Environmental changes
| 10:30 UK time, Tuesday, 1 August 2006
You would have had to have been in hibernation for the past few years to have missed the ascent of the environment up the news agenda. We have been suffering a heat wave this week that many people have found unpleasant, the south east is crippled with drought and the UK apparently now produces award-winning wine because we can grow vines successfully in this country.
Many are questioning whether climate change is responsible for all this; others argue these events are cyclical.
There is a huge responsibility on us to be a trusted and reliable source of information. But to report the subject properly we have to look not only at the science, but also the impact of environmental issues on economics, business and politics. Like all journalistic organisations we tend to have difficulty doing joined-up reporting.
That's why we have decided to appoint an environment analyst to try to pull together some of these threads. Roger Harrabin has covered the environment for two decades, largely for radio where he has reported the story as it appears through energy, transport, housing and politics.
In his new post he will spread this approach across a wider range of 91热爆 outlets offering original stories and new perspectives, and tackling such subjects as...
鈥 What is a safe level of climate change?
鈥 Can technology provide the solution?
鈥 How much would we need to spend to stabilise the world's climate?
鈥 Can we adapt to climate change?
Hopefully through his work (such as this report on last night's Ten O'Clock News), audiences will be armed with more information to help better understand controversial and complex issues surrounding the subject.
Fran Unsworth is head of Newsgathering
Comments
I hope he doesn't start straight out from the "climate change is man made" viewpoint but instead discusses the increasingly vast but still ignored evidence that it is in fact a phenomena of nature that has occured many many times before.
I'd dearly love to know how it came to be that climate change, in the past couple of months, shot to the top of the 91热爆's agenda. It's as if all the shouting we campaigners have been doing for years finally broke down a flood barrier, because now talking to people about the issue has become so much easier. I also can't help but wonder if the 91热爆's promotion of the issue has helped make politicians much more receptive--or perhaps the direction of causation is the other way around? In any case, it seems to be a Good Thing, and I'd like to know how to pull the trick off for a few other issues. . . .
As environmental changes resulting from human activitiy are inextricably bound up with global economics, I hope this will not degenerate into the usual America bashing we have become accostomed to in such discussions. All economic decisions and changes have as a consequence tradeoffs which means there are some benefits and some penalties and they are not always evenly shared. I hope this leads to a sober and insightful dialogue and not the simplistic accusatorial posturing we've heard in the past. For it to be of real value, the full implications, and likely consequences of any suggested changes should be explored with an unbiased and balanced view. Can 91热爆 do that? We'll see.
I'm amazed to hear you didn't have an environmental analyst already, but I'm not here to complain. Good luck to Roger. When will he start blogging?
Good luck to him. Perhaps he could do an investigative bit on how many local councils use energy from a 'green' source or supplier, green or low energy lightbulbs, energy efficiancy of new council buildings, kerbside and other recycling schemes etc? I find it hard to get this sort of info from my local council. Enjoy the new job!
Yes, Simon, it is a fact that nature is cyclical. In nature, as in radio frequencies, many varying cycles can be superimposed upon each other. All of which makes it difficult to definitively define the causes for past or even present natural occurances. Never the less....
Mark's points about human activity and global economics are totally valid and can not be ignored.
None of that, however, changes the fact (1) that we (humans all) are pumping billions of tons of carbon and sulfer compounds into the atmosphere each year. This was not true prior to the industrial revolution. If one believes that this has no effect on the environment then I think that they are acting ostrichlike and refusing to see or listen. (2)It is a fact that we are cutting down hundreds of thousands of square miles of forest each year - forest that scrubs our air porducing the oxygen which we require and filters our water. Non-believers have just buried their heads a little deeper. (3)It is a fact that we have increased our human population to such an extent that our demands for air, water and space are (beginning to) overtax nature's resources. And the is no real end in sight for any of these problems.
