Media and Climate Change Observatory (MeCCO)
February 2018 Summary

February media attention to climate change and global warming was down 23% throughout the world from the previous month of January 2018. This was the case across most regions: Asia was down 30%, Central/South America dropped 9%, Europe decreased 26%, Oceania dropped 7%, and North America was down 34%. The exceptions were Africa and in the Middle East. Global numbers were about half those (58% less) from counts a year ago (February 2017). The high levels of coverage in February 2017 were attributed to coverage of movements of the newly anointed Donald J. Trump Administration in the United States (US).

Figure 1 above shows these ebbs and flows in media coverage at the global scale – organized into seven geographical regions around the world – from January 2004 through January 2018.

At the country level in February 2018, coverage also went down in most countries compared to the previous month: Germany (-5%), Canada (-13%), Australia (-13%), the United Kingdom (UK) (-17%), India (-25%), Spain (-34%), and the United States (-42%). It was just up slightly in New Zealand (+6%).

Recently, MeCCO has expanded to six world radio sources (Figure 2), with monitoring of coverage beginning in January 2000. Coverage in February 2018 compared to the previous month was also down (-62%), and coverage compared to a year ago (February 2017) was similarly reduced as well (-49%).

Moving to considerations of content within these searches, Figure 3 shows word frequency data at the country levels in global newspapers and radio, juxtaposed with US newspapers and US television in February 2018.

The five newspapers and six television sources in the US showed continuing yet diminishing signs in February of the ‘Trump Dump’ (where media attention that would have focused on other climate-related events and issues instead was placed on Trump-related actions (leaving many other stories untold)). However, analyses of content in media reporting outside the US context show that this pattern of news reporting continues to be limited to the US. To illustrate, in February, US news articles related to climate change or global warming, Trump was invoked 1439 times through the 272 stories this month (a ratio of 5.3 times per article on average) in The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, and the Los Angeles Times. In US television sources of ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News Network, MSNBC, and NBC, Trump was mentioned 722 times in 43 news segments (16.8 mentions per segment). In contrast, in the UK press, Trump was mentioned in the Daily Mail & Mail on Sunday, Guardian & the Observer, the Sun, the Daily Telegraph & Sunday Telegraph, the Daily Mirror & Sunday Mirror, the Scotsman & Scotland on Sunday, and the Times & Sunday Times 348 times in 448 February articles (approximately 0.8 mentions per article on average).

That said, diminishing signs are indicated by the ratio in the US, now down from 8.8 times per article and 43 times per television segment in January (drops in these ratios of 40% and 61% respectively). These diminished trends were evident across media publications outside the US as well in February 2018 (e.g. 0.9 times/article in Canada, 0.3 times/article in Australia, 0.2 times/article in New Zealand and 0.3 times/article in Germany). We will see if this declining Trump influence on media coverage of global warming or climate change in US sources and elsewhere continues to decline as 2018 unfolds. However, this current trend can quickly change if the Trump Administration focuses attention on the issues in March and beyond.

Many media accounts in February focused on primarily scientific dimensions of climate change and global warming. For example, early in February a new study in Science magazine by Anthony Pagano and colleagues – perhaps primed by wintry weather in the Northern Hemisphere – found that consumption of high-fat prey by polar bears is becoming scarcer in ice-free conditions, and they therefore are having to work harder to find their calories. Journalist Amina Khan in the Los Angeles Times reported that this research into free-ranging Arctic polar bear behavior and metabolism over a two year period confirmed suspicions that the loss of sea ice detrimentally impacts their health and survival, writing, “they burn calories at a faster rate than previously thought”. Later in February, a considerable amount of media attention focused in on a scientific article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Steve Nerem (from the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at CU Boulder (also where MeCCO is housed)) and colleagues. They found through examinations of twenty-five years of sea level data that the pace of sea level rise has increased. From the research, Associated Press journalist Seth Borenstein and many others wrote about how the researchers then projected that there would now be a global sea level rise higher than previously expected, of approximately two feet (0.6 meters) by 2100.

