Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
fix refs |
||
| (16 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Short description|None}}
[[File:Ms. magazine Cover - Spring 2007.jpg|thumbnail|Global warming was the cover story of this 2007 issue of the liberal-leaning feminist ''[[Ms. magazine]]''.]]'''Media coverage of climate change''' has had effects on [[public opinion on climate change]], as it conveys the [[scientific consensus on climate change]] that the global [[instrumental temperature record|temperature]] has increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused by human-induced emissions of [[greenhouse gases]].<ref name="Antilla">{{cite journal |
[[Climate communication|Climate change communication]] research shows that coverage has grown and become more accurate.<ref name="Climate Change 2022" />{{Rp|page=11}}
Some researchers and journalists believe that media coverage of [[politics of climate change]] is adequate and fair, while a few feel that it is biased.<ref name="NewmanEtAl2018">{{cite journal |last1=Newman |first1=Todd P. |last2=Nisbet |first2=Erik C. |last3=Nisbet |first3=Matthew C.
== History ==
Line 15 ⟶ 13:
The theory that increases in [[greenhouse gas]]es would lead to an increase in temperature was [[History of climate change science|first proposed]] by the Swedish chemist [[Svante Arrhenius]] in 1896, but climate change did not arise as a [[History of climate change policy and politics|political issue]] until the 1990s. It took many years for this particular issue to attract any type of popular attention.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Bodansky |first1=Daniel |title=International Relations and Global Climate Change |date=2001 |publisher=[[The MIT Press]] |editor1-last=Luterbacher |editor1-first=Urs |pages=23–40 |chapter=The History of the Global Climate Change Regime |access-date=22 November 2016 |editor2-last=Sprinz |editor2-first=Detlef F. |chapter-url=http://graduateinstitute.ch/files/live/sites/iheid/files/shared/iheid/800/luterbacher/luterbacher%20chapter%202%20102.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140327080814/http://graduateinstitute.ch/files/live/sites/iheid/files/shared/iheid/800/luterbacher/luterbacher%20chapter%202%20102.pdf |archive-date=27 March 2014 |url-status=dead}}</ref> In the [[United States]], the mass media devoted little coverage to global warming until the [[Droughts in the United States|drought]] of 1988, and [[James E. Hansen]]'s testimony to the [[United States Senate|Senate]], which explicitly attributed "the abnormally hot weather plaguing our nation" to global warming. Global warming in the U.S. gained more attention after the release of the 2006 documentary ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'', featuring [[Al Gore]].<ref name="McCrightDunlap2000p500">{{cite journal |author1=McCright, A. M. |author2=Dunlap R. E. |year=2000 |title=Challenging global warming as a social problem: An analysis of the conservative movement's counter-claims |url=http://www.climateaccess.org/sites/default/files/McCright_Challenging%20Global%20Warming.pdf |journal=Social Problems |volume=47 |issue=4 |pages=499–522 |doi=10.2307/3097132 |jstor=3097132}} See p. 500.</ref>
The British press also changed its coverage at the end of 1988, following a speech by [[Margaret Thatcher]] to the [[Royal Society]] advocating action against [[human-induced climate change]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=Speech to the Royal Society {{!}} Margaret Thatcher Foundation |url=https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107346 |access-date=2022-09-20 |website=www.margaretthatcher.org}}</ref> According to Anabela Carvalho, an academic analyst, Thatcher's "appropriation" of the risks of climate change to promote [[nuclear power]], in the context of the dismantling of the coal industry following the [[UK miners' strike (1984–1985)|1984–1985 miners' strike]] was one reason for the change in public discourse. At the same time environmental organizations and the political opposition were demanding "solutions that contrasted with the government's".<ref name="Carvalho2007">{{cite journal |
In 2007, the [[BBC]] announced the cancellation of a planned television special ''[[Planet Relief]]'', which would have highlighted the global warming issue and included a mass electrical switch-off.<ref>{{cite news |last=Black |first=Richard |date=5 September 2007 |title=BBC switches off climate special |work=BBC |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6979596.stm |access-date=15 December 2011}}</ref> The editor of BBC's [[Newsnight]] current affairs show said: "It is absolutely not the BBC's job to save the planet. I think there are a lot of people who think that, but it must be stopped."<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/sep/05/bbc.television2 BBC drops climate change special]. ''[[The Guardian]]''. 5 September 2007. Retrieved 15 December 2011.</ref> Author [[Mark Lynas]] said "The only reason why this became an issue is that there is a small but vociferous group of extreme right-wing climate 'sceptics' lobbying against taking action, so the BBC is behaving like a coward and refusing to take a more consistent stance."<ref>McCarthy, Michael, [http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2934318.ece Global Warming: Too Hot to Handle for the BBC] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070915053005/http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2934318.ece|date=15 September 2007}}, ''The Independent'', 6 September 2007</ref>
A peak in media coverage occurred in early 2007, driven by the [[IPCC Fourth Assessment Report]] and [[Al Gore]]'s documentary ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]''.<ref name=Boykoff2010India/> A subsequent peak in late 2009, which was 50% higher,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/media_coverage/ |title=2004–2010 World Newspaper Coverage of Climate Change or Global Warming |work=Center for Science and Technology Policy Research |publisher=[[University of Colorado at Boulder]] |access-date=2010-08-15 |archive-date=2019-08-31 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190831031804/https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/media_coverage/ |url-status=live }}</ref> may have been driven by a combination of the November 2009 [[Climatic Research Unit email controversy]] and December [[2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference]].<ref name=Boykoff2010India>{{cite journal |
The Media and Climate Change Observatory team at the University of Colorado Boulder found that 2017 "saw media attention to climate change and global warming ebb and flow" with June seeing the maximum global media coverage on both subjects. This rise is "largely attributed to news surrounding United States (US) President Donald J. Trump's withdrawal from the 2015 United Nations (UN) [[Paris agreement|Paris Climate Agreement]], with continuing media attention paid to the emergent US isolation following through the [[43rd G7 summit|G7 summit]] a few weeks later."<ref name="sciencepolicy.colorado.edu">{{cite web|last1=Boykoff|first1=M.|last2=Andrews|first2=K.|last3=Daly|first3=M.|last4=Katzung|first4=J.|last5=Luedecke|first5=G.|last6=Maldonado|first6=C.|last7=Nacu-Schmidt|first7=A.|title=A Review of Media Coverage of Climate Change and Global Warming in 2017|url=http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/icecaps/research/media_coverage/summaries/special_issue_2017.html|publisher=Media and Climate Change Observatory, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado|access-date=2018-03-02|archive-date=2019-08-06|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190806225441/https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/icecaps/research/media_coverage/summaries/special_issue_2017.html|url-status=live}}</ref>
