In the first study of its kind, published in the journal Science, scientists from dozens of research institutes reviewed 665 trials of conservation measures, some from as far back as 1890, in different countries and oceans and across species types, and found they had had a positive effect in two out of every three cases.
CounterSpin interview with Evlondo Cooper on climate coverage
Janine Jackson interviewed Media Matters’ Evlondo Cooper about climate coverage for the March 22, 2024, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.
Janine Jackson: Climate disruption is, of course, one of the most disastrous phenomena of today’s life, affecting every corner of the globe. It’s also one of the most addressable. We know what causes it, we know what meaningful intervention would entail. So it’s a human-made tragedy unfolding in real time before our eyes.
To understate wildly, we need to be talking about it, learning about it, hearing about it urgently, which is why the results of our next guest’s research are so alarming. I’ll just spoil it: Broadcast news coverage of the climate crisis is going down.
Evlondo Cooper is a senior writer with the Climate and Energy Program at Media Matters for America. He joins us now by phone from Washington state. Welcome to CounterSpin, Evlondo Cooper.
Evlondo Cooper: Thank you for having me. I’m excited about our conversation today.
JJ: We’re talking about the latest of Media Matters’ annual studies of climate crisis coverage. First of all, just tell us briefly what media you are looking at in these studies.
EC: So we’re looking at corporate broadcast network coverage. That’s ABC, CBS and NBC. And for the Sunday morning shows, we also include Fox Broadcasting—Fox News Sunday.
JJ: All right. And then, for context, this decline in coverage that you found in the most recent study, that’s down from very little to even less.
EC: Yeah, so a little context: 2021 and 2022 were both record years for climate coverage, and that coverage was a little bit more than 1%. This year, we saw a 25% decrease from 2022, which brought coverage to a little bit less than 1%. We want to encourage more coverage, but even in the years where they were doing phenomenal, it was only about 1% of total coverage. And so this retrenchment by approximately 25% in 2023 is not a welcome sign, especially in a year where we saw record catastrophic extreme weather events, and scientists are predicting that 2024 might be even worse than ’23.
JJ: Let’s break out some of the things that you found. We’re talking about such small numbers—when you say 1%, that’s 1% of all of the broadcast coverage; of their stories, 1% were devoted to the climate crisis. But we’ve seen, there’s little things within it. For example, we are hearing more from actual climate scientists?
EC: That was a very encouraging sign, where this year we saw 41 climate scientists appeared, which was 10% of the featured guests in 2023, and that’s up from 4% in 2022. So in terms of quality of coverage, I think we’re seeing improvements. We’re seeing a lot of the work being done by dedicated climate correspondents, and meteorologists who are including climate coverage as part of their weather reports and their own correspondents’ segments, a bigger part of their reporting.
So there are some encouraging signs. I think what concerns us is that these improvements, while important and necessary and appreciated, are not keeping up with the escalating scale of climate change.
JJ: It’s just not appropriate to the seriousness of the topic. And then another thing is, you could say the dominance of white men in the conversation, which I know is another finding, that’s just kind of par for the elite media course; when folks are talked to, they are overwhelmingly white men. But it might bear some relation to what you’re seeing as an underrepresentation of climate-impacted populations, looking at folks at the sharp end of climate disruption. That’s something you also consider.
EC: Yeah, we look at coverage of, broadly, climate justice. I think a lot of people believe it’s representation for representation’s sake, but I think when people most impacted by climate change—and we’re talking about communities of color, we’re talking about low-income communities, we’re talking about low-wealth rural communities—when these folks are left out of the conversation, you’re missing important context about how climate change is impacting them, in many cases, first and worse. And you’re missing important context about the solutions that these communities are trying to employ to deal with it. And I think you’re missing an opportunity to humanize and broaden support for climate solutions at the public policy level.
So these aren’t communities where these random acts of God are occurring; these are policy decisions, or indecisions, that have created an environment where these communities are being most harmed, but least talked about, and they’re receiving the least redress to their challenges. And so those voices are necessary to tell those stories to a broad audience on the corporate broadcast networks.
Another finding that I thought was very interesting was that extreme weather seemed to be the biggest driver of climate coverage, and that, to me, suggests that the way corporate broadcast media are coming at climate disruption is reactive: “Look at what happened.”
EC: Totally.
JJ: And even when they say, “Look at what’s happening,” and you know what, folks pretty much agree that this is due to climate disruption, these houses sliding into the river, it’s still not saying, “While you look at this disaster, know that this is preventable, and here is who is keeping us from acting on it and why.”
EC: Yeah, that is so insightful, because that’s a core critique of even the best coverage we see, that there is no accountability for the fossil fuel industry and other industries that are driving the crisis. And then there’s no real—solutions are mentioned in about 20% of climate segments this year. But the solutions are siloed, like there are solution “segments.”
But to your point, when we’re talking about extreme weather, when you have the most eyeballs hearing about climate change, to me, it would be very impactful to connect what’s happening in that moment—these wildfires, these droughts, these heat waves, these hurricanes and storms and flooding—to connect that to a key driver, fossil fuel industry, and talk about some potential solutions to mitigate these impacts while people are actually paying the most attention.
JJ: And then take it to your next story about Congress, or your next story about funding, and connect those dots.
EC: Exactly. I mean, climate is too often siloed. So you could see a really great segment, for instance, on the Willow Project, at the top of the hour—and this is on cable, but the example remains—and then later in the hour, you saw a story about an extreme weather event. But those things aren’t connected, they’re siloed.
And so a key to improving coverage in an immediate way would be to understand that the climate crisis is the background for a range of issues, socioeconomic, political. Begin incorporating climate coverage in a much broader swath of stories that, whether you know it or not, indirectly or directly, are being impacted by global warming.
JJ: It’s almost as though corporate media have decided that another horrible disaster due to climate change, while it’s a story, it’s basically now like a dog-bites-man story. And if they aren’t going to explore these other angles, well, then there really isn’t anything to report until the next drought or the next mudslide. And that’s just a world away from what appropriate, fearless, future-believing journalism would be doing right now.
Evlondo Cooper: “It doesn’t have to be about just showing the destruction and carnage. There are ways that you can empower people to take action.”
EC: It’s out of step, right? Pull up the poll showing bipartisan support for government climate action, because, whether people know it or not, as far as the science, —and there’s some deniers out there, but anecdotally, people know something is happening, something is changing in their lives. We’re seeing record-breaking things that no one’s ever experienced, and they want the government to do something about it.
And so it’s important to cover extreme weather and to cover these catastrophes. And I know there’s a range of thought out there that says if you’re just focusing on devastating impacts, it could dampen public action. But to me, to your point, report on it and connect it to solutions, empower people to call their congressperson, their representative, their senator, to vote in ways that have local impacts to deal with the local climate impacts.
It doesn’t have to be about just showing the destruction and carnage. There are ways that you can empower people to take action in their own lives, and to galvanize public support.
And the public wants it. The public is asking for this. So I think just being responsive to what these polls are showing would be a way to immediately improve the way that they cover climate change right now.
JJ: All right, then. We’ve been speaking with Evlondo Cooper of Media Matters for America. You can find this work and much else at MediaMatters.org. Evlondo Cooper, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.
The Melitaea trivia butterfly, one of many endangered species in the EU. The nature restoration law offers a lifeline for natural habitats in the bloc where one in three bees, butterflies and hoverflies are disappearing.
At the eleventh hour, right-wing politicians have launched a bid to block the passing of the EU’s flagship nature protection law, which scientists have described as a “cornerstone of food security and human health”.
The pro-nature plan, which could see as much as 90 percent of damaged ecosystems repaired across the bloc, is due for final sign off in Parliament on Tuesday (27 February).
Usually a formality, the vote follows six months of intense – and at times bitter – negotiation of the law between the European Commission, Parliament and EU member states that saw an agreement reached in November last year.
But on Wednesday the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) party filed amendments calling for Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to reject outright the so-called Nature Restoration Law – an extremely rare move so late in the decision-making process.
Scientists have condemned the call, as well as six other amendments that could see the law delayed or weakened. They say the proposed policy offers a lifeline for natural habitats in the bloc where one in three bees, butterflies and hoverflies are disappearing.
“In Europe we are in a critical biodiversity situation, which climate change is accelerating,” Daniel Hering, professor of aquatic ecology at the University of Duisburg-Essen, told DeSmog. “Without such an ambitious legislation, it will not be possible to bend the curve of declining biodiversity.”
A number of proposed green laws have been rolled back or delayed over the last 12 months, as opposition mounts to the EU’s Green Deal – a flagship plan to reach net zero by 2030.
The eurosceptic ECR party has justified its last-minute attempt to block the law citing “great social unrest”, in apparent reference to farmer protests that have spread across the continent in recent weeks, with tractors blocking roads and motorways in the majority of EU countries.
But scientists told DeSmog that derailing the law could come at significant cost to farmers, who are facing increasingly uncertain conditions due to climate breakdown and biodiversity loss.
The former EU climate chief Frans Timmerman has stated that “already half of crops in the EU that depend on pollination face a deficit.”