Attention paid to political content of coverage during the month was often tethered to decarbonization trends. As one example, a report on increasing wind capacity in Europe garnered widespread media attention. Among stories, journalist Adam Vaughan from The Guardian wrote, “Britain accounted for more than half of the new offshore wind power capacity built in Europe last year, as the sector broke installation records across the continent”. As a second example, the fate of coal generated a number of stories as well. While a study from the US Appalachian Regional Commission noted that coal production in that region has fallen precipitously, other stories covered how US Trump Administration policy action has reversed these trends in the short term. For instance, Journalist Kris Maher from The Wall Street Journal wrote, “Miners in Indiana and other states are getting a small lift from global markets: American companies are shipping more coal to Europe and Asia, helping to stop the years long drop in the number of U.S. mining jobs. The latest job increase runs counter to the long-term decline in coal used to generate electricity in the U.S., as coal-fired power plants are closed in favor of plants that burn cheap, abundant and cleaner natural gas…The stronger export market is translating into a bump in coal-mining jobs”.

Across the globe in February, stories also intersected with the cultural dimensions. For example, a New York Times piece by Maggie Astor entitled ‘No children because of climate change? Some people are considering it’ focused on how an uncertain climate future has played a role in childbearing decisions among interviewees ages 18 to 43 in the US..

Meanwhile in February, coverage relating primarily to ecological and meteorological issues continued to draw attention. To illustrate, continued impacts from hurricane damage – particularly hurricanes Irma and Maria – whipped up media attention. One representative story by writer Tim Craig and photojournalist Bonnie Jo Mount called ‘Shredded roofs, shattered lives’ in TheWashington Post was emblematic of coverage that touched on cultural and societal dimensions and reverberations as they related to ecological/meteorological facets of climate change. In addition, record temperatures in the Artic in late February generated further coverage. For example, in a piece entitled ‘North Pole surges above freezing in the dead of winter, stunning scientists’, Washington Post journalist Jason Samenow wrote, “The Arctic’s temperatures are soaring, with one analysis estimating the North Pole edged above freezing temperatures last weekend even as polar winter continues without sunlight. Although there are no direct temperature measurements at the North Pole, the U.S. Global Forecast System model pegged the temperature as high as 35 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) – more than 50 F (30 C) above normal”.

These cultural and ecological/meteorological infused stories wove back into political dimensions of disaster relief responses now five months since the tragedies struck in the Caribbean Basin. For instance, US National Public Radio’s Greg Allen reported on the weak state of health care services in the US Virgin Islands.

As a general lull in media reporting of climate change or global warming pervades in February 2018, there nonetheless remains an ongoing concern relating to the ‘fierce urgency of now’.

– report prepared by Max Boykoff, Jennifer Katzung and Ami Nacu-Schmidt

by Deserai Crow
Associate Professor, School of Public Affairs, CU Denver and CSTPR Faculty Affiliate

Photo: Plenary panel with Lieutenant Gov. Donna Lynne, Xcel Energy Colorado President David Eves, Denver Water CEO James Lochhead, City of Durango Mayor Dick White, and Western Resource Advocates President Jon Goldin-Dubois

As January turned to February in Colorado, and we all lamented the lack of snow and unseasonably warm winter, leaders from across the state gathered in Aurora to focus on climate preparedness. Governor John Hickenlooper talked to a crowded room of hundreds of people from government agencies, research institutes, academia, and non-governmental sectors. He told the crowd that when you love the place you live, you want to take care of that place. For the people who came to the Colorado Communities Symposium, this seemed to be central to their work.

After the first day of speeches by the Governor, Senator Bennet, Mayors Hogan and Hancock designed to praise the importance of the work and the people doing the work, we spent the following two days trying to determine how we could collectively work to move the state and our communities forward on issues such as resilience, clean energy, economic development, water and forest issues, and more.

My own research focuses on state and local environmental decision-making, particularly around issues such as risk mitigation, disaster recovery, and resilience, so I sat in Town Hall style meetings with people working to improve community-level resilience in Colorado. These folks came from the Colorado Office of Resiliency and Recovery, NREL, NOAA, universities, the private sector, and so many of our Colorado communities that see climate change, community development, and resilience as critical issues facing their communities in the coming decades.

As academics, we often struggle to find time or receptive audiences for our work to matter to practitioners who may need it. But this three-day symposium gave me some hope that here in Colorado there is the space, the desire, and the expertise to bridge these academic and non-academic worlds. From my seat, the stakeholders sitting around the tables both needed things and had things to offer others. These combined resources – when thoughtfully planned – might be ingredients to work towards meaningful positive changes across the state.

• Local governments told stories of on-the-ground experiences trying to communicate risks and resilience with their residents. They talked about data on resilience and change, communication practices, partnerships, politics, and more. They talked about successes and frustrations. And they told us that they need frameworks and metrics that they could bring to their own communities and adapt to their local needs.
• Federal agencies and labs pointed to the data that they gather and how much they desire for it to be used beyond the federal government.
• Academics described their research and the data or expertise they can bring to questions about resilience, data needs, and translation of research into practice. They told the others how excited they would be to see that work used to improve local resilience.
• The State of Colorado listened and asked about the next steps forward. State agency staff looked to the participants for needs, resources, and energy to move forward to turn the discussions into a process through which they might bring these needs and resources together to benefit communities across Colorado. The goal of a combined effort might be to learn from one another, draw on expertise and resources, and gain support needed for local planning and decision-making.

It’s not uncommon for academics working in my area to feel disheartened, frustrated, or unheard as environmental protections, climate progress, and long-term planning towards more resilient communities are all stymied at the federal-level. This conversation over three-days in Colorado gave me a glimmer of hope that local and state-level changes can do a great deal to overcome that stymied progress, can help us academics get out of our spaces and into the world to help where we are useful, and can get stakeholders to talk to one another and learn from one another.

Leaving the symposium, my primary hope is that we don’t stop with this exciting conversation in Aurora, but keep the conversation and the real work moving forward.

by Matthew Druckenmiller
CSTPR Research Affiliate and National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado Boulder

Scientific integrity is the foundation for science and scientists to be useful to, and trusted by, those consulting science to make decisions.  The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) defines scientific integrity as “processes in which independent science fully and transparently informs policy decisions, free from inappropriate political, ideological, financial, or other undue influence”. In today’s climate of divided politics, partisan rancor, and rampant spread and availability of misinformation, efforts are underway to safeguard what UCS defines as the four principles of scientific integrity in federal policymaking: (1) independent science, (2) scientific free speech, (3) transparent decision making, and (4) statutory compliance. The first two are at the core of what it means to be a scientist. By and large, scientists commit to the deeply held belief that their work must be free from conflicts of interest that may bias their science, and that they are free to express their personal views on the science with appropriate disclaimers. The third and fourth principles, however, are perhaps more in-view for those scientists working at the interface of science and policy; those immediately concerned with bringing science in service of the public good. (While the proportion of basic research funded by taxpayer dollars is dramatically down from previous decades, federal funds remain by far the largest supporter of research.) Implementing statutory compliance to scientific integrity refers to legal frameworks that require that the best available science be brought to bear on policy decisions. Knowing where and how such frameworks apply requires experience, and is key to identifying opportunities for bringing transparent, independent science to bear on federal policy deliberations.

However, any momentum toward greater evidence-based governance in the U.S. and action on some of the most pressing issues we face requires progress at the state level as well. Policy issues debated in a federal context often mirror discussions underway across the states, whether, for example, related to health-care, education, environment, or extreme weather events. Also, in terms of opportunity, it is important to keep in mind that the vast majority of states (if not all) are not experiencing the gridlock of the U.S. Congress. (For example, in Colorado, 62% of bills introduced last year passed both chambers, and were passed onto the Governor. By comparison, the 114^th U.S. Congress sent only about 3% of introduced bills to the President.) While there are some nonpartisan resources at state legislators’ disposal, most states lack adequate resources to support informed legislative policy. Yet, they are encountering issues that are increasingly technically complex without the scientific or technical expertise to address them.

