The Onion, CJR do climate change
The Columbia Journalism Review and The Onion have both turned their attention to climate change, running a couple of good stories about how the topic is covered.
First, the CJR looks at the rhetoric of the term ‘carbon footprint’ and wonders if we adopt new terms far more easily than adopting the substance or actions behind them. The second addresses the five failings of environmental journalism, which was checked with the Society for Environmental Journalists and picked up by the blogs, coming as a response to the Wired article that ran in June on revisiting our ‘preconceptions of green’.
But my favourite piece has been the new issue of The Onion: the ‘obligatory green issue’, a spot on spoof of the ‘greening’ craze, for generally one issue only, of UK and US magazines and newspapers. It’s well worth a look. My favourite headline?
“Temperature of Coffee set to rise nine degrees over 21st Century”
Resurgence of the ‘Consensus’
This morning the Guardian carries Bjorn Lomborg’s latest perspective on global warming, suggesting that both McCain and Obama are barking up the wrong tree in their support for a US cap-and-trade system to curb emissions.
I’m reading similar critiques of the cap-and-trade argument by leading economists/scientists in Ernest Zedillo’s book Global Warming. The main thrust of the counter-argument is that people such as Lomborg, to quote Freeman Dyson, writing in the NY Review of Books:
are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice.
This is Lomborg’s position, clearly communicated by this piece in today’s Guardian. Read on, Lomborg pulls the article round to promote / PR the Copenhagen Consensus, Lomborg’s organisation which, back on May 30th this year, released version 2 of the list of the world’s top problems/solutions, in a priority order, that it first released back in 2004. Then, mitigation against global warming came bottom of its list of 50 actions, ordered against cost/benefit economics — that is, mitigation was the least cost effective of all the ‘public goods’ that the world leaders could invest in.
And this time round?
Global warming mitigation again comes bottom. It is ‘competing’ in the minds of the ‘Consensus’ (which, as Real Climate pointed out back in 2006, is not really a consensus but a group of eight; compare to the IPCC scientist list of 2,000) with malnutrition, women’s rights, hunger and development.
Press coverage?
Back in 2004, the ‘Consensus’ gained huge press coverage. This time round the press have been understandably more cautious. 2004 was perhaps the emotional peak of the argument between ’sceptics’ and ‘believers’. The press were reporting both sides equally, providing what Boykoff and Boykoff called an ‘informational bias’ by putting side by side arguments from an overwhelming majority against a small group of contrarians. Before this morning, only The Times had covered the 2008 consensus in any depth. Other smaller magazines (the right-wing Reason) had some coverage, and other members of the Copenhagen Consensus organisation have been pushing the news through Project Syndicate.
Here’s a decent critique of the approach that Lomborg and his ‘Consensus’ have taken. Read more
Simon Hoggart’s ‘dogmatic and irrational’ mistake
Yesterday in the Guardian Simon Hoggart referred to the environmental movement as a ‘religion - dogmatic and irrational’ in a small aside about wind power as the last entry in his week’s sketch. The full quote:
We are to have across our still beautiful countryside thousands more ghastly, noisy, hideous wind turbines, which produce very little energy at enormous cost. Proof that the environmental movement has become a religion - dogmatic and irrational - in that it has now persuaded government that to save the environment, we must first destroy it. [my emphasis]
Not the kind of environmental journalism you expect from the Guardian, which has delivered a consistent and well-researched line of sober alarm on climate change. In contrast, Jeremy Leggett’s piece took apart the government’s ‘green revolution’ in a far more measured way. Wrapped up in the safety net of opinion with no need to check facts, Hoggart has got it all wrong. For example:
- which produce very little energy…
According to Research Energy Solutions and the British Wind Energy Association, “Modern wind turbines are operational for 70-85% of the time and over the course of the year they will generate, on average, up to 35% of the theoretical maximum output. The exact figure is dependent on the location, technology, size, turbine reliability and wind conditions. By comparison, the load factor of conventional power stations is on average 50%2. A typical modern 2.3MW wind turbine can produce enough power for over 1,000 homes - and that is taking into account the fact that the wind doesn’t blow all the time.”
- at enormous cost…
According to both the British Wind Energy Association and the US Electric Power Research institute, prices are competitive with both coal and nuclear. In the UK, “An average for a new onshore wind farm in a good location is 3-4 pence per unit, competitive with new coal (2.5-4.5p) and cheaper than new nuclear (4-7p).”