If any of the ECR’s amendments – such as deleting a target to restore 30 percent of Europe’s damaged ecosystems by 2030 – are accepted, a final decision on the law would be delayed until after the EU elections in June when right-wing parties are expected to make major gains.
It is so far unclear whether the proposals will succeed in gaining a majority in the vote next week. But the choice made by the centre-right European Peoples’ Party (EPP) – the largest in the EU parliament – will be a deciding factor.
The EPP’s Christine Schnieder, chief negotiator on the nature law, told DeSmog that her party had “serious concerns” and would “determine its voting behaviour for the vote on Tuesday at the Group meeting on Monday evening”.
‘Misinformation’
The law has long been portrayed as a burden to the farming industry. The EPP has repeatedly attempted to block the legislation following intense lobbying by farm union Copa-Cogeca, which represents producers and agribusinesses across the bloc. It succeeded in deleting the most ambitious agriculture clauses from the law, including targets to re-wild 10 percent of farmland.
However, scientists told DeSmog that jettisoning the legislation would cause major harms to the industry – a stance backed up by some small scale producers who are calling for more environmental support.
“Our food systems are at extreme risk. Looking outside and seeing the current temperatures, we can see that the coming summer will be even worse than the last one,” said Guy Pe’er, an ecologist at the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research and the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research. “Farmers will soon need help maintaining production under very difficult conditions. The Nature Restoration law is a crucial part of this package.”
Pe’er also told DeSmog he was concerned Tuesday’s outcome could be “based on misinformation”. He was one of more than 6,000 scientists to sign an open letter in July, warning of a “lack of scientific evidence” for arguments opposing the law, including suggestions that it would harm EU food security and take away farming jobs across the continent.
Christine Schneider of the EPP told DeSmog that the EPP remained concerned that the law would lead to onerous regulations in member states with “far-reaching monitoring and reporting obligations for agriculture and forestry”.
‘Election Strategy’
If parliament supports any amendments on 27 February, negotiations on the Nature Restoration Law will extend beyond EU elections, which are due to take place between 6-9 June later this year.
Polls are currently suggesting a major ballot swing towards right-wing parties, which have pledged to use election success to fight the Green Deal.
In France, Marine Le Pen’s far-right party National Rally is expected to claim more than 30 percent of the country’s vote. It said in January it planned to form a “blocking majority” with other parties that target environmental laws.
The EPP, which is likely to retain the largest number of seats in the EU parliament, has likewise opposed multiple environmental regulations in the run-up to the elections in recent months, including overturning plans to halve pesticide use.
The ECR is so far not expected to gain many seats in the coming election.
Environmental activist Chloé Miko told DeSmog that if the law was voted down on Tuesday it would be “the final nail in the coffin for the Green Deal” – which has been seen as the lead policy package for the current Commission.
She added that the ECR was deploying a cynical “election strategy”, by linking its opposition to the law to farmer protests across the continent.
“It is not a sign of goodwill towards farmers,” she said. “The far-right, sometimes with the help of the Conservatives, have been on a journey to weaken, delay or even kill every remaining part of the Green deal. It is part of this process.”
Jutta Paulus, the Greens’ negotiator on the law in Parliament, told DeSmog: “The ECR’s attempt to stop the legislative procedure is typical for this euro-sceptic group,” adding that the EPP’s concerns about the law had already been addressed during trialogue negotiations between parliament, the commission and the council over recent months.
“I expect the constructive, pro-European parties to take a firm position and vote in favour of the trilogue agreement,” she said.
ECR did not respond to Desmog’s request for comment.
“When we the people use our collective power we can win,” said one campaigner.
“September 15-17, 2023. Everywhere.”
Those are the dates and location of the international mobilization against fossil fuels set to take place this coming weekend, and the last word is hardly an exaggeration as organizers with the Global Fight to End Fossil Fuels report that more than 400 actions, marches, rallies, and other events have already been registered around the world.
More than 780 organizations have endorsed the day of action—up from 500 less than a week ago—and millions of participants are expected to rally from Cape Town, South Africa to Manila, Philippines and Lahore, Pakistan, as well as in dozens of cities and towns across the United States, the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in history.
The protests are scheduled just before the United Nations Climate Ambition Summit, taking place on September 20 in New York, where groups including the NAACP, Sierra Club, and Sunrise Movement are supporting the March to End Fossil Fuels on September 17.
More than 10,000 people are expected to march in New York to demand that U.S. President Joe Biden end federal approvals for new fossil fuel projects like the Willow drilling project in Alaska and phase out oil and gas drilling in federal lands and waters; declare a climate emergency to unlock resources to accelerate the transition to renewable energy; and provide a just transition that creates millions of green jobs while supporting people who have worked in the fossil fuel industry.