One partial solution is to bring more scientists into the policy realm. Towards this goal, the Center for Science and Technology Policy is currently exploring the creation of a science and technology policy fellowship program at the state level. What would such a program look like? Ideally, the fellowship would entail 1-2 year placements of PhD-level scientists and professional engineers within the state legislature to provide an in-house source of non-partisan, evidence-based information. In other words, the program will embed a “scientist’s mindset” into the daily activities of the legislature. In turn, these fellowships will expose scientists to the policymaking process and to opportunities (statutory or otherwise) for science and evidence-based information to be considered in the context of critical issues facing the state, including water resources, transportation, wildfire management, agriculture, air quality, and resource development—issues that are intricately linked to the state’s dramatic population growth and economic development.

Of course, this is not a new idea! The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has implemented an S&T policy fellowship program at the federal level since 1973, and now places approximately 300 fellows each year in all branches of the federal government. At the state level, the California Council on Science and Technology (CCST) has implemented a successful program within the California Legislature since 2009, and places up to 10 fellows per year. Both of these programs provide a wealth of experience for efforts that are now underway to plan similar fellowships in nine states across the country, including Colorado.

A decade ago, the state science and technology policy movement was seen as somewhat uncharted territory. However, those interested in science and technology recognized that many of the institutions needed to inject scientific considerations into state policymaking already existed, but that the potential was largely unrealized. This report by the National Academy of Sciences summarizes the first of its kind convocation that took place in 2007 to discuss with state policymakers the benefits of policy informed by science and technology. The report outlines opportunities and challenges, and called for a mechanism for sharing best practices across institutions that are in a position to offer science and technology advice at the state level. The effort underway to plan S&T policy fellowships across states (thanks to the Moore Foundation, the Simons Foundation, and CCST) is an excellent example of such a mechanism emerging.

Media and Climate Change Observatory (MeCCO)
January 2018 Summary

January media attention to climate change and global warming was up 8% throughout the world from the previous month of December 2017. Increases were detected in Asia (up 15%), Africa (up 43%) Europe (up 7%), Oceania (up 11%), and North America (up 9%), while holding relatively steady in the Middle East. The Media and Climate Change Observatory (MeCCO) detected a decrease in coverage in Central/South America (down 14%). However, the global numbers were down about 5% from counts a year ago (January 2017). The high levels of coverage in January 2017 were largely attributed to the discussions of possible climate change and global warming policy stances after the inauguration of United States (US) President Donald J. Trump. At the country level, coverage went up from the previous month in Australia (+25%), India (+16%), Spain (+7%), the United Kingdom (UK) (+8%), and the United States (+13%), while it went down in Canada (-5%), Germany (-28%), and New Zealand (-13%).

Figure 1 above shows these ebbs and flows in media coverage at the global scale – organized into seven geographical regions around the world – from January 2004 through January 2018.

This month MeCCO expanded coverage to sixty-two newspaper sources across thirty-five countries, adding sources in Latin America. We have strengthened our Spanish-language searches for articles with the presence of terms “cambio climático” or “calentamiento global”, while we expanded our searches now to Portuguese through searches for the terms “mudanças climáticas” or “aquecimento global”. Figure 2 shows Latin American newspaper coverage from January 2005 through January 2018.

Also new to MeCCO is monitoring of climate change or global warming in US television coverage from January 2000 through January 2018. We now monitor ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News Network, MSNBC, and NBC.

Moving to considerations of content within these searches, Figure 4 shows word frequency data at the country levels in US newspapers, US television, UK newspapers, and Indian newspapers in January 2018.

The five representative US sources showed continuing signs of a ‘Trump Dump’ (where media attention that would have focused on other climate-related events and issues instead was placed on Trump-related actions (leaving many other stories untold)). This pattern of news reporting continued to be limited to the US context. For instance, in January US news articles related to climate change or global warming, Trump was invoked 4145 times through the 472 stories this month (a ratio of 8.8 times per article on average) in The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, and the Los Angeles Times. In US television sources of ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News Network, MSNBC, and NBC, Trump was mentioned 4108 times through just 95 news segments (43 mentions per segment). However, in contrast in the UK press, Trump was mentioned in the Daily Mail & Mail on Sunday, Guardian & the Observer, the Sun, the Daily Telegraph & Sunday Telegraph, the Daily Mirror & Sunday Mirror, the Scotsman & Scotland on Sunday, and the Times & Sunday Times 1265 times in 589 January articles (approximately 2.1 mentions per article on average). In the Indian press (Indian Express, The Hindu, Hindustan Times, and Times of India), Trump was mentioned just 75 times in 353 articles in January (approximately 0.2 times per article on average).

