from that stained brown console in the corner of our living room; still see the pictures their words painted in my mind’s eye. Their names, hardly known when they started, became hallowed in the annals of journalism. Murrow of course, Eric Sevareid, William L Shirer, Larry LeSeuer, Charles Collingwood, Howard K Smith, William Randall Downs, Richard C. Hottelet, Winston Burdett, Cecil Brown, Thomas Grandin, and the one woman among them, Mary Marvin Breckinridge. You can read about them in The Murrow Boys: Pioneers on the Front Lines of Broadcast Journalism, a superb book by Stanley Cloud and Lynne Olson.
These reporters spread across Europe as the “phony war” of 1939–40 played out, much like the slow-motion catastrophe of global warming plays out in our time. They saw the threat posed by the Nazis, and they struggled to get the attention of an American public back home exhausted and drained by the Great Depression.
In September of 1939, with Europe hours away from going up in flames, the powers at CBS in New York ordered Murrow and Shirer to feature an entertainment broadcast spotlighting dance music from nightspots in London, Paris, and Hamburg. Here’s the account from Cloud and Olson:
“‘They say there’s so much bad news out of Europe, they want some good news,’ Murrow [in London] snapped to Shirer [in Berlin] over the phone. The show, scheduled to be broadcast just as Germany was about to rape Poland, would be called ‘Europe Dances’ … Finally, Murrow decreed, ‘The hell with those bastards in New York. It may cost us our jobs, but we’re just not going to do it’.”
And they didn’t. They defied the bosses—and gave CBS one of the biggest stories of the 20th century, the invasion of Poland.And still the powers in New York resisted. Through the rest of 1939 and into the spring of 1940, Hitler hunched on the borders of France and the Low Countries, his Panzers idling, poised to strike. Shirer fumed, “My God! Here was the old continent on the brink of war…and the network was most reluctant to provide five minutes a day from here to report it.” Just as the networks and cable channels provide practically no coverage today of global warming.
In time I would meet Ed Murrow and follow him as senior correspondent for the documentary series he created after the war with Fred Friendly. Eric Sevareid became a mentor, before and after I succeeded him as commentator on The CBS Evening News. Howard K. Smith and I frequently corresponded and traded books. And I had casual conversations with Charles Collingwood at the little French café he frequented near our office on West 57th street. These men rarely talked details of the past. But I will never forget my debt as a journalist to their work, or what they did for our country.
Never in my own long career have I been as tested as they were. Or as you will be. Our own global warming “phony war” is over. The hot war is here.
Illustration by Doug Chayka.
My colleague and co-writer, Glenn Scherer, compares global disruption to a repeat hit-and-run driver: anonymous, deadly, and requiring tireless investigation to identify the perpetrator. There are long stretches of nothing, then suddenly Houston is inundated and Paradise burns. San Juan blows away and salt water creeps into the subways of New York. The networks put their reporters out in raincoats or standing behind police barriers as flames consume far hills. Yet we rarely hear the words “global warming” or “climate disruption” in their reports. The big backstory of rising CO2 levels, escalating drought, collateral damage, cause and effect, and politicians on the take from fossil-fuel companies? Forget all that. Not good for ratings, say network executives.
But last October, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a scientifically conservative body, gave us 12 years to make massive changes to reduce global greenhouse-gas emissions 45 percent below 2010 levels and to net zero by 2050. On his indispensable site, TomDispatch.com, Tom Engelhardt writes that humanity is now on a suicide watch.
Soon, some of you will be traveling to the ends of the earth to report on this Great Disruption. To Indonesia, where oil-palm growers and commodities companies are stripping away forests vital to carbon storage. To the Amazon, where President Bolsonaro’s government plans to open indigenous reserves to industrial exploitation, threatening the lungs of the Earth. To India, where President Modi pretends to be an environmentalist even as he embraces destructive development. To China, where President Xi’s Belt and Road initiative, the biggest transportation-infrastructure program in the history of the world, threatens disaster for earth systems. You will go to the Arctic and the Antarctic to report on melting ice, and to the shores of African cities, Pacific atolls, and poor Miami neighborhoods being swallowed by rising oceans. And to Nebraska, and Iowa, and Kansas, and Missouri, where this spring’s crop is despair as farmers and their families grieve their losses.
