Al's Climate Crusade

I promised to reflect on the Al Gore road show. Having presented his slides 1100 times (I'm told), won an oscar with the documentary and presented his five point plan to Congress he's moving up a gear. He's seeking to recruit supporters to take his slide show and cascade presentations around the world - providing in depth "training sessions" for them - and is planning to spend $100 million a year for the next three years on a media campaign, starting this year with the Live Earth global concerts on July 7th (7/7/07). Who has time to run for President? There's no question that the charisma, energy, eloquence and passion of an A list politician with a mission is powerful. But what of the content? He's impressive on the science, but more impressive on the politics - clearly attempting to provide hope for those who might despair in the face of his apocalyptic warnings.

The event brought together a collection of CEOs, government officials, NGOs, teachers and others - all pretty much supporters (I made it clear I was there as observer not advocate). On hand were scientists Sir Peter Knight from Imperial College and the Director of the British Antarctic Survey Prof Chris Rapley.
They asserted there were no serious sceptics about Climate Change (but were very defensive about Channel 4's "Great Global Warming Swindle" going to great lengths to criticise the programme, the commission and outline the flaws..I would have expected greater confidence in discussing it).
Overall it reinforced my view that - whether or not you believe climate change is caused by man - no-one seems to question global warming is happening and that, as a precaution alone, we should cut CO2 emissions which will mean compromising our lifestyles. Which is where it starts to get really interesting...Recognition of Climate Change extends across the political spectrum. What to do about it, does not.

I then read a piece in the latest British Journalism Review by Eleni Andreadis and Joe Smith about media coverage of climate change. They rightly say:

The history of climate-change reporting is one of a long period of passivity punctured by a more recent burst of alarmism. ...it is essential to recognise that climate change is, by its nature, a very tricky issue to cover.

Reporting risk is never straightforward.
They argue that journalistic scepticism and weakness on economics are to blame for a delay in public understanding of the seriousness of climate change. Plus too great a weight being given to maverick voices in the search for "balance". Interestingly, Gore said the scientific culture of peer review and scepticism was also interpreted as uncertainty about the science by the media and had contributed to some confusion.

They conclude:

Journalism has helped to bring much of the British public to a new understanding of its precipitous relationship with its environment. It now has a key role in provoking and presenting the political and economic debates about how we can progress towards an ecologically sustainable society.

In other words, news coverage should move on from the science to the politics and economics of hard choices. I agree we need to invest heavily in reporting those elements, which take in every aspect of how we live our lives and how we work. But I suspect in confronting those hard choices, people aren't ready to leave the scientific debate quite yet.