Climate scientists gathered for a major summit in Copenhagen a bit more than a week ago, but you might not have heard about it—or if you did, it might not have made much of an impression. It got little coverage in the U.S.—and the coverage it did get largely failed to put the severity of the situation in context. As Oliver Morton, chief news and features editor for the journal Nature, wrote in a blog post from the conference, “the coverage that I have seen… “seems a little thin.”
Much of the coverage the summit did get focused on one point: how much sea levels might rise by the end of the century. Depending on which article you read, it could be “as much as 39 inches (1 meter)” (Chicago Tribune), “likely to rise about one meter” (Christian Science Monitor), or “at least a meter” (AFP).
But are these projections for the worst-case scenario, or for the most likely scenario, if emissions continue rising as they have over the past few decades? Or is this amount of sea-level rise inevitable, even if we stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow? Most articles didn’t attempt to answer this relatively basic question.
Reuters did an admirable job, however, pointing out that no matter what, certain consequences of global warming are almost inevitable: “‘The sea-level rise may well exceed one metre (3.28 feet) by 2100 if we continue on our path of increasing emissions,’ said Stefan Rahmstorf, professor at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. ‘Even for a low-emission scenario, the best estimate is about one metre.’”
This kind of context is crucial, yet it’s often missing from articles on the global-warming debate. It’s ironic that much of the coverage from Copenhagen said little about how much of a difference cutting greenhouse-gas emissions could make—and how it is still possible to avoid worst-case scenarios. The main point of the conference, after all, was to inform policymakers, who will be meeting in December, also in Copenhagen, to attempt to forge a new agreement, the successor to the Kyoto Protocol, that will regulate greenhouse-gas emissions for years to come.
Reporting the latest projections for sea-level rise probably won’t make a dent in the nearly half of Americans who, according to a recent Gallup poll, think the media exaggerate the seriousness of climate change. “Much of the U.S. public—especially conservatives—remain in the dark about just how dire the situation is,” writes Joseph Romm, a scientist, on his blog, Climate Progress.
That could be in part because a lot of coverage misses the big picture. As Romm points out, U.S. coverage of the Copenhagen conference largely failed to highlight one of the key messages from the conference: “Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realized.” One story from the conference, by ClimateWire and carried by The New York Times, seemed to make light of the seriousness of the situation: “Scientists are gloomy; economists are more upbeat. Such was the bottom line of an epic, three-day international congress of climate change experts… it seemed that all the scientists had to share with their peers was bad news….”. (An AFP story covered this issue of experts’ feelings in what I thought was a more responsible way, in “Climate Change Blues: How Scientists Cope”.)
U.K. newspapers, on the other hand, did an excellent job of covering the big picture. The Times of London reported, “Professor Katharine Richardson… said it was now almost impossible for the world to achieve the UN target of preventing global temperature rise exceeding 2C”—widely agreed to be a threshold for dangerous climate change. “We can forget about the 2C,” said Richardson… “We are now facing the situation where we have to avoid a 5-6C rise in temperature.” And as an AFP article points out, “The economic impact of global warming has been grossly underestimated and scientists must warn that inaction will spell disaster, top economist and climate change expert Nicholas Stern said on Thursday.”