They are separate things. Science informs policy-making but it does not dictate what policies should be chosen. If a climate activist tells you that the latest research on the risk of dangerous impacts shows that the U.S. Senate must pass cap-and-trade legislation, know that scientific research can do no such thing. What it may be able to show, however, is this: If steps are not taken to prevent global average temperature from rising more than a certain amount, the risk of dangerous impacts will increase substantially. That statement does require that action be taken. Different people may reach different conclusions, depending on what they value.
2. Never refer to “the global warming debate,” or the “climate change debate” and never write that the “debate is settled.”
There is no single debate; there are separate debates within science, within policy and within economics, and about how scientific findings should guide policy. By conflating the two, you mislead your audience into thinking that nothing is settled. So, which debate are you talking about? Be specific. If you find yourself writing something like this, you are probably referring to the big attribution question: Are humans causing global warming? Yes, we are. That’s settled. But the policy debates certainly are not.3. Keep in mind that some big debates in climate science have long been settled even though others have not.
Despite what a small handful of skeptics with credible expertise in climate science say, the big, overarching “attribution” issue is as settled as things get in science: The planet is warming and humans are largely responsible. Moreover, this is already causing myriad impacts such as melting of glaciers and ice sheets. That is not to say that new, contradictory evidence will never come along. Science is always subject to revision. But the idea that humans are causing climate change is not scientifically controversial, period.4. Do not treat different environmental processes as one.
Doing this often highlights debate where in fact there may be significant consensus. For example, scientists may agree that significant melting of ice in Greenland is occurring. But whether melting is occurring is actually a different — if related — question than how long it might take for sea levels to rise to a point that would threaten major cities. Be very clear what process you are talking about in your coverage, and make sure to accurately describe the status of scientific knowledge in that particular field.5. Don’t get stuck in “global warming: yes or no?” coverage.
Opponents of action on climate change want to keep it stuck there, but it is not your job to oblige them. It is your job to go where the story is heading. And much of the debate that is relevant to your audience is now centered around policy — what should we do, if anything, about climate change? - Although there are still many scientific questions to be answered, the center of gravity of the climate change story has shifted to policy. And remember that policy action can proceed even though significant scientific uncertainties remain.
- Along these lines, keep in mind this quote from the late statistician Lincoln Moses: “There are no facts about the future.” And even though that is true, in countless realms of human endeavor we routinely make decisions about the future. For example, governments routinely make immensely consequential decisions about fiscal policy under great uncertainty. And there is no reason why climate change should be any different.
6. Avoid being a stenographer or playing judge and jury; be a referee.
Don’t simply balance opposing claims (in either science or policy) with comments from dueling experts. And if you are not a columnist or blogger, don’t simply pass judgment on who is right and wrong. Be a referee who subjects conflicting claims to independent scrutiny. Examine the evidence — in the form of primary literature, such as scientific papers and reports. And enlist the help of impartial experts who can help you put claim from partisans wielding conflicting results and opinions into proper perspective. Your goal is to help your audience weigh the merits of these varying positions, and to alert them when one side in a debate is cherry picking the data, or exaggerating, or committing other kinds of fouls (like making stuff up!).7. Understand and distinguish between legitimate analyses and what Eric Pooley calls “weapons of mass persuasion.”
We certainly need to tell our audiences what the persuaders are trying to accomplish, whether they are trying to speed or derail action on climate change. They are part of the policy-making process, and so they must be part of our coverage. But we should not conflate what they say in the public square with rigorous, peer-reviewed research. When partisans present information that they claim is scientific, scrutinize it. Did a recognized expert in the field conduct the research? Where did the funding come from? (A study funded by ExxonMobil may not be as credible as one funded by, say, the U.S. National Science Foundation.) Was it published in a peer-reviewed publication? If so, what has other research in this field turned up? And what do impartial experts have to say?8. Similarly, quote experts with credible authority to speak on your topic.
When you need someone to help you analyze the latest science on, say, melting glaciers, don’t quote a meteorologist — even if that meteorologist has a popular blog and has written copiously about his views on global warming. For that matter, don’t quote an activist or even a policy expert about the particulars of the science. Find a glaciologist who has a track record of conducting research in this area, who publishes in the peer-reviewed literature, and who has had a recognized impact on contributing new knowledge to this field. For example, an IPCC lead author, or if you need to localize the story, a glaciologist at a university in your town who has been actively engaged in peer-reviewed research in this field.That being said, a policy expert might be a good choice if you need to put the latest science into a broader context — for example, what might new research on melting ice sheets have to contribute to the policy process?
Similarly, when you need someone to help you report on the latest economic analysis of climate policy, your best choice may not be a fervid blogger, however well-known, whose main motivation is to push for one policy action over another.
9. Remember that mitigation of climate change through cap-and-trade, a carbon tax or similar policies is by no means the only possible response — and certainly not the only thing you can cover. Many untold and important stories can be found in other areas.
- Energy efficiency and production technology: Without new technologies for increasing efficiency and producing non-carbon energy, mitigation will fail. This is one area in which there is significant agreement among otherwise conflicting stakeholders. What efforts are being made where you live to boost efficiency and adoption of alternative energy? Are there companies near you who are working on these technologies? Is local government involved in some way? What are citizens doing?
- Reducing deforestation: Cutting and burning of forests is responsible for about 20 percent of human greenhouse gas emissions. That means it's unlikely that we'll be able to tame global warming without coming to grips with this problem. In your coverage, don't forget this critically important aspect of climate change. And also keep in mind that it may be quite easy for you to find a local angle, since deforestation is a problem in many parts of the world.
- Carbon capture and storage technology: There may not be a way to localize this story where you live, but it is still worth remembering that this approach may be gaining momentum.
- Adaptation: Climate impacts are already turning up, and no matter what mitigation policies we adopt now, more are inevitable. So how should societies be adapting? This is one area that should be easy to localize. For example, how can drought-prone areas fortify against impacts from climate change? How much room is there for significant conservation? Is it possible to build new reservoirs?
- Geo-engineering: Increasingly, climate experts are telling journalists (sometimes off the record) that deliberate efforts to cool the climate will likely be a last resort if carbon emissions aren’t reduced.
- Ethics: How do we resolve the divide between rich and poor nations over climate change? What historical responsibilities do rich countries have for helping poor nations deal with climate impacts? What responsibilities do all of us share for protecting other species and future generations from climate change? A rich array of stories are waiting to be told in this area.
10. Never forget that the climate change story is ultimately about people, so make sure to humanize your stories.
It’s not about saving the planet. Earth has suffered mind-boggling episodes of climate change in the past, not to mention asteroid impacts that wiped out more than 90 percent of all the species on the planet. Yet Earth survived. Do not lose sight of the fact that first and foremost, climate change has the potential to cause a great deal of human conflict and suffering. And that means the good, old-fashioned journalistic practice of humanizing stories with compelling characters is essential.Source:
