Society of Environmental Journalists Program at Wilson Center Illustrated Problem with Climate Change Journalism

February 24, 2019

Print This Article Share it With Friends

by Joanne Ivancic* (Advanced Biofuels USA) Billed as the “2019 Journalists’ Guide to Energy & Environment,” the Society of Environmental Journalists held their annual presentation on Energy and Environmental Journalism January 25 at the Wilson Center in Washington, DC. The event featured an interview of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Assistant Administrator for Air William Wehrum by The Guardian’s Emily Holden, followed by a journalists’ panel discussion. The event demonstrated what’s wrong, dissatisfying and incomplete about coverage of climate change causes, effects and policies.

William Wehrum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Assistant Administrator for Air

After investing a large portion of the interview badgering Wehrum about his already-known views of climate change, and failing to get him to promise to make climate change a key focus at EPA, little time remained for Holden to delve into Wehrum’s true plans for his EPA activities, to get him to identify any of his specific initiatives related to environmental regulations or to assess their intended impact on air or water quality or other environmental concerns. Unfortunately, no question was raised about the petroleum industry lobbyist who apparently escorted Wehrum to this event, either.

Journalists' Panel Discussion

Next, journalists played pundit about their take on high profile environmental issues and talked about their latest travel assignments, except for Associated Press's Christina Larson who focused on process and practices related to reporting from China and other overseas locations.

One questioner lamented that the discussion didn’t address the business, practices or elements of journalism specifically related to covering climate change. But the moderator and panel didn’t quite understand the intent of the comment so she tried to address it by asking each panelist to reflect on the question and provide a statement.

The Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin staunchly defended what she took to be a criticism of journalism of climate change in general (rather than a criticism of the focus of the panel) and vehemently defended coverage noting that she thought their coverage was of high quality.

Eilperin was joined by Eric Lipton of The New York Times who noted that paper is hiring another reporter to cover the topic. He did allow that reporters should get out into the world to do on-location reporting more often, describing the horrible air pollution he experienced firsthand during a recent trip to the Bakken oil/gas fracking fields. Apparently, getting reporters into the environments they write about is a big, difficult deal; not routine. I would have liked to hear more about how these leaders in journalism intended to change that—or if they think that’s the appropriate way to cover these topics.

Particularly lacking in providing a sophisticated picture of issues or coverage of climate change in the agricultural sector was Politico’s Agriculture and Trade editor, Pradnya “P.J.” Joshi. She was great when talking about international trade agreements; but could only think of Farm Bill fights about conservation land between environmentalists and agriculture interests when asked how climate change impacted agriculture.

Although she also mentioned weather issues of drought and floods, she never mentioned lengthening growing seasons or crops that can be grown further north than they could 20-50 years ago. Or pests or diseases that are cropping up in new places and the difficulties and innovations related to fighting them. Or the pressure on land owners to convert quality agricultural land to solar fields and related land use change or indirect land use change issues.

Of equal concern, Joshi completely missed noting that agriculture supplies 10% of US ground transportation fuel, lessening not only life cycle greenhouse gas emissions, but reducing air pollution in other ways, as well. She noted that farmers are trying to lessen their carbon footprint by using drones and reducing use of diesel-powered farm equipment, but never mentioned the possibility of using renewable fuels in farm equipment. She failed to characterize any of that as part of “climate smart agriculture” or to note experiments to quantify carbon sequestration by crops.

Although she covered dairy news early in her career, agriculture is obviously not her current area of expertise and she probably should not have been on the panel representing coverage of climate change in an agricultural context. Or, perhaps she is representative. And that might explain why there’s little understanding of the suffering agriculture experiences due to climate change, the changes in farming crops and practices that will occur to adapt to climate change, and the positive role agriculture can have in mitigating climate change.