I wish good luck to Mr. Harrabin in what I see as a thankless task if we are not to end up living on a desert planet
As we are approaching unnaturally high levels (unsustainable) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we are about to re-enter another cyclical event (for those that believe that all of this global warming is "natural"): after the arctic re-experiences near tropical conditions, plantlife will again prosper and reduce the carbon dioxide levels back to 250 ppm, in about 500,000 years, or so. Perfectly "natural." See
Half a million years seems quite the price for two hundred years of oil/coal.
Not a day goes past when this issue isn't covered in some way in the websites or television output of the 91热爆. I would have thought this will just add to the static. Why not appoint spokesperson who presents a more even approach to the whole subject. For instance I can't remember the last time I saw an item on the evening news that even hinted at a sceptical approach to environmental issues. There are many people who believe that the media and it's obsession with global warming is turning people off.
Many are questioning whether climate change is responsible for all this; others argue these events are cyclical.
The only voices arguing against Climate change are those whose words are motivated by ignorance or money, and it's a shame that so many of the media find it necessary to do the oil companies' work for them by planting the seeds of doubt.
Not one credible scientific paper published in the last 15 years casts doubt on the fact that we're causing global climate change, but scepticism among politicians and the media go against this concensus, with 53% of newspaper articles published in that time expressing doubt over our responsibility for the current crisis.
When is the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence going to change hearts and minds? It took decades for tobacco's health hazards to become commonly accepted because of industry pressure; will the ability of Big Oil to buy the hearts and minds of politicans mean that the same will be true of climate change?
I'm afraid we don't have time to find out.
I think that it would be really beneficial if Roger could carry out an objective assessment of some of the supposedly "renewable" sources of energy that are currently being promoted by, among others, prominent politicians.
For example, domestic solar water heating. This technology is so frightful it should be banned, not subsidised!
To produce sufficient hot water for the average person requires only 1-2 kWh/day - for the average household this will cost less than 20p/day using either gas or off-peak electricity. Assuming that solar water heating will halve this, that is a saving of about 拢35/year. About a 100-year payback on a typical installation.
Even if "mass-production" halved the cost (which seems unlikely, as it will not affect the installation costs) this would still cost over 拢30 BILLION to do the majority of dwellings in the UK. Enough to fund 15 nuclear power stations. Similar economics apply to micro-wind, photovoltaics, CHP etc.
(Note for moderator - I am a practising Energy Management Consultant, mainly working for the Carbon Trust although the views expressed above are my own. I would be very happy to discuss in more detail with Mr Harrabin if he is interested. This is a really serious issue that must at some stage be addressed.)
Just to respond to Simon鈥檚 comment about 鈥淐limate change is man made鈥 viewpoint.
There are many studies that show that the 20th century stands out as having unusually widespread warmth, compared to all of the natural warming and cooling episodes during the past 1200 years; including the Medieval warming period and Little Ice Age period.
Those two events were caused firstly by an increase in solar activity, followed then by a decrease in solar activity. There is no comparable increase (as with the medieval warming) occurring at the present. It鈥檚 difficult therefore to see what else is causing it other than human influence.
Even if it were due to 鈥榥atural causes鈥 it still could have profound implications for us. Not least a dramatic increase in refugees from drought stricken areas. Equatorial areas could be very hard hit.
Fran, you make his brief sound entirely climate centred, when pollution aand carbon emissions, and the effects, involve many aspects of life. will this not seem to absolve other correspondents and editors from doing stories, from having the expertise to raise the issues in thier areas, to pursue the issues when given some nonsense during their contacts?
The event this week when the PM signed an agreement with California for joint research on cutting emissions, for example. The political press there didn't seem very clued up about the environment and it just spun as a good thing, when there might be far more to be said.
No one seems to be mentioning the long term effects of the bombing n the Middle-East. All that carbon emission, all those explosives, quite probably radioactive munitions. How much will the land be poisoned? How many mutations will result?
What point do people see in their own little potential for reducing emissions and pollution when vast and increasing despoilation is done so obviously by others? It doesn't make one feel good even, anymore.
Will he be scooting around in a nice big, petrocarbon-powered SUV, as so many 91热爆 people do these days?