“President Biden is in an unparalleled position to lead the world toward cleaner, less polluting energy options and eliminate the dependence on dangerous fossil fuels,” said organizers of the New York march. “If he takes action, he will protect our health, boost our economy, and tackle the climate crisis head-on.”
The March to End Fossil Fuels is backed by advocates including author Naomi Klein, 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben, actor and Third Act leader Jane Fonda, and lawmakers including U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.).
Popping on to say the march to #EndFossilFuels is THIS WEEKEND!! I'm super excited!
Will I see you there? OH I HOPE SO! Make your plan to join TODAY 🌎🌍🌏👶💚
On Monday, scientists including Lucky Tran of the March for Science and biologist Sandra Steingraber announced that 300 climate experts had signed their letter to Biden reminding him that “a broad scientific consensus exists” that fossil fuel extraction must be drawn down immediately to keep global heating below 1.5°C.
We just reached 300 on our scientist letter to Biden calling on the White House to take bold action to stop fossil fuels & promote just energy transition!
The scientists plan to release the letter with all signatures ahead of Sunday’s march.
The global mobilization—and the Climate Ambition Summit, where leaders of countries that emit the most heat-trapping gases will be expected to present updated plans to reduce their emissions and phase out fossil fuels—comes after a summer in the Northern Hemisphere in which numerous temperature records were broken.
As Common Dreams reported last week, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres warned that “climate breakdown has begun” when U.S. scientists found the summer was the hottest on record. Scientists have said that extreme weather events such as wildfires in Canada and heatwaves in the U.S. and Europe in recent months would not have happened without human-caused planetary heating.
Tasneem Essop, executive director of Climate Action Network, emphasized that popular uprisings against the fossil fuel industry and the politicians that continue to support it have found success, such as the campaign that pushed Ecuadorians to vote against drilling in the Yasuní National Park in the Amazon last month.
“July 2023 was the hottest month in recorded climate history,” said Essop. “The unparalleled, deadly climate disasters sweeping the world seem to leave polluters unfazed. Historical emitters like Norway, the U.K., and the USA are announcing new fossil fuel projects even as floods, fires, and heatwaves take over our lives. We take inspiration from recent victories in the Yasuní region with the referendum to stop oil drilling.”
“When we the people use our collective power we can win,” Essop added. “Let our resistance against fossil fuels in September send a loud message to the fossil fuel industry and their supporters that their time is up.”
Outside of the U.S., more than 3,000 people are expected to join the Pakistan Climate March in the southern Sidh province; 100,000 are expected to join a march in Abuja, Nigeria; and 3,000 are expected to march near Malacañang Palace in Manila.
“We demand a phaseout of fossil fuels now,” said Farooq Tariq, secretary-general of Kissan Rabita Committee in Pakistan. “The fossil fuel industry and its supporters bear responsibility for the climate crisis and perpetuate a predatory and destructive economic system that harms both people and the planet.”
“This report is a wake-up call to the injustice of the climate crisis and a pivotal opportunity to correct course,” said one expert.
“The United Nations’ polite prose glosses over what is a truly damning report card for global climate efforts. Carbon emissions? Still climbing. Rich countries’ finance commitments? Delinquent. Adaptation support? Lagging woefully behind.”
That’s how Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, began his response to a “global stocktake” report released Friday by the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) ahead of two global summits.
“This report is a wake-up call to the injustice of the climate crisis and a pivotal opportunity to correct course,” Dasgupta continued. “We already knew the world is failing to meet its climate goals, but leaders now have a concrete blueprint underpinned by a mountain of evidence for how to get the job done.”
“There are a few bright spots worth celebrating,” he noted. “But overall, the report finds there are more gaps than progress—gaps that can only be erased by transformational change across systems like energy, food, land, and transport. The future of our planet depends on whether national leaders use this stark assessment as a catalyst for bold systems transformation.”
“This report makes clear that President Biden is squandering precious time every second he fails to take bold action on fossil fuels.”
The UNFCCC report comes nearly eight years after countries finalized the Paris climate agreement, which aims to keep global temperature rise this century below 2°C, relative to preindustrial levels, with a more ambitious target of 1.5°C.
“The global stocktake was designed under the Paris agreement to assess our global response to the climate crisis and chart a better way forward,” the UNFCCC explained Friday. “The global stocktake is held every five years and is intended to inform the next round of nationally determined contributions to be put forward by 2025.”
Data collection began in 2021, ultimately resulting in more than 170,000 pages of written submissions and over 252 hours of meetings and discussions. The new synthesis report summarizes 17 key technical findings from the discussions.