Media coverage of climate change during the Trump Administration remained prominent as most news outlets placed heavy emphasis on Trump-related stories rather than climate-related events.<ref name="sciencepolicy.colorado.edu"
In a 2020 article, Mark Kaufman of [[Mashable]] noted that the [[English Wikipedia]]'s article on climate change has "hundreds of credible citations" which "counters the stereotype that publicly-policed, collaboratively-edited Wikipedia pages are inherently unreliable".<ref>{{Cite web|last=Kaufman|first=Mark|date=2020|title=The guardians of Wikipedia's climate change page|url=https://mashable.com/feature/climate-change-wikipedia/|url-status=live|access-date=2021-04-22|website=[[Mashable]]|language=en|archive-date=2021-04-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210418190338/https://mashable.com/feature/climate-change-wikipedia/}}</ref>
Line 29 ⟶ 27:
== Common distortions ==
=== Factual ===
Scientists and media scholars who express frustrations with inadequate science reporting argue that it can lead to at least three basic distortions. First, journalists distort reality by making scientific errors. Second, they distort by concentrating on human-interest stories rather than scientific content. And third, journalists distort by rigid adherence to the construct of balanced coverage.<ref name="Boykoff2004">{{cite journal|last=Boykoff|first=M.T.|author2-link=Jules Boykoff|author2=Boykoff, J.M.|title=Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press|journal=[[Global Environmental Change]]|year=2004|volume=14|issue=2|pages=125–136|doi=10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001|bibcode=2004GEC....14..125B }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |
In 2022 the [[IPCC Sixth Assessment Report#WG3report|IPCC reported]] that "Accurate transference of the climate science has been undermined significantly by climate change countermovements, in both legacy and new/social media environments through [[misinformation]]."<ref name="Climate Change 2022">{{Cite web |title=Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change: Technical Summary |url=https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FinalDraft_TechnicalSummary.pdf |access-date=2022-04-10 |archive-date=2022-04-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220404150706/https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FinalDraft_TechnicalSummary.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref>{{Rp|page=11}}
A study published in [[PLOS|''PLOS One'']] in 2024 found that even a single repetition of a claim was sufficient to increase the ''perceived'' truth of both climate science-aligned claims and climate change skeptic/denial claims—"highlighting the insidious effect of repetition".<ref name=Jiang_PLOSONE_20240807/> This effect was found even among climate science endorsers.<ref name=Jiang_PLOSONE_20240807>{{cite journal |last1=Jiang |first1=Yangxueqing |last2=Schwarz |first2=Norbert |last3=Reynolds |first3=Katherine J. |last4=Newman |first4=Eryn J. |title=Repetition increases belief in climate-skeptical claims, even for climate science endorsers |journal=PLOS ONE |date=7 August 2024 |volume=19 |issue=8 |
=== Narrative ===
According to Shoemaker and Reese, controversy is one of the main variables affecting story choice among news editors, along with human interest, prominence, timeliness, celebrity, and proximity. Coverage of climate change has been accused of falling victim to the journalistic norm of "personalization".<ref>{{cite book |
In a survey of 636 articles from four top United States newspapers between 1988 and 2002, two scholars found that most articles gave as much time to the small group of [[climate change denier|climate change deniers]] as to the scientific consensus view.<ref name="Boykoff2004" /> Given real consensus among climatologists over [[global warming]], many scientists find the media's desire to portray the topic as a scientific controversy to be a gross distortion. As [[Stephen Schneider (scientist)|Stephen Schneider]] put it:<ref name="Schneider"/>{{Blockquote| "a mainstream, well-established consensus may be 'balanced' against the opposing views of a few extremists, and to the uninformed, each position seems equally credible."}}
Line 42 ⟶ 40:
Science journalism concerns itself with gathering and evaluating various types of relevant evidence and rigorously checking sources and facts. Boyce Rensberger, the director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Knight Center for Science Journalism, said, "balanced coverage of science does not mean giving equal weight to both sides of an argument. It means apportioning weight according to the balance of evidence."<ref>{{cite journal|last=Rensberger|first=B|title=Reporting Science Means Looking for Cautionary Signals|journal=Nieman Reports|year=2002|pages=12–14|url=http://niemanreports.org/articles/reporting-science-means-looking-for-cautionary-signals-2/|access-date=2018-02-05|archive-date=2019-08-06|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190806225452/https://niemanreports.org/articles/reporting-science-means-looking-for-cautionary-signals-2/|url-status=live}}</ref>
The claims of scientists also get distorted by the media by a tendency to seek out extreme views, which can result in portrayal of risks well beyond the claims actually being made by scientists.<ref name="Boykoff2009">{{Cite journal|last=Boykoff |first=Maxwell T. |year=2009 |title=We Speak for the Trees: Media Reporting on the Environment |journal=Annual Review of Environment and Resources |volume=34 |issue=1 |pages=431–457 |doi=10.1146/annurev.environ.051308.084254|doi-access=free }}</ref> Journalists tend to overemphasize the most extreme outcomes from a range of possibilities reported in scientific articles. A study that tracked press reports about a climate change article in the journal [[Nature (journal)|''Nature'']] found that "results and conclusions of the study were widely misrepresented, especially in the news media, to make the consequences seem more catastrophic and the timescale shorter".<ref>{{
A 2020 study in ''PNAS'' found that newspapers tended to give greater coverage of press releases that opposed action on climate change than those that supported action. The study attributes it to [[false balance]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Wetts|first=Rachel|date=2020-07-23|title=In climate news, statements from large businesses and opponents of climate action receive heightened visibility|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|volume=117|issue=32|pages=19054–19060
Research that was done by Todd Newman, Erik Nisbet, and Matthew Nisbet shows that people's partisan preference is an indicator as to which media outlet they will most likely consume. Most media outlets often align with a particular partisan ideology. This causes people to resort to selective exposure which influences views on world issues such as climate change beliefs.<ref
Since 1990 climate scientists have communicated urgent warnings while simultaneously experiencing the media converting their statements into sensational entertainment.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Richardson |first1=John H. |date=20 July 2018 |title=When the End of Human Civilization Is Your Day Job |url=https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sad-climatologists-0815/ |website=Esquire}}</ref>