- still beautiful countryside…
Hoggart’s use of the ’still’ here is a linguistic rhetoric device to stir up emotive reactions, making the beautiful countyside live in the continuous present tense, and therefore providing the threat that this continuous present is under threat. And personally, I think wind farms are pretty stunning and beautiful themselves.
- the environmental movement is a religion - dogmatic and irrational…
Which is pretty ironic, really, as Hoggart’s piece has ‘proved’ (another rhetorical device) that his opining is, well, rather dogmatic (‘asserting opinions in a doctrinaire or arrogant manner; opinionated’) and irrational (‘not in accordance with reason’) . No, environmental action is not a religion. Unless, of course, religion is based on science. Or if religion is a focus on the present world, not a future transcendental. Or if religion is a way to justify the dismantling of the military-political complex, rather than a way to excuse its gross expansion. The modern environmental movement began with Rachel Carson’s highly scientific and focused study on pesticide use and its impact on the environment (Silent Spring). Driven by passion and justice, yes. A blind faith in a cognitive myth, no.
Such a shame that this old and buried meme is stil circulating.
Why local and digital is better for the environment
A group of bloggers have organised a Carnival of Journalism, each month addressing different key issues in the profession. This month it’s hosted by Andy Dickinson, who set the question: Is (digital) journalism better the more local it is and what does that do to growth?
I’m not one of the official cavorters, but it got me thinking anyway about local (digital) media and environmental journalism. For me, the crossover of local/digital journalism and environmental sustainability could be a fantastic growth opportunity for regional media, as well as local citizen journalism groups and networks, with the result being increased environmental awareness and activity. Read more
More on ads: the Exxon ‘flip-flop’
I’m writing this blog as it’s announced that Exxon’s damages for the Valdez oil spill, in 1989, have finally been agreed. Nineteen years after. The oil company are also infamous for allegedly providing US$23m to undermine the science of climate change, and offering scientists and economists $10,000 each to undermine the findings of the latest IPCC report. Now Exxon have just released these ‘game-changing’ climate ads across Europe. A flip-flop, or just good old greenwash?
Mitchell Anderson over at DeSmogBlog has already provided a great summary of Exxon’s activities, so I won’t repeat it here. It’s important and fair to note that this is not the only perspective on the issue. Some bloggers are picking up on the story/allegation that the scientific community are cashing in on global warming, and that finance is the biggest draw for shouting loudest on climate change as a threat. I totally disagree with that, but it’s out there. (Oh, and here’s the link to how much they’re paying for the Exxon Valdez spill).
So from me, rather, a few comments on the discourse of these adverts from Exxon, ad by ad (click on the ad for larger versions): Read more
Lexus advertises its climate credo
Lots of ink on car advertising this morning, as The Guardian report Fiat are criticized by the Advertising Standards Authority for “boasting” about claims on low CO2 emissions. FIat were found to have breached “the CAP code on grounds of truthfulness, prices, comparisons, motoring and qualification of environmental claims.” That’s a lot of breaching.
Now then, I wonder which of these categories could be used against this ad from Lexus? Probably none, unfortunately. I spotted this ad as I was on my way to work the other day:
Ad agencies and their clients have responded to climate change in a number of ways. Many have been aggressive and counter to the general trend that there is more we can contribute in reducing our individual levels of consumption (e.g. the carbon footprint idea). Others have been more responsible.
Team Lexus have taken an approach that is not the worst I’ve seen, but it’s unsavoury. What’s unsavoury is the translation of its strapline: yes, we know we pollute, but let’s drive faster, let’s accelerate that pollution, and take a swipe at the carbon reduction community at the same time.
- Putting your foot down = accelerating, driving fast, getting there in a hurry, often in an emergency
- ‘Putting your carbon foot down’ = all of the above, but with the understanding that you’re sending carbon into the atmosphere at an increased rate.
So what is it saying?
What this advert is saying is that buy a hybrid, but get the performance. Buy green, assuage your guilt, and pollute freely. This for a car that, on its website, claims its green credentials. This is not an individual instance for Lexus. As Segnit and Ereaut noted in their Warm Words II report for the IPPR, “Ads for the… Lexus RX400H attempt a bolder piece of mythmaking: guiltless emissions.
‘High performance. Low emissions. Zero guilt’ (Lexus Dealers 2007)
This was, like Fiat’s, found guilty (the irony) by the Ad authorities last year for misleading people on CO2 emissions information. Lexus company spokesman Scott Brownlee said: “We weren’t trying to be misleading and any changes that are needed, we will certainly make.”
