Lethal Heating: 08/27/21

27/08/2021

(Anthropocene) Scientifically Accurate Coverage Of Climate Change Is Steadily Improving

Anthropocene - Sarah DeWeerdt

But, there’s one place it still continues to fail: conservative media

Ostrich image: Igor Kopelinski

Coverage in major print media outlets now largely reflects the scientific consensus about the human cause of climate change and is getting more accurate over time, according to new research that surveys articles published over the last 15 years.

The findings update an influential 2004 study of U.S. newspapers from 1990-2002. That study found that journalists’ pursuit of “balance” and “objectivity” often boosted the voices of climate denialists, resulting in biased articles that inaccurately suggested the cause of climate change was a scientific controversy.

People often cite that study as evidence of ongoing problems in journalism, but it wasn’t clear whether its findings still pertain. (One of the authors of that previous study, Max Boykoff, Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder, is also a coauthor of the new one.)

“We know that in the past, ‘both-sides’ reporting of climate change has perpetuated the inaccurate perception that there is still significant scientific disagreement on this issue,” says study team member Meaghan Daly, a social scientist at the University of New England in Biddeford, Maine.

“The good news is that this study shows that in the print news media, this type of problematic reporting is largely falling by the wayside.”

Daly and her colleagues analyzed 2,662 articles concerning the cause of climate change that were published between 2005 and 2019 in 17 top newspapers from five countries: the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the U.S. This was about 1% of the more than 246,000 articles referencing climate change or global warming published in these outlets during that time period.

They read the articles to determine whether each one conveyed the scientific consensus view that climate change is primarily human-caused.

Of the articles, 2,397 accurately represented the primarily human cause of climate change, 150 offered false balance, and 113 expressed contrarian or denialist viewpoints, the researchers report in the journal Environmental Research Letters. (Two pieces published over the 15-year period inaccurately suggested no role for natural variations in climate shifts.)

In other words, 90% of the articles overall reflected the scientific consensus. “In addition, our data suggest that scientifically accurate coverage of climate change is improving over time,” from 87% to 92% over the 15 years covered by the study, says study team member Lucy McAllister, a postdoctoral researcher at the Technical University of Munich in Germany.

“However, it is important to note that some conservative media outlets remain exceptions,” McAllister adds.

Climate change coverage in conservative newspapers – Canada’s National Post, Australia’s Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph, and the U.K.’s Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday – was less accurate than that in other publications.

The National Post had the least accurate coverage, with about 71% of articles reflecting the scientific consensus about the cause of climate change.

These outlets also published fewer articles about the cause of climate change overall.

Meanwhile, the most accurate coverage came from left-leaning outlets, Canada’s Toronto Star (97.37%) and the U.K.’s Guardian and Observer (95.00%). The latter publication also had the largest number of articles analyzed.

The findings suggest that media analysis needs to move beyond the notion of false balance.

“Most major print media may be reporting climate change accurately, but new questions arise, such as how solutions are being discussed. Which ideas are getting more text or frontline coverage, and why?” says McAllister.

“Also, researchers should be examining the types of coverage in the countries facing the most extreme impacts of our changing climate.”

In addition to examining the portrayal of climate change on television and in social media, researchers should be alert for new and subtler forms of denialism.

“As it has become more difficult to deny the existence of climate change — as more and more people directly observe the impacts of climate change in their day-to-day lives — new strategies are emerging to instead delay meaningful action on climate,” Daly says.

“So, it will be important for researchers to examine the stealthier ways in which opponents of climate action are now working to undermine efforts to address the causes and consequences of climate change.”

Links

(AU SMH) ‘Really Big Win’: NSW Environmental Watchdog Ordered To Address Climate Change

Sydney Morning Herald - Peter Hannam | Miki Perkins

In a landmark ruling, a NSW court has ordered the state’s environmental watchdog to take action to address climate change.