Line 54 ⟶ 52:
==== To achieve climate action ====
{{See also|Climate apocalypse}}
[[Alarmism]] is using inflated language, including an urgent tone and imagery of doom.{{Citation needed|date=August 2021}} In a report produced for the [[Institute for Public Policy Research]] Gill Ereaut and Nat Segnit suggested that alarmist language is frequently used in relation to environmental matters by newspapers, popular magazines and in campaign literature put out by the government and environment groups.<ref name="Ereaut20062">{{
It has been argued that using sensational and alarming techniques, often evoke "denial, paralysis, or apathy" rather than motivating individuals to action and do not motivate people to become engaged with the issue of climate change.<ref name="Dilling & Moser">{{
==== To challenge the science related to global warming ====
The term ''alarmist'' has been used as a [[pejorative]] by critics of mainstream climate science to describe those that endorse the scientific consensus without necessarily being unreasonable.<ref>{{
Some media reports have used alarmist tactics to challenge the science related to global warming by comparing it with a purported episode of [[global cooling]]. In the 1970s, global cooling, a claim with limited scientific support (even during the height of a media frenzy over [[global cooling]], "the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature") was widely reported in the press.<ref name="The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus">{{cite journal |
Several media pieces have claimed that since the even-at-the-time-poorly-supported theory of [[global cooling]] was shown to be false, that the well-supported theory of global warming can also be dismissed. For example, an article in ''[[The Hindu]]'' by Kapista and Bashkirtsev wrote: "Who remembers today, they query, that in the 1970s, when global temperatures began to dip, many warned that we faced a new ice age? An editorial in The Time magazine on June 24, 1974, quoted concerned scientists as voicing alarm over the atmosphere 'growing gradually cooler for the past three decades', 'the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland,' and other harbingers of an ice age that could prove 'catastrophic.' Man was blamed for global cooling as he is blamed today for global warming",<ref name="Kapitsa, Andrei 2008">Kapitsa, Andrei, and Vladimir Bashkirtsev, "Challenging the basis of Kyoto Protocol", ''[[The Hindu]]'', 10 July 2008,{{vs|date=June 2025}}</ref> and the ''[[Irish Independent]]'' published an article claiming that "The widespread alarm over global warming is only the latest scare about the environment to come our way since the 1960s. Let's go through some of them. Almost exactly 30 years ago the world was in another panic about climate change. However, it wasn't the thought of global warming that concerned us. It was the fear of its opposite, global cooling. The doom-sayers were wrong in the past and it's entirely possible they're wrong this time as well."<ref name="Don 2007, p. 1">''[[Irish Independent]]'', "Don't believe doomsayers that insist the world's end is nigh", 16 March 2007, p. 1.</ref> Numerous other examples exist.<ref name="Schmidt, David 2002">Schmidt, David, "It's curtains for global warming", ''[[Jerusalem Post]]'', 28 June 2002, p. 16B. "If there is one thing more remarkable than the level of alarm inspired by global warming, it is the thin empirical foundations upon which the forecast rests. Throughout the 1970s, the scientific consensus held that the world was entering a period of global cooling, with results equally catastrophic to those now predicted for global warming."</ref><ref name="Francis Wilson 2009, p. 32">[[Francis Wilson (meteorologist)|Wilson, Francis]], "The rise of the extreme killers", ''[[Sunday Times]]'', 19 April 2009, p. 32. "Throughout history, there have been false alarms: "shadow of the bomb", "nuclear winter", "ice age cometh" and so on. So it's no surprise that today many people are skeptical about climate change. The difference is that we have hard evidence that increasing temperatures will lead to a significant risk of dangerous repercussions."</ref><ref name="The 2000">''[[National Post]]'', "The sky was supposed to fall: The '70s saw the rise of environmental Chicken Littles of every shape as a technique for motivating public action", 5 April 2000, p. B1. "One of the strange tendencies of modern life, however, has been the institutionalization of scaremongering, the willingness of the mass media and government to lend plausibility to wild surmises about the future. The crucial decade for this odd development was the 1970s. Schneider's book excited a frenzy of glacier hysteria. The most-quoted ice-age alarmist of the 1970s became, in a neat public-relations pivot, one of the most quoted global-warming alarmists of the 1990s."</ref>
==Media, politics, and public discourse==
As McCombs et al.'s 1972 study of the political function of mass media showed, media coverage of an issue can "play an important part in shaping political reality".<ref>{{cite journal|last=McCombs|first=M|author2=Shaw, D.|title=The Agenda Setting Function of Mass Media|journal=Public Opinion Quarterly|year=1972|volume=36|issue=2|pages=176–187|doi=10.1086/267990
=== Media-policy interface ===
The relationship between media and politics is [[Reflexivity (social theory)|reflexive]]. As Feindt & Oels state, "[media] discourse has material and power effects as well as being the effect of material practices and power relations".<ref>{{cite journal |
Media coverage in the United States during the Bush Administration often emphasized and exaggerated scientific uncertainty over climate change, reflecting the interests of the political elite.<ref name="Boykoff-Flogging" /> Hall et al. suggest that government and corporate officials enjoy privileged access to the media, allowing their line to become the 'primary definer' of an issue.<ref>{{cite book |
Ever-strengthening scientific consensus on climate change means that skepticism is becoming less prevalent in the media (although the email scandal in the build up to Copenhagen reinvigorated climate skepticism in the media<ref>{{cite news|last=Monibot|first=George|title=The media laps up fake controversy over climate change|url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/apr/29/george-monbiot-climate-change-scepticism|newspaper=The Guardian|access-date=2011-11-05|___location=London|date=29 April 2009}}</ref>).{{failed verification|date=August 2021|reason=Article is about denialists including an industry of it, but it does not support this paragraph directly.}}
Line 77 ⟶ 75:
=== Discourses of action ===
[[File:Polarbearonice.jpg|thumb|The polar bear has become a symbol for those attempting to generate support for addressing climate change.]]Commentators have argued that the climate change discourses constructed in the media have not been conducive to generating the political will for swift action. The polar bear has become a powerful discursive symbol in the fight against climate change. However, such images may create a perception of climate change impacts as geographically distant,<ref>{{cite journal |