And some of you will go to Washington, to report on the madness—yes, I said madness—of a US government that scorns reality as fake news, denies the truths of nature, and embraces a theocratic theology that welcomes catastrophe as a sign of the returning Messiah.
Madness! Superstition! Destruction and death.
Can we get this story right? Can we tell it whole? Can we connect the dots and inspire people with the possibility of change?
What’s journalism for? Really, in the war, what was journalism for, except to awaken the world to the catastrophe looming ahead of it?
Here’s the good news: While describing David Wallace-Wells’s stunning new book The Uninhabitable Earth as a remorseless, near-unbearable account of what we are doing to our planet, The New York Times reports it also offers hope. Wallace-Wells says that “We have all the tools we need…to aggressively phase out dirty energy…”; [cut] global emissions…[and] scrub carbon from the atmosphere…. [There are] ‘obvious’ and ‘available,’ [if costly,] solutions.”
What we need, he adds, is the “acceptance of responsibility.”
Our responsibility as journalists is to tell the story so people get it.
I wish I could go there with you to tell it. This is a very exciting time for journalism, despite our beleaguered newsrooms, our diminished ranks, and the power arrayed against truth. And I really do think this project – Covering Climate Now – could be the beginning of our redemption.
Over my long life I’ve seen things change quickly. After the Birmingham bombing. After Selma. Vietnam. Nixon and Watergate. The Berlin Wall. The pendulum can swing suddenly. The public can change its mind.
Which brings us back to the Murrow Boys. Late 1940. The start of the Blitz, with bombs blasting London to bits. A Gallup poll that September found that a mere 16% of Americans supported sending US aid to beleaguered Britain. Olson and Cloud tell us that, “One month later, as bombs fell on London, and Murrow and the Boys brought the reality of it into American living rooms, 52% thought more aid should be sent.”
Americans had taken one step toward defeating fascism, and the Murrow Boys helped us take it. Of course, the journalists were only part of the cast, and I don’t want to overrate their importance. But they were there. On the right side. At the right time. In the right way—reporting on the biggest story of all, the fight for freedom. For life itself.
Reporting the truth is always the basis for any moral authority we can claim as journalists. Reporting the truth about climate disruption, and its solutions, could be contagious. Our gathering today could be a turning point for American journalism.
With no silver bullet, what do we do? We cooperate as kindred spirits on a mission of public service. We create partnerships to share resources. We challenge media owners and investors to act in the public interest. We keep the whole picture in our heads—how melting ice sheets in the Arctic can create devastation in the Midwest—and connect the dots for our readers, viewers, and listeners. We look every day at photographs of our children and grandchildren, to be reminded of the stakes. And we tell the liars, deniers, and do-nothings to shove off: There’s no future in naysaying.
As some of you know, I am president of the Schumann Media Center, a small nonprofit devoted to the support of independent journalism. The Center is the progeny of the Florence and John Schumann Foundation, founded in Montclair, NJ, in l961 by a civic-minded couple whose offspring were brought up with a strong commitment to democratic values. Their support of my journalism on public television led us to join forces, which is how I became president of the foundation and now of the center. The family resolved to give away their wealth in their lifetime, and we are just about there; our resources are modest now, and we’re almost done.
One of our last major gifts will be a million dollars to launch the Covering Climate Now project of The Columbia Journalism Review and The Nation and to get the project through the first year. Other foundations and individual philanthropists will then have to step up to the challenge, and I believe they will.
This has been a good day of talking and thinking—now must come action. My colleagues at the Schumann Media Center wish all of you and all of those you represent—in newspapers, radio stations, local news, and major corporations—we wish all of you, because it will take all of you, every success.

*Bill Moyers is a broadcast journalist. He has earned 37 Emmys, nine Peabodys, and the Lifetime Achievement Award from the National Academy of Television. He is president of the Schumann Media Center.

links