The US-based Trump Dump can be illustrated through a remarkable Washington Post opinion from the Editorial Board on January 20, entitled ‘The shutdown brouhaha has covered up far bigger news’. Noting that 2017 was determined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to be one of the warmest years on record, they wrote, “One byproduct of the day-to-day chaos of the Trump presidency is that the nation’s biggest, long-term challenges are often forgotten. While Washington spent this week agonizing over the prospect of a totally unnecessary government shutdown, what should have been far bigger news went nearly unremarked.” They went on to boldly write, “Last year also marked a recent low in the federal government’s response to climate change. President Trump installed a climate-change denier, Scott Pruitt, at the Environmental Protection Agency, signaling the end of landmark climate rules on power companies. Mr. Trump’s energy secretary, Rick Perry, pushed for a pro-coal policy so absurd that the independent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) rejected it out of hand. The president also announced he would pull out of the Paris climate agreement, an accord that the United States spent years fine-tuning to ensure it was a fair deal.”

These stories were examples of attention paid primarily to political content of coverage during the month. In this space, China continued in its path to take up a leadership position on decarbonization in the void left by the United States. Journalist Hiroko Tabuchi of The New York Times reported that China continued to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by banning the ongoing production of over 500 car models – from both foreign and domestic companies – that don’t meet new Chinese fuel economy standards. Also, preceding the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, where climate change was a much discussed topic by all world leaders besides US President Donald Trump, the WEF Global Risks Report – a survey of 1,000 international business, government, education and service leaders – was released. Reporter Kim Hjelmgaard from USA Today wrote “Mother Nature topped the most significant risks facing the world for a second year in a row… that includes natural disasters and extreme weather events that human-caused climate change may be abetting”.

Across the globe in January there were a range of stories that intersected with the cultural arena. For example, at the end of January the Doomsday Clock was advanced closer to midnight due primarily to concerns of climate change and nuclear war. Journalist Doyle Rice from USA Today quoted Rachel Bronson, president of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, who said “Because of the extraordinary danger of the current moment, [we] move the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock thirty seconds closer to catastrophe. This is the closest the Clock has ever been to Doomsday, and as close as it was in 1953 at the height of the Cold War”.

Intersecting political and cultural dimensions, coal was anthropomorphized and championed throughout the month in media accounts, mainly focused on actions in the US Trump Administration. While market forces (e.g. competition with natural gas and renewables) work against coal, numerous media reports mentioned coal mine closings. For example, the Associated Pressreported on 400 jobs lost at a Pennsylvania coal mine closing announcement in early January. Yet as part of the FERC rebuff of a pro-coal policy put forward in mid-January (mentioned in the Washington Post editorial above), journalist Joanna Walters from The Guardian wrote that the decision was “a blow to the president’s high-profile mission to revive the struggling US coal industry”. The end the month, Kenneth Vogel and Rachel Shorey in The New York Times outlined shadowy carbon-based industry donations to the Trump Administration that may help explain these against-the-grain pro-coal stances. Nonetheless, in the US State of the Union address by the President on January 30, Trump championed “beautiful and clean coal” in energy priorities going forward in 2018, despite some factual challenges mentioned by the editorial team in The Australian.

In January, coverage relating primarily to ecological and meteorological issues garnered attention. There were a number of stories about extreme weather events around the world. For example, a ‘bomb cyclone’ in the Northeast began the month. Also, James Queally, Melissa Etehad, and Brittny Mejia reported in the Los Angeles Times on how the southern California mudslides related to preceding wildfires and flood events across the state.

Media accounts also focused on primarily scientific dimensions of climate change and global warming. The most media attention in the month focused on the temperature records set in 2017. For example, journalist Damian Carrington at The Guardian was one of many reporters and outlets that covered news that 2017 was the warmest year on record without an El Niño, and the third warmest year after 2016 and 2015.

Onward we go into 2018.

– report prepared by Max Boykoff, Jennifer Katzung and Ami Nacu-Schmidt