Furthermore, media coverage of climate change (particularly in tabloid journalism but also more generally), is concentrated around extreme weather events and projections of catastrophe, creating "a language of imminent terror"<ref>{{cite book|last=Hulme|first=M|title=Why We Disagree About Climate Change|year=2009|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-72732-7|page=432}}</ref> which some commentators argue has instilled policy-paralysis and inhibited response. Moser et al. suggest using solution-orientated frames will help inspire action to solve climate change.<ref name="Moser & Dilling 2007">{{cite book|title=Creating a Climate for Change|last=Moser & Dilling|first=M., and L.|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2007|isbn=978-0-521-86923-2}}</ref> The predominance of catastrophe frames over solution frames<ref name="Boykoff2007">{{cite journal|last=Boykoff|first=M|author2=Boykoff, J|title=Climate Change and Journalistic Norms: A case study of US mass-media coverage|journal=[[Geoforum]]|date=November 2007|volume=38|issue=6|pages=1190–1204|doi=10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.01.008
Breaking the prevailing notions in society requires discourse that is traditionally appropriate and approachable to common people. For example, Bill McKibben, an environmental activist, provides one approach to inspiring action: a war-like mobilization, where climate change is the enemy. This approach could resonate with working Americans who normally find themselves occupied with other news headlines.<ref>{{cite magazine|last1=McKibben|first1=Bill|title=We Need to Literally Declare War on Climate Change|url=https://newrepublic.com/article/135684/declare-war-climate-change-mobilize-wwii|magazine=The New Republic|publisher=The New Republic|access-date=1 March 2018|archive-date=10 June 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210610094752/https://newrepublic.com/article/135684/declare-war-climate-change-mobilize-wwii|url-status=live}}</ref>
Compared to what experts know about traditional media's and tabloid journalism's impacts on the formation of public perceptions of climate change and willingness to act, there is comparatively little knowledge of the impacts of social media, including message platforms like Twitter, on public attitudes toward climate change.<ref>{{cite journal |
In recent years, there has been an increase in the influence and role that [[social media]] plays in conveying opinions and knowledge through information sharing. There are several emerging studies that explore the connection between social media and the public's awareness of climate change. Anderson found that there is evidence that [[social media]] can raise awareness of climate change issues, but warns that it can also lead to opinion-dominated ideologies and reinforcement.<ref name="Anderson-2017">{{
=== Youth awareness and activism ===
Published in the journal ''[[Childhood (journal)|Childhood]]'', the article "Children's protest in relation to the climate emergency: A qualitative study on a new form of resistance promoting political and social change" considers how children have evolved into prominent actors to create a global impact on awareness of climate change. It highlights the work of children like [[Greta Thunberg]] and the significance of their resistance to the passivity of world leaders regarding climate change. It also discusses how individual resistance can directly be linked to collective resistance and that this then creates a more powerful impact, empowering young people to act more responsibly and take authority over the future. The article discusses the potential impact of youth to raise awareness while also inspiring action, and using social media platforms to share the message.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Holmberg|first1=Arita|last2=Alvinius|first2=Aida|date=2019-10-10|title=Children's protest in relation to the climate emergency: A qualitative study on a new form of resistance promoting political and social change|journal=Childhood|volume=27|pages=78–92|doi=10.1177/0907568219879970
=== Threats against climate journalism ===
The Covering the Planet report, a global survey of more than 740 climate journalists from 102 countries by [[Internews]]’ [[Earth Journalism Network]] (EJN) and [[Deakin University]], reported that 39% of surveyed journalists were "sometimes or frequently threatened" by their government or from companies or individuals involved in illegal operations that included logging and mining, while the same percentage had to self-censor the content they reported out of fear of repercussions. The report stated that 30% of journalists faced threats of legal action due to their reporting. 62% included statements from sources skeptical of anthropogenic climate change in order to "balance" their reports, some doing so to lower potential scrutiny.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Lakhani |first1=Nina |last2=reporter |first2=Nina Lakhani climate justice |date=2024-06-05 |title=Nearly half of journalists covering climate crisis globally received threats for their work |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/05/climate-crisis-journalists |access-date=2024-06-10 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB
==Coverage by country==
Line 97 ⟶ 95:
===Australia===
{{See also|Climate change in Australia}}[[Australian media|Australian news outlets]] have been reported to present misleading claims and information.<ref>{{
Australia has recently experienced some of the most intense [[Bushfires in Australia|bushfire seasons]] in its immediate history. This phenomenon has sparked extensive media coverage both nationally and internationally. Much of the media coverage of the [[2019–20 Australian bushfire season|2019 and 2020 Australian bushfire seasons]] discussed the different factors that lead to and increase the chances of extreme fire seasons.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-01-07 |title=Media reaction: Australia's bushfires and climate change |url=https://www.carbonbrief.org/media-reaction-australias-bushfires-and-climate-change |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200929204905/https://www.carbonbrief.org/media-reaction-australias-bushfires-and-climate-change |archive-date=2020-09-29 |access-date=2021-04-22 |website=Carbon Brief |language=en}}</ref> A climate scientist, [[Nerilie Abram]], at [[Australian National University]] explained in an article for ''[[Scientific American]]'', that the four major conditions need to exist for wildfire and those include "available fuel, dryness of that fuel, weather conditions that aid the rapid spread of fire and an ignition.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Abram |first=Nerilie |title=Australia's Angry Summer: This Is What Climate Change Looks Like |url=https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/australias-angry-summer-this-is-what-climate-change-looks-like/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210505014148/https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/australias-angry-summer-this-is-what-climate-change-looks-like/ |archive-date=2021-05-05 |access-date=2021-04-22 |website=Scientific American Blog Network |language=en}}</ref>
Line 105 ⟶ 103:
{{further|Environmental policy of the Harper government#Media coverage of climate change}}
During the Harper government (2006-2015), Canadian media, mostly notably the [[CBC News|CBC]], made little effort to balance the claims of global warming deniers with voices from science.<ref name="
Within various provincial and language media outlets, there are varying levels of articulation regarding scientific consensus and the focus on ecological dimensions of climate change.<ref name="