In a judgment on Thursday, Chief Judge of the Land & Environment Court Brian Preston ordered the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) “to develop environmental quality objectives, guidelines and policies to ensure environment protection from climate change”.

Findings in NSW’s Land and Environment Court that the EPA must set objectives, guidelines and policies for greenhouse gas emissions could set a precedent for other jurisdictions. Credit: Nick Moir

The judgment hinged on the interpretation of the duties imposed on the agency, particularly section 9(1)(a) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991.

The EPA, which regulates a range of sectors from forestry to pollution controls, had accepted climate change was a global problem but argued no local action by the agency alone could address the problem.

The order for the EPA to address climate change was welcomed by the Environmental Defenders Office, which had argued the case on behalf of the Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action following the record 2019-20 bushfires that scorched more than 5 million hectares in NSW alone.

Climate policy

'Kick them into action': Fire group takes EPA to court over climate

“It’s a really big win,” Elaine Johnson, a director of EDO’s legal strategy, said. “It means [the EPA] has to do something to ensure there is protection against climate change.”

While Justice Preston did not specify the action the agency should take, the steps could range from putting a price on carbon to placing caps on pollution or setting safe levels in pollution licences, Ms Johnson said.

The ruling comes just weeks after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its latest report showing how human activities are warming the planet by burning fossil fuels and other activities.

“The next 10 years are really critical,” Ms Johnson said. “We need rapid and deep emissions cuts.”

An EPA spokeswoman said the agency was reviewing the order and its implications for the agency.

“The EPA is an active government partner on climate change policy, regulation and innovation,” the spokeswoman said.

“It is a part of the whole-of-government approach to climate change embodied by the NSW Climate Change Policy Framework and Net Zero Plan”, including supporting industry to cut emissions.

The EDO’s Ms Johnson said the court’s decision was the first in Australia to find that a government agency has a requirement to address climate change.

“It’s breaking new ground,” she said, adding that other states could face similar legal challenges.

Justice Preston also ordered the EPA to pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings.

Extreme weather

Black Summer bushfires made worse by climate change, risk to 'rapidly intensify'

Jo Dodds, president of the Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action group, welcomed the decision as “a significant win for everyone who has been affected by bushfires”.

“BSCA members have been working for years to rebuild their homes, their lives and their communities,” Ms Dodds said.

“This ruling means they can do so with confidence that the EPA must now also work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state,” she added.

“Global warming is creating the conditions that can lead to hotter and fiercer fires, and all of us need to work to make sure we’re doing everything we can to prevent a disaster like we saw during 2019 and 2020.”

Chris Gambian, chief executive of the Nature Conservation Council, said the court ruling put the state’s biggest polluters on notice.

“Most people will be astonished to learn the EPA has until now not regulated greenhouse gases, which are arguably our most dangerous environmental pollutants,” Mr Gambian said.

“But that will now have to change after the court found the EPA had a duty to address climate change, which is the most significant challenge our society has ever faced,” he said.

“This is a great day for environmental justice.”

Justice Preston stated that the EPA’s duty must evolve over time and place to address changes to the threats to the environment, including global warming from greenhouse gas emissions.

“[T]he pollutants of yesteryear, with their concomitant threats to the environment and risks to human health, may no longer be the pollutants of today, which pose different threats to the environment and different risks to human health,” he wrote in his judgment.

Nick Witherow, the principal lawyer at Environmental Justice Australia, said the decision could open up the possibility of similar challenges in other jurisdictions.

Climate policy

‘Grow a spine’: Berejikilan’s climate action is falling short

But he noted the NSW EPA is governed by its own particular law (the PEOA Act), which is different to those in Victoria and South Australia.

New environment laws were introduced in Victoria from the start of last month that give the EPA greater power to regulate pollutants, including greenhouse gases.

“These laws are new and haven’t been tested, and this [decision in NSW] raises the question of what is possible,” Mr Witherow said.