Larson, the Global Science & Environment Correspondent for the Associate Press, gave some of the most telling insights. In particular, Larson talked about covering climate change around the world, particularly in Asia, and most specifically in China. When asked to make a comparison, she talked about the personal discomfort and health risks attendant on covering the environment in a country where the air pollution is so bad that you calculate each day how many face masks you’ll need when you go out the door. Compared to those conditions, although the US has serious issues about safe drinking water and other environmental problems, she reminded us that this country is far ahead of much of the world in what we have done to assure clean air and water.

Holden, who moderated the panel, never raised the issue of carbon price/cost/tax in any guise (tax-and-dividend; cap-and-trade; carbon user fee) although legislation has been introduced on Capitol Hill, has been identified by many economists as the only way to achieve change in a market-based economy, and many believe that without some kind of supportive policy like a carbon tax or low carbon fuel standard that nothing adequately significant will happen to change the way we make and use energy.

Suggestions to Remedy these Problems with Climate, Energy and Environmental Journalism

From observing this discussion among some of the senior journalists in the environmental space working at some of the most respected news organizations in the US, it appears that a new approach to the multi-faceted subject of climate change and environmental reporting is needed.

All panelists acknowledged at some point the overlapping subject areas. They also acknowledged that many see environmental reporters as on the “side of environmentalists.” Probably, the journalists argued, because they base their reporting on science warning of the changes coming due to global climate change.

I’d like to see next year’s panel talk about new and improved ways to cover this difficult multifaceted area. Maybe if reporters didn’t see themselves as arbitrators, trying to show “both sides,” but as mediators trying to help the public and those with multiple perspectives and interests to understand each others’ perspectives and interests and to then analyze where there are common goals, where the resources are to reach those goals, environmental journalism could improve. Then, journalists wouldn’t be seen as “on the side of environmentalists” and maybe even “environmentalism” could achieve a more realistic meaning.

The old adage, “Follow the Money” might also reveal the power struggles, both political and economic and should have a place in climate, energy and environmental journalism.

Coverage might also benefit from collaborative reporting with those who understand Wall Street and how/why it invests along with experts in the various sciences of climate change (from climate and weather modelling to the elements of the carbon cycle; from biologists, ecologists, engineers and agronomists to automotive and engines/fuels experts); with those knowledgeable of federal, state, regional and local agencies tasked with work that impacts climate change positively or negatively; with lawyers who can explain regulations and litigation; and those who can track down the financing pushing particular perspectives, studies, policies.

This will result in a far more robust picture of not only the problems and opportunities resulting from climate change, but also of the human elements causing, enabling, fighting or taking advantage of them.

I’d also like to hear a discussion about editorial pressure on journalists related to ad purchases, news outlet ownership, the need to attract clicks or eyes, the amount of funding for lengthy investigative reporting and other business elements that might influence how climate change is covered.

I’d like to hear how journalism schools could address the difficulties of environmental reporting, how to make it interesting without overhyping, patronizing or sensationalizing. With the Green New Deal and serious climate, energy and environmental legislation and regulation anticipated in the coming years, journalists will be relied on for quality, knowledgeable, insightful and objective information.

Why not weekly in-depth shows about the environment on all the key broadcast and cable news channels? The weather channel used to be an excellent source for climate change information. That programming should return. Newspapers should have dedicated expert op-ed columnists focused on environmental issues.

Reaction to Presentation

Everyone I spoke with at the reception after the presentations, except for organizers and speakers, expressed disappointment about the presentation.

One person said the reporters acted more like pundits on their area of expertise rather than as journalists doing a constructive critique of their work, business and industry with an eye to improvement. A comment in line with the person who submitted the question lamenting the lack of expected analysis of climate journalism from the panel.

I believe the Society for Environmental Journalists can do better than this to advocate for and deliver true quality, objective coverage of an enormously complex world of topics.

Prominent Reporters See Critical Year Ahead on Energy, Environment (Society of Environmental Journalists)

View a slideshow of images from the event | Watch the full webcast

*Joanne Ivancic serves as executive director of Advanced Biofuels USA.