Across various nations, including Canada, there has been an increased effort in the use of celebrities in climate change coverage, which is able to gain audience attention, but in turn, it reinforces individualized rather than structural interpretations of climate change responsibility and solutions.<ref name="
=== China ===
Line 123 ⟶ 121:
===India===
{{See also|Climate change in India}}
A 2010 study of four major, national circulation English-language newspapers in India examined "the frames through which climate change is represented in India", and found that "The results strongly contrast with previous studies from developed countries; by framing climate change along a 'risk-responsibility divide', the Indian national press set up a strongly nationalistic position on climate change that divides the issue along both developmental and [[postcolonialism|postcolonial]] lines."<ref>{{cite journal |
On the other hand, a qualitative analysis of some mainstream Indian newspapers (particularly opinion and editorial pieces) during the release of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report and during the Nobel Peace Prize win by Al Gore and the IPCC found that Indian media strongly pursue scientific certainty in their coverage of climate change. This is in contrast to the skepticism displayed by American newspapers at the time. Indian media highlights energy challenges, social progress, public accountability and looming disaster.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Mittal, Radhika |title=Climate Change Coverage in Indian Print Media: A Discourse Analysis |journal=The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses |volume=3 |issue=2 |pages=219–230 |year=2012 |hdl=1959.14/181298 |doi=10.18848/1835-7156/CGP/v03i02/37105 }}</ref>
Line 133 ⟶ 131:
{{update section|date=November 2019}}
{{See also|Climate change in New Zealand}}
A six-month study in 1988 on climate change reporting in the media found that 80% of stories were no worse than slightly inaccurate. However, one story in six contained significant misreporting.<ref>{{cite journal |
The popular media in New Zealand often give equal weight to those supporting [[anthropogenic climate change]] and those who deny it. This stance is out of step with the findings of the scientific community where the vast majority support the [[climate change scenario]]s. A survey carried out in 2007 on climate change gave the following responses:<ref>ShapeNZ research report. 13 April 2007, ''New Zealanders' views on climate change and related policy options''</ref>
Line 151 ⟶ 149:
===Turkey===
{{See also|Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey|Climate change in Turkey}}
A study of mainstream media coverage in the late 2010s said that it tended to cover the consequences of climate change rather than mitigation or adaptation.<ref>{{
===United Kingdom===
{{See also|Climate change in the United Kingdom#Media coverage}}
''[[The Guardian]]'' newspaper is internationally respected for its coverage of [[climate change]].<ref>{{Cite journal |date=January 2019 |title=Contemporary Turkey: an ecological account |url=https://www.hyd.org.tr/attachments/article/511/saha2en.pdf |url-status=live |journal=Citizens' Assembly-Turkey |issue=2
In the UK, statements by government officials have been influential in the public perception on climate change. In 1988, Prime Minister [[Margaret Thatcher]] gave one of the first speeches to draw public attention to climate change. This speech highlighted the assumption that industrialization had no impact on the global climate and contrasted it with the stark reality of an increasingly volatile climate. In another speech, Margaret Thatcher expressed that "we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of the planet itself".<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Boykoff |first1=Maxwell T |last2=Rajan |first2=S Ravi |date=March 2007 |title=Signals and noise: Mass-media coverage of climate change in the USA and the UK |journal=EMBO Reports
In the early 2000s, [[David King (chemist)|David King]], Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK, stated that the most difficult issue facing the UK was climate change and that its effects were worse than terrorism. David King established that reducing carbon emissions would not only benefit the environment but also the collective wellbeing of UK citizens. King's personal focus was climate change and he produced innovative thinking, tactics and negotiations for the media.<ref name="Shanahan-2007">{{Cite report |
In 1988 in United States, NASA scientist [[James Hansen]] stated that climate change was anthropogenic, that is, man-made. This had a similar result to Thatcher's speeches, drawing public attention to the climate crisis and spurring increased media coverage of the issue. The US and UK are comparable in their coverage of climate change for this reason.<ref name="Gavin-2011">{{
For a short period in 1988, the United States had slightly more coverage, but the two countries were quite similar. However, in the following years, the UK consistently produced more articles, and in 2003, it spiked, producing a significantly larger amount of articles. The year 2003 saw the UK and much of Europe experience the hottest summer to date.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The heatwave of 2003 |url=https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/case-studies/heatwave |access-date=2023-12-07 |website=Met Office |language=en}}</ref> Temperatures reached up to 38.5 °C, which is 101.3 °F, resulting in 2,000 deaths in the UK, and more across Europe. This significant event drew the attention of newspapers, therefore increasing the amount of articles produced. For example, in the year following the heatwave, ''[[The Guardian]]'' released an article in March, 2004, warning about even more severe summers that would come. This article included a quote from Dr. Luterbacher, who stated, "We don't know if it will get warmer every year, but the trend is certainly in that direction." The article also claimed that this extreme event was not due to natural causes, suggesting that human activity was responsible.<ref>{{
In 2001, the National Survey of Public Attitudes to Quality of Life survey found that the public ranked global warming 8th on their list of current concerns. The Office for National Statistics then constructed an additional poll asking the same question but asked about expectations for 20 years ahead. A majority reported that in 20 years time, congestion fumes and noises from traffic would be more concerning than the significant impacts of climate change.<ref name="Hulme-2004" />
Line 172 ⟶ 170:
However, although the UK tends to frame climate change as being the fault of humans more than the US, the newspapers often ignore the role that climate change plays in these extreme events. In the hundreds of articles about flooding in the UK between 2001 and 2007, climate change was only mentioned 55 times in any of them. The ''Guardian'' had the most mentions of climate change and more consistently drew connections between climate change and issues such as flooding. However, the ''Guardian'' still only mentioned climate change 17 times out of 197 stories about climate change.<ref name="Gavin-2011" /> Therefore, while extreme events and tangible effects such as floods or heatwaves do cause more media attention, the media does not always draw connections between these issues and climate change.