Well, they haven’t shifted their position too far, have they?
Writing in the London Review of Books John Lanchester argues that the ‘SUV driver is…trying at the same time to send a signal…that even if climate change comes she will be able to protect herself from it.’
And that is exactly what the Lexus advert is appealing to: the need to protect yourself from an emergency. Because somewhere buried behind the machismo of peak performance and thrusting acceleration, and why it’s so unsavoury, is that the advert conflates the emergency of changing our CO2 consumption habits (our carbon footprint) with the need to be able to drive fast in an emergency, to protect those inside.
SUV vehicles such as the Lexus are causing more and worse accidents: worse for the other driver (if in a smaller, less builky vehicle) in the accident. SUV’s are sold on protection in emergencies, that is, for those inside. This is the anthropocentric mindset that, some theorists argue, is at the heart of the global system of exploitation that means a few million people own the world’s majority of capital; and the mindset that exploits the natural resources of our planet to continue to grow that capital ownership (it’s capitalism, by the way). But back to the ad.
So why has Lexus taken this approach?
Clue One: It may be an electric hybrid, but it ain’t that green by a long way: take a look at the top ten lowest emitters. So it cannot sell itself in a competition with the Honda Insight or Toyota Prius, so it has to maintain its market advantage: luxury performance. (It has a 3.3l V-6 engine, by the way). Read more
Twenty years on: covering climate change
I wonder what the long-term impact will be on my personality of writing about climate change.
I am writing a chapter for a book provisionally entitled ‘Media and Climate Change’, an academic text, and my focus is on the reporting of the policy texts: how the Kyoto Protocol, IPCC reports, UK Climate Bill, etc, have been received and dealt with in the press, and what impact this has had on effective action.
It can be upsetting and depressing work. It would be fair to say I’m struggling this week. One example why: read this intro to a news story I was anaylsing:
SCIENTISTS, politicians and journalists are part of a conspiracy to predict catastrophe through global warming, a Channel 4 programme suggested last night. The programme claimed that disparate groups were making this claim for their own reasons and presented data allegedly demolishing the greenhouse theory. Scientists from the Meteorological Office meet today to decide whether to complain to the Independent Broadcasting Authority.
Sounds familiar? The Great Global Warming Swindle from last year, right? No. This was The Greenhouse Conspiracy, broadcast by Channel 4, which I found while researching media coverage of the first IPCC report in 1990. Watch it on Youtube.
Upsetting and depressing. We’ve gone around in circles. And as an IPSOS-MORI report released this weekend and covered by Juliette Jowitt in the Observer, the public continue to be confused by the messages they receive through the media about the science.
How does this happen? This quote is from the report itself: Read more
Wordle images of today’s top stories
Wordle is a very cool tool. Put in any bunch of words and it creates a text cloud based on most commonly recurring words.
Here is today’s lead story (and all peripheral links and stories on the homepage) on DailyMail.co.uk:
And here’s for the lead story from Guardian.co.uk:
Lovely.
Is incoherency the Republican ticket?
Lots of questions this week on why John McCain is ditching his green credentials and environmental strategy to deliver a mix of messages to the American public.
Earlier in the week Grist and Politico both commented on the launch of McCain’s new environmental TV ad coming on the same day as his call for the lifting of restrictions on offshore drilling (this to an audience of Big Oil in Houston). Commenting on this, Lester Feder at the Huffington Post suggests that:
McCain’s wholesale abandonment of a month-long environmental PR strategy is more than a knee-jerk response to a new peak in oil prices. It is a sign that the McCain campaign’s efforts to define the 2008 election narrative are in disarray.
And Feder quotes a number of political commentators who see this reversal as McCain “grasping at straws” to re-focus his campaign on the economy, in line with American voters’ views.
But I wonder if, at some deeper lever, McCain and his campaign are ingrained into an incoherency (it’s in the title of Feder’s article) that won Bush the last (two?) elections. Is incoherency a card the Republicans have become too used to playing in sowing doubt in the minds of the voting public? Read more
It’s Friday: a winner takes all climate question
Ok, hold on to your hat. As La Marguerite said earlier this week, and as Grist has been proving for eons, there’s no reason why we can’t laugh. So, it’s Friday. And here’s one winner-takes-all (the kudos) climate change question for you.
