Development of a story: carbon credits
Good news in a way today, in environment reporting terms at least, that comes about through a story focused on a waste of environmental activity and money.
Bad news first
That is, as John Vidal writes today in the Guardian, billions are being wasted on projects funded through the UN Climate Programme. Following the work of two Stanford academics, Vidal reports:
the UN’s main offset fund [the Clean Development Mechanism] is being routinely abused by chemical, wind, gas and hydro companies who are claiming emission reduction credits for projects that should not qualify. The result is that no genuine pollution cuts are being made, undermining assurances by the UK government and others that carbon markets are dramatically reducing greenhouse gases, the researchers say.
Programmes need to be additional to planned activity or planned CO2 reductions to qualify for this programme. But as the authors of the study, by David Victor and his colleague Michael Wara, found,
nearly every new hydro, wind and natural gas-fired plant expected to be built in China in the next four years is applying for CDM credits, even though it is Chinese policy to encourage these industries. “Traders are finding ways of gaining credits that they would never have had before. You will never know accurately, but rich countries are clearly overpaying by a massive amount,” said Victor.
A silver lining in reporting
The good news is that this story has moved up from its apperance as an opinion piece, last Wednesday, written by International Rivers NGO director Patrick McCully, to today’s front page story. The issue has gained traction in the Guardian newsroom, picked up by Vidal, shifting from specialist to mainstream, and having more chance of pushing the issue–which I began following about six or seven years ago, through my work with OneWorld and then ID21–into public consciousness. It means that there is further opportunity to check the veracity of the story, and make calls to the UN and the UK government, which Vidal does. Both dispute the study by the academics.
Story development to bring about breakthrough issues
Story development is a standard practice in reporting, as is the promoting of certain stories from the specialist sections, e.g. environment, into the mainstream news agenda. Interestingly, for those of us scanning and researching, the opinion headline (’Discredited strategy’, which did not need to be specific about its subject because of appearing in the environment section) has changed to ‘Billions wasted on UN climate programme’, which means the theme is set at the headline level, not within the story. In today’s news consumption practices, this is critical (think RSS feeds, scanning online, and the time poor lunchtime executive).
A piece of research I’ve been reading recently (and writing about a fair bit) by Hargreaves, Lewis and Speers (2003, PDF), clearly identifies the importance of bringing the key themes of climate change out of the domain of science and into the mainstream, where it is more likely to connect with public opinion and public policy. Research from Neil Gavin at the University of Liverpool (to be published) also touches on the subject of the coverage of emissions trading, suggesting, in a different direction, that it is a broader European media issue. And one, I’d argue, it is important for the British intelligent press to champion.
What next?
I hope that Vidal will take the next step and keep quoting the academics, not just the new studies but also the historical research that would help keep the issue (emissions trading specifically, climate change in general) under scrutiny, where it needs to be. And get the story on the front page again when it’s not a bank holiday. A special news investigation on emissions trading impacts?