Media companies in the United Kingdom produce a diverse range of types of articles regarding climate change, evident when looking at ''[[The Guardian]], [[The Observer|The]]'' [[The Observer|''Observer'']], ''[[Daily Mail|The Daily Mail]], [[The Mail on Sunday|Mail on Sunday]],'' ''[[The Sunday Telegraph|Sunday Telegraph]]'', ''[[The Times]]'' and ''[[The Sunday Times|Sunday Times]]''. One scholarly article categorized newspapers from presenting anthropogenic global warming is the only cause of climate change to anthropogenic global warming negligently contributes to climate change. In this study, it is clear that on average, these news sources have increased in scientific credibility.<ref name="McAllister-2021">{{Cite journal |last1=McAllister |first1=Lucy |last2=Daly |first2=Meaghan |last3=Chandler |first3=Patrick |last4=McNatt |first4=Marisa |last5=Benham |first5=Andrew |last6=Boykoff |first6=Maxwell |date=August 2021 |title=Balance as bias, resolute on the retreat? Updates & analyses of newspaper coverage in the United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia and Canada over the past 15 years |journal=Environmental Research Letters
In 2006 Futerra published research to determine if feedback from the UK community on the topic of global warming was either positive or negative. The results were that only 25 percent of the climate change newspapers were positive. A huge media company that participated in the positive feedback was the [[Financial Times]], which contained the most coverage relating climate change, including a focus on climate change and business opportunities.{{fact|date=June 2025}}
The commuters of London, reaching to the amount of a million participants, on the date of October 25, 2007, t provided a free metro newspaper which contained an important article with the headline "We're in the biggest race of our lives." which encompassed the details of the fourth report of the United Nations Environmental Programme's Global Environment Outlook (GEO). The contents of the GEO noted that the actions to address climate change were critically insufficient. A majority of UK citizens were not ready for a change in light of present facts of scientific uncertainty.<ref name="Shanahan-2007" />
''The Sunday Telegraph'' specifically has a history of producing anti-climate change articles and news. The media publication did a major publication of [[Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley|Christopher Monckton]], who is well known for his denial of climate change. This stance is reflected in one of their articles:<ref name="McAllister-2021" /><ref name="Bird-2009">{{Cite journal |last1=Bird |first1=Helen |last2=Boykoff |first2=Max |last3=Goodman |first3=Mike |last4=Monbiot |first4=George |last5=Littler |first5=Jo |date=2009-12-01 |title=The media and climate change
"When this global warming madness passes, future generations will remove this derelict solar and wind infrastructure and return to the only reliable and economical electricity options—coal, gas, hydro and nuclear." (The Sunday Telegraph, London, 2010, 'Officials & climate').<ref name="McAllister-2021" />
Line 184 ⟶ 182:
[[George Monbiot]], a weekly column writer for ''The Guardian'', says specifically in Britain that there is a prevalent discourse of unity and collaboration when it comes to environmental concerns in media outlets such as The Guardian, The Times, the Sun and the Independent. He also claims to have read "utter nonsense" in The Daily Mail or The Sunday Telegraph.<ref name="Bird-2009" />
A specific case of the community's reaction to climate change can be seen in the YouthStrike4Climate movement, specifically [[UK Youth Climate Coalition]] (UKYCC) and the UK Student Climate Network (UKSCN). According to Bart Cammaerts, there has been an overall positive media representation of the climate movement from United Kingdom media outlets. It is significant that 60% of the ''Daily Mail'''s articles written about the climate movement were in a negative tone, while the ''BBC'' had over 70% written in a positive tone. There are a range of media outlets covering climate change, and they all have different opinions on this movement.<ref name="Cammaerts-2023">{{
While there are diverse perspectives represented in print media, right-wing newspapers reach far more readers. For example, the right-leaning ''[[Daily Mail]]'' and ''[[The Sun (United Kingdom)|The Sun]]'' each circulated more than 1 million copies in 2019, while the left-wing equivalents, [[Daily Mirror]] and [[The Guardian]] only circulated 600,000 copies.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Mayhew |first=Freddy |date=2019-02-14 |title=National newspaper ABCs: Mail titles see slower year-on-year circulation decline as bulk sales distortion ends |url=https://pressgazette.co.uk/media-audience-and-business-data/media_metrics/national-newspaper-abcs-mail-titles-see-year-on-year-circulation-lift-as-bulk-sales-distortion-ends/ |access-date=2023-12-07 |website=Press Gazette |language=en-US}}</ref> Over time, these right-wing newspapers have published fewer editorials opposing climate action. In 2011, the proportion of these editorials was 5:1 against climate change. In 2021, this ratio had dropped to 1:9. Additionally, articles critical of climate action have shifted away from outright denial of climate change. Instead, these editorials highlight the costs associated with climate action, as well as blame other countries for climate change.<ref>{{
In the United Kingdom, the youth activism movement played a key role in the increased production of media coverage of climate change.global activist celebrity and media outlets began covering her more and more. From September 17, 2019, to October 3, 2019, 21% of all media coverage on specific people was about Greta Thunberg. This young climate activist's prevalence in the media continued to increase and thus so did the amount of media on the subject.<ref name="Cammaerts-2023" /> With more attention to Greta Thunberg and other young women, there has arguably been increased misogyny regarding [[women in climate change]]. According to Bart Cammaerts, "These disparaging discourses of belittlement also serve to deny children the right to have a voice on environmentalism and politics."<ref name="Cammaerts-2023" />
Line 192 ⟶ 190:
===United States===
{{See also|Climate change in the United States|Propaganda model#Applications}}