Related articles:

Why covering the environment is one of the most dangerous beats in journalism http://theconversation.com/why-covering-the-environment-is-one-of-the-most-dangerous-beats-in-journalism-105477

There’s finally an increase in environmental journalism, but it’s inconsistent. Here’s how to fix that 2015 https://www.cjr.org/analysis/environmental_coverage_consistency.php

“The Need for Environmental Journalism Is More Acute Now Than Ever” The Revelator speaks with Bobby Magill, president of the Society of Environmental Journalists. 2017 June https://therevelator.org/environmental-journalism/

EPA regulator skirts the line between former clients and current job (Washington Post)

PS: This is the kind of environmental writing we need more of; with in-depth follow-up on what are the options; policies, financing, other crops, etc.: Ruined crops, salty soil: How rising seas are poisoning North Carolina’s farmland (Washington Post)

Fighting Climate Change Is Much More Than Just Hugging Trees (Our Daily Planet)

House panel launches probe of EPA’s air policy chief (Washington Post)

EPA, DEMS FIGHT OVER WEHRUM-INDUSTRY TIES: (Politico's Morning Energy)

Excerpt from Our Daily Planet: But far more disheartening was the reaction from the “liberal” media. The entire lineup of MSNBC anchors was anxious to discuss and dismiss climate change as a fluffy, feel-good issue and hardly “meaty” enough to build a campaign around. They seem to have forgotten all the news lately – the news that they read and report on a daily basis. How about the fact that the Black Friday Report on Climate Change dropped this bombshell – climate change has cost the U.S. economy $350 billion over the past decade. Or the fact that NOAA reported that in 2018, there were 14 weather and climate disasters that cost a billion dollars or more and these resulted in a total of $91 billion in damages. Or that our military and intelligence leaders consider climate change a top national security threat – even if the President is trying to rewrite that assessment with a bunch of non-experts from the White House. Or that experts estimate (using EPA’s own statistics) that regulatory rollbacks, such as the clean car rule and the clean power plan, will cause thousands of premature deaths while leaving these rules in place would actually save $90 billion annually in human health costs.

A friend of ours wrote us and asked point blank “Is Inslee’s campaign dead on arrival because it’s focusing on one issue?” Inslee’s campaign will face an uphill battle because he is unknown outside of his home state of Washington. But if anything, centering his campaign on climate change will give him an important plank – one that is a rallying cry for many on the left, just as building a border wall was for Trump supporters in 2016.

However, climate change as a political issue is also much more significant than even most Democrats give it credit for. It encompasses literally every other voting priority like jobs, economy, national security, healthcare, immigration, etc., etc. Dems have just never communicated it as such. It can provide a unifying framework on which to hang many popular proposals. It can give the Democrats a platform that holds together thematically – and that is easy to communicate. It is a much better vehicle to engage the public than a bunch of policy memos and wonky ideas that none of these candidates could make appealing.

Climate change, and its government response – the Green New Deal – is big and bold and will make us great again by moving the nation forward, rather taking us back. Much like its namesake, President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, there’s something for everyone. It is about the economy, an energy revolution, national security, agriculture, immigration, public health, and enjoying the outdoors. It is about making every sector of our economy work more efficiently and cost us less – pollution is nothing more than waste that someone else has to pay for – either through illness or blight or ravaging fires or storms. Corporate polluters have been given tax cuts for decades and regulatory rollbacks will cost millions of American lives. They’ve also been responsible for spreading climate denial and perpetuating the false narrative that action on climate comes at the direct cost of the economy. It’s time that the health and safety of the American public are prioritized over the profits of fossil fuel companies.

So bring it on, Governor Inslee. Keep talking about climate change. We need it. And maybe if you keep it up, even the Democrats will see it for what it is – the fuel for a blue wave in 2020. READ MORE