“I urge governments to carefully study the findings of the report and ultimately understand what it means for them and the ambitious action they must take next,” said U.N. Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell. “It’s the same for businesses, communities, and other key stakeholders. While the catalytic role of the Paris agreement and the multilateral process will remain vital in the coming years, the global stocktake is a critical moment for greater ambition and accelerating action.”
As University College London professor of climatology Mark Maslin explained, the report “makes it clear that the Paris agreement was a game-changer” but also countries’ greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction pledges are not in line with the 1.5°C target.
“The U.N. estimates that… we need to reduce global GHG emissions by 43% by 2030 and further by 60% by 2035 compared to 2019 levels and reach net-zero [carbon dioxide] emissions by 2050 globally,” Maslin summarized. “This is a huge ask given that greenhouse gas emissions were at their highest level ever in 2022.”
“All the technology exists to undergo the net-zero transformation but the huge increases in renewables, [electric vehicles], and batteries [have] to be even more rapid to make the huge cuts suggested by the U.N.—estimates are we need everything to happen five times faster,” he added.
The United Nations global stocktake is meant to assess how far off track mankind is from meeting promises to stop global warming. Here's why the report matters: https://t.co/hOYsIELxWDpic.twitter.com/5VIoYf8XwR
The UNFCCC publication was released in preparation for the U.N. Climate Change Conference (COP28)—scheduled for November and December in Dubai, United Arab Emirates—where the first global stocktake will conclude.
“This global stocktake report provides clear direction on how we can meet the expectations of the Paris agreement by taking decisive action in this critical decade,” said COP28 President-Designate Sultan Al Jaber—whose selection for the summit post is controversial because he also heads the UAE’s Abu Dhabi National Oil Company. “We must urgently disrupt business as usual and unite like never before to move from ambition to action and from rhetoric to real results.”
The report also comes just ahead of U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres’ Climate Ambition Summit scheduled to begin on September 20 in New York City. In response, activists have planned the March to End Fossil Fuels on September 17.
Organizers of the NYC march are calling on U.S. President Joe Biden to stop federal approvals for new fossil fuel projects and repeal permits for “climate bombs” like the Willow project and the Mountain Valley Pipeline; phase out oil and gas drilling on public lands and waters; declare a climate emergency; and provide a just transition.
Advocacy groups supporting the march issued fresh demands for action on Friday in response to the UNFCCC publication.
“This report makes clear that President Biden is squandering precious time every second he fails to take bold action on fossil fuels,” said the Center for Biological Diversity’s Jean Su, who previously authored a document detailing how an emergency declaration would empower the administration to tackle the climate crisis. “Every day we’re seeing and feeling the harms of fossil-fueled climate change from extreme heat to deadly wildfires and devastating floods.”
“As leader of the world’s largest oil and gas producer, Biden has more power than anyone to stop expanding the fossil fuels driving this deadly crisis,” Su added. “Ahead of the U.N.’s Climate Ambition Summit, thousands of people will be in the streets of New York on September 17 for the March to End Fossil Fuels. This is the perfect opportunity for Biden to declare a climate emergency, use all his executive powers to phase out fossil fuels, and finally secure a legacy as a climate leader.”
“We need the biggest players to use their power to avert climate chaos, and to flex their muscle to protect human life rather than protecting corporate polluters.”
Greenpeace International policy coordinator Kaisa Kosonen on Friday called out governments across the globe, declaring that “our house is burning down and the people with the power to save us are still sipping coffee pretending it’s not happening.”
“No government can claim they didn’t know how to fix the climate problem,” she said. “They’ve been thrown a lifesaver again and again by scientists, and now we have this report. What the world is waiting for is action; leadership. We need the biggest players to use their power to avert climate chaos, and to flex their muscle to protect human life rather than protecting corporate polluters.”
Looking toward COP28, Kosonen argued that “at this year’s U.N. climate summit, governments must agree to end the use of oil, gas, and coal in a fast and fair way and make the polluters pay. Leaders can no longer smile and claim they support the Paris agreement and its 1.5°C warming limit, if they fail to give fossil fuels an end date and continue their expansion.”
“The solutions are ready—renewables are now the cheapest power source—but we’ve got to push the fossil fuel industry out of the way,” she stressed. “Fossil fuel corporations are holding us hostage, but their time’s up.”
The UNFCCC report and resulting calls for action follow a series of scientific findings throughout the week that also generated demands for a swift end to fossil fuels, including that Antarctica is warming more quickly than models project, this summer is the hottest on record, and last year greenhouse gas concentrations, global sea level, and ocean heat content all hit record highs.