The way the media report on climate change in [[English-speaking world|English-speaking]] countries, especially in the United States, has been widely studied, while studies of reporting in other countries have been less expansive.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Lyytimäki J, Tapio P |year=2009 |title=Climate change as reported in the press of Finland: From screaming headlines to penetrating background noise |journal=[[International Journal of Environmental Studies]] |volume=66 |issue=6 |pages=723–735 |doi=10.1080/00207230903448490 |bibcode=2009IJEnS..66..723L
One of the first critical studies of media coverage of climate change in the United States appeared in 1999. The author summarized her research:<ref name="Nissani-1999" /><blockquote>Following a review of the decisive role of the media in American politics and of a few earlier studies of media bias, this paper examines media coverage of the greenhouse effect. It does so by comparing two pictures. The first picture emerges from reading all 100 greenhouse-related articles published over a five-month period (May–September 1997) in ''[[The Christian Science Monitor]], [[The New York Times|New York Times]], [[San Francisco Chronicle|The San Francisco Chronicle]],'' and ''[[The Washington Post]]''. The second picture emerges from the mainstream scientific literature. This comparison shows that media coverage of environmental issues suffers from both shallowness and pro-corporate bias.</blockquote>According to Peter J. Jacques et al., the mainstream news media of the United States is an example of the effectiveness of [[environmental skepticism]] as a tactic.<ref>Environmental skepticism is "a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and ... the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection." — {{cite journal |last=Jacques |first=P.J. |author2=Dunlap, R.E.|author3=Freeman, M. |date=June 2008 |title=The organization of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental skepticism |journal=Environmental Politics |volume=17 |issue=3 |pages=349–385 |doi=10.1080/09644010802055576|bibcode=2008EnvPo..17..349J
A study of US newspapers and television news from 1995 to 2006 examined "how and why US media have represented conflict and contentions, despite an emergent consensus view regarding anthropogenic climate science." The [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change|IPCC]] Assessment Reports [[IPCC Second Assessment Report|in 1995]] and [[IPCC Third Assessment Report|in 2001]] established an increasingly strong scientific consensus, yet the media continued to present the science as contentious. The study noted the influence of [[Michael Crichton]]'s 2004 novel ''[[State of Fear]]'', which "empowered movements across scale, from individual perceptions to the perspectives of US federal powerbrokers regarding human contribution to climate change."<ref>{{cite journal |
A 2010 study concluded that "Mass media in the U.S. continue to suggest that scientific consensus estimates of global climate disruption, such as those from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), are 'exaggerated' and overly pessimistic. By contrast, work on the Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge (ASC) suggests that such consensus assessments are likely to understate climate disruptions [...] new scientific findings were more than twenty times as likely to support the ASC perspective than the usual framing of the issue in the U.S. mass media. The findings indicate that supposed challenges to the scientific consensus on global warming need to be subjected to greater scrutiny, as well as showing that, if reporters wish to discuss "both sides" of the climate issue, the scientifically legitimate 'other side' is that, if anything, global climate disruption may prove to be significantly worse than has been suggested in scientific consensus estimates to date."<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.04.003 |vauthors=Freudenburg WR, Muselli V |title=Global warming estimates, media expectations, and the asymmetry of scientific challenge |journal=Global Environmental Change |volume=20 |issue=3 |pages=483–491 |year=2010 |bibcode=2010GEC....20..483F }}</ref>
Line 203 ⟶ 201:
The most watched [[United States cable news|news network]] in the United States, [[Fox News]], most of the time promotes climate misinformation and employs tactics that distract from the urgency of global climate change, according to a 2019 study by [[Public Citizen]]. According to the study, 86% of Fox News segments that discussed the topic were "dismissive of the climate crisis, cast its consequences in doubt or employed fear mongering when discussing climate solutions". These segments presented global climate change as a political construct, rarely, if ever, discussing the threat posed by climate change or the vast body of scientific evidence for its existence. Consistent with such politicized framing, three messages were most commonly advanced in these segments: global climate change is part of a "big government" agenda of the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]] (34% of segments); an effective response to the climate crisis would destroy the economy and hurtle us back to the Stone Age (26% of segments); and, concern about the climate crisis is "alarmists", "hysterical", the shrill voice of a "doomsday climate cult", or the like (12% of segments). Such segments often featured "experts" who are not climate scientists at all or are personally connected to vested interests, such as the [[energy industry]] and its network of [[Lobbying|lobbyists]] and [[think tank]]s, for example, the [[Heartland Institute]], funded by the [[ExxonMobil]] company and the [[Koch family foundations|Koch foundation]]. The remaining segments (14%) were neutral on the subject or presented information without editorializing.<ref>Public Citizen, 13 Aug. 2019, [https://www.citizen.org/article/foxic-fox-news-networks-dangerous-climate-denial-2019/ "Foxic: Fox News Network's Dangerous Climate Denial 2019: Fox's Continues to Pollute the Airwaves with Misinformation, Give Platform to Deniers"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200717053852/https://www.citizen.org/article/foxic-fox-news-networks-dangerous-climate-denial-2019/ |date=2020-07-17 }}</ref>