In March, the Victorian EPA released a long-awaited review of the state’s heavily polluting coal-fired power station licences, which was undertaken to ensure they were compatible with the latest science and “take into account community views and expectations”.

The EPA said it would not force coal power stations to lower their greenhouse gas emissions, following this review and renewal of their licences.

For the first time, it did introduce limits on mercury pollution, and tightened limits on other pollutants such as sulphur dioxide and small particulates, or PM2.5. But no restrictions will be set on greenhouse gases, which would be capped at “approximately current levels”.

Comment was sought from NSW Environment Minister Matt Kean.

Cate Faehrmann, NSW Greens environment spokeswoman said the court was “huge”.

“Climate change is the Number One risk to countless threatened species and their habitat,” Ms Faehrmann said.

“It’s therefore very welcome news that the EPA can no longer ignore this major environmental threat and will need to regulate, and aim to prevent, some of its impact.”

Links

(AU The Age) Three Pandemic Measures That Will Also Curb Climate Change: Flannery

The Age - Stuart Layt

One of Australia’s leading climate change experts is urging governments to learn the lessons of the current pandemic and apply them to climate change, before it is too late.

Professor Tim Flannery said the response to the pandemic in Australia gave the perfect blueprint for dealing with climate change.

Tim Flannery says the measures used to fight to pandemic are the exact same which should be used to curb climate change. Credit: Janie Barrett

“The pandemic has taught us a lot. It’s taught us the virtue of early action,” Professor Flannery said.

“If you leave a problem too long you run out of control, so early action is the most valuable action.”

In particular, the former chief commissioner of the Climate Commission and former Australian of the Year said there were three prongs to the approach which could be easily scaled up.

First was to “stem the spread”. For the pandemic, that took the form of lockdowns and other measures to curb the virus, while for climate change, this would be immediate measures to curb carbon emissions.

While many people accepted lockdown measures in 2020, frustration has risen in recent months, despite their proven effectiveness.

Professor Flannery said governments could learn a key lesson about making sure people bought in to the initial measures.

From a climate-change perspective, that meant ensuring communities that would be genuinely worse off during a transition towards renewables were taken care of.

“We saw that during the pandemic with JobKeeper and JobSeeker, people were frustrated with the lockdown, but they were grateful for the financial support,” he said.

“We know with the climate crisis there are communities all over the country which will need to be brought along into the new clean energy world with a real sense of social justice, that they’re not being left behind.”

The second prong was to ensure emergency departments were bolstered, which was needed for both pandemic response and the extra capacity requirements predicted by experts due to climate-related health issues.

Third was to develop a vaccine in a pandemic, while to combat climate change Professor Flannery said the vaccine stage would take the form of restorative measures such as replanting old-growth forests.

“I think we’ve lacked focus on the holistic approach that’s required in the climate challenge,” he said.

“A lot of people think it’s just stopping the problem from getting worse by cutting emissions. Well, that’s part of it, but there’s a whole series of other things that the pandemic has taught us that we need to keep an eye on.”

Experts have pointed out that the effects of climate change would increase the number of disease outbreaks and raise the risk of new pandemics arising owing to animal populations being driven into closer proximity with humans.

That meant by learning lessons from the pandemic, governments could help to reduce the effects of climate change as well as help prevent future pandemics as a side-benefit.

Professor Flannery said he had seen a shifting in the momentum from government and industry on the issue of climate change, but the response needed to be sped up at all levels.

“I don’t deal with hope or despair, I just know what needs to be done, and I’m encouraging people to get on with it as quickly as we can,” he said.

“The sooner we do it, the better off we’ll be. If the pandemic has taught us anything, it’s that we need to act early.”

Professor Flannery will outline his thoughts on the connection between COVID and climate change in a keynote address as part of Queensland University of Technology’s Sustainability Week.

He had been due to give the lecture in person but the current outbreak in NSW meant he could not leave Sydney, and the address would be streamed online.

The event is free, and people can register to watch the address at the QUT website.

Links