It has been suggested that the association of climate change with the Arctic in popular media may undermine effective communication of the scientific realities of anthropogenic climate change. The close association of images of Arctic glaciers, ice, and fauna with climate change might harbor cultural connotations that contradict the fragility of the region. For example, in cultural-historical narratives, the Arctic was depicted as an unconquerable, foreboding environment for explorers; in climate change discourse, the same environment is sought to be understood as fragile and easily affected by humanity.<ref>{{cite journal |
Gallup's annual update on Americans' attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years (2008-2010) has become less worried about the threat of [[global warming]], less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientist themselves are uncertain about its occurrence. In response to one key question, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question.<ref>{{cite
Data from the Media Matters for America organization has shown that, despite 2015 being "a year marked by more landmark actions to address climate change than ever before", the combined climate coverage on the top broadcast networks was down by 5% from 2014.<ref>{{cite web|title=How Broadcast Networks Covered Climate Change in 2015|url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/302896750/Media-Matters-Climate-Broadcast-Study|website=Scribd|publisher=Media Matters for America|access-date=2018-03-01|archive-date=2021-11-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211119205858/https://www.scribd.com/doc/302896750/Media-Matters-Climate-Broadcast-Study|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="MediaMatters">{{Cite news|url=http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/03/07/study-how-broadcast-networks-covered-climate-ch/208881|title=Study: How Broadcast Networks Covered Climate Change In 2015|date=2016-02-29|newspaper=Media Matters for America|access-date=2016-12-03|archive-date=2019-06-13|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190613094946/https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2016/03/07/study-how-broadcast-networks-covered-climate-ch/208881|url-status=live}}</ref>
President [[Donald Trump]] denies the threat of global warming publicly. As a result of the Trump Presidency, media coverage on climate change was expected to decline during his term as president.<ref>{{
Globally, media coverage of global warming and climate change decreased in 2020.<ref name="Nacu-Schmidt"/> In the United States, however, newspaper coverage of climate change increased 29% between March 2020 and April 2020, these numbers are still 22% down from coverage in January 2020.<ref name="Nacu-Schmidt" /> This spike in April 2020 can be attributed to the increased coverage of the "[[Covering Climate Now|Covering Climate Now']]' campaign and the US holiday of "[[Earth Day]]". The overall decline in climate change coverage in the year 2020 is related to the increased coverage and interconnectedness of [[COVID-19 pandemic|COVID-19]] and President Trump, without mention of climate change, that began in January 2020.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-09-23|title=Climate change news coverage has declined. The audience has not.|url=https://digitalcontentnext.org/blog/2020/09/23/climate-change-news-coverage-has-declined-the-audience-for-it-has-not/|access-date=2021-04-21|website=Digital Content Next|language=en-US|archive-date=2021-04-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210421030752/https://digitalcontentnext.org/blog/2020/09/23/climate-change-news-coverage-has-declined-the-audience-for-it-has-not/|url-status=live}}</ref>
The U.S. experienced its highest level of climate change media coverage to date in September and October 2021. This increase can be attributed to coverage of the United Nations Conference of Parties meeting which aimed to outline policies to address climate change.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2021 |title=2021 Year End Retrospective, Special Issue 2021, A Review of Media Coverage of Climate Change and Global Warming in 2021 |url=https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/icecaps/research/media_coverage/summaries/special_issue_2021.html |access-date=2023-11-22 |website=sciencepolicy.colorado.edu |publisher=MeCCO Monthly Summaries :: Media and Climate Change Observatory}}</ref> According to the analisys of [[Media Matters for America]], in 2024 the corporate broadcast networks in the USA dedicated to climate change 12 hours and 51 minutes, which is considered as highly insufficient. Climate coverage declined in the years 2022-2024.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Cooper |first1=Evlondo |title=How broadcast TV networks covered climate change in 2024 |url=https://www.mediamatters.org/broadcast-networks/how-broadcast-tv-networks-covered-climate-change-2024 |website=Media Matters for America |date=6 March 2025 |access-date=6 April 2025}}</ref>
Media coverage of the [[January 2025 Southern California wildfires]] has been criticized for not addressing the impact of climate change on the fires, with some coverage ignoring the climate crisis altogether.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Hertsgaard |first=Mark |date=2025-01-16 |title=The media needs to show how the climate crisis is fueling the LA wildfires |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/16/climate-crisis-la-california-wildfires |access-date= |work=[[The Guardian]] |language=en-GB
==See also==
Line 237 ⟶ 235:
== Further reading ==
* {{cite book |last=Pooley |first=Eric |date=June 8, 2010 |title=The Climate War: True Believers, Power Brokers, and the Fight to Save the Earth |url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9781401323264 |publisher=Hachette Books |isbn=978-1-4013-2326-4 }}
*
* {{cite book |
* {{cite book |
* {{cite book |doi=10.3726/b14826 |title=Climate Change and the Media |date=2018 |isbn=978-1-4331-5437-9 |url=https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/37995 |editor-last1=Brevini |editor-last2=Lewis |editor-first1=Benedetta |editor-first2=Justin }}
* {{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.03.001 |vauthors=Uusi-Rauva C, Tienari J |title=On the relative nature of adequate measures: Media representations of the EU energy and climate package |journal=Global Environmental Change |volume=20 |issue=3 |pages=492–501 |year=2010 |bibcode=2010GEC....20..492U }}
* {{cite journal |author=Anderson, Alison |title=Media, Politics and Climate Change: Towards a New Research Agenda |journal=Sociology Compass |volume=3 |issue=2 |pages=166–182 |date=March 2009 |doi=10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00188.x}}
*
{{Global warming|state=collapsed}}
| |||