Responsibility of climate literacy in journalism
Response to an article published in Today, a Singapore news media company written by an affiliate of the Adam Smith Institute, a known climate skepticism organization with funding ties to the fossil fuel industry.
At a time when scientists are warning that climate change is an existential threat that the UN has reported could threaten from 200 million to 1 billion lives, the bar for journalism editing quality should be commensurate to the level of risks that humanity is faced with. The media plays an important role in providing the public an objective, factual representation of news and events. The media has some moral responsibility for informing the public about credible threats, and the best available knowledge on how to respond to those threats. In particular in the climate crisis, the information is highly complex, and most individuals cannot be expected to browse through academic journals and hundred page technical reports on climate models, so the public relies on media to help them arrived at balanced, informed decisions. The choice of Today editors to release this criticism of climate activism is at best, sloppy journalism and at worst — equally culpable in supporting the denialist campaigns that seek to undermine the global effort to combat the existential crisis.
The article begins by using the example of a local student led climate rally held at Hong Lim Park in Singapore on 21st September that was coordinated in timing with the larger student movement on 20th Sep and the UN Climate Action Summit on 23rd Sep.
First the article claims that the environmentalists are purely motivated by passion uninformed by science and reason.
“cannot simply be grounded on passion alone, but needs to be accompanied by a hard-nosed appreciation of research in the natural and social sciences. Emotion must be tempered with reason”
The climate rally has posted their detailed calls to action which is the basis for their demonstration at Hong Lim Park. The calls to action are similar to other climate action youth organizations and are based on the scientific report published by the Intergoverment Panel on Cliamate Change (IPCC) which is the basis for the rally’s calls to action.
Next, the article presents climate change as a “wicked” problem with no clear solution
“The environment and global climate is one such complex system, with multiple variables acting in concert. There is no simple silver bullet that will cure climate ills.”
This statement is a direct contradiction to the the IPCC report on limiting global warming to 1.5C, which presents the cause of global warming to be from burning fossil fuels, and instructs developed economies such as Singapore to peak greenhouse gas emissions in 2020, to reduce by at least 47% by 2030 and to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.
While the solutions on the best way to achieve thet emissions reductions is a legitimate are for debate, this call to action by the scientists is not a negotiable or debatable suggestion, it is the requirement to sustain a stable climate condition that is necessary to avoid catastrophic losses to ecosystems and economies of the world. The consequences of failing to act are detailed in the report, and include threats to global food security, rising sea levels damaging coastal cities, increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather — drough, flood, tropical cyclones and forced migrations of 200 million to 1 billion people. The risk of pushing close to what scientists are calling the safe operating limit of 2C have been described elsewhere and generally accepted to far exceed the costs of early mitigation. It is reported that the IPCC report has achieved 97% consensus of scientists worldwide, and public opinion on doubt of the claims of the IPCC report range from 5–15% with a very small level in Singapore and larger levels of skepticism in United States, Australia.
Next, the article begins to talk about plastics in the ocean, which was not a focus for the rally, nor is it mentioned in the CTAs
Next, the article presents burning fossil fuels as a basic necessity akin to food, shelter and clean water, and claims without evidence that fossil fuels are cheaper than renewables (False)
“Billions of people around the world, trapped in poor countries, have no access to cheap energy. That means no electricity to keep warm, to cook and to live decently. They die from indoor air pollution due to energy poverty. Enforcing a reduction of fossil fuels would further worsen their plight. Renewable energy still makes up a small proportion of the world’s energy output, and before it comes widely cost-effective, fossil fuels are still the best bet for the growth prospects of poor nations. We should not prolong poverty simply because first-world environmental activists can afford renewables.”
A few points to refute this claim. First — humans existed for millennia as hunter gatherers before burning of fossil fuels so equating life without fossil fuels to poverty is simply not true. A moderated version of that claim is that societies without access to energy input may observe lower human development index such as infant mortality, life expectancy and literacy rates. These benefits are mostly achieved 80% with a small level of energy input, and further energy inputs per capita do not result in substantial marginal gains in the human development, but instead are mostly hedonic and superficial allocations to nonessential consumption for lifestyle and social endeavors such as personal vehicles and holiday travel. These benefits are independent of the energy source, and renewable energy sources derived from the sun are still room to grow, some of which — solar, wind are now cost competitive with fossil fuels. Furthermore nuclear energy is a safe and reliable alternative energy source to fossil fuels. So the case for fossil fuels and social outcomes is weak at best. Finally the cost of ignoring the warnings of the IPCC report ultimately with high probability could lead to sending billions into poverty or even death, so all cases must be compared with these dire predictions by scientists of what could happen if mitigation is further delayed and the case is overwhelmingly compeling — there is no socially just way forward that includes continuing to burn fossil fuels.
Next, the author equates fossil fuels to innovation, but does not provide any further details on the links between fossil fuels and innovation
“Environmental activists have unfortunately neglected the importance of economic innovation in achieving sustainability. Economic innovations help decouple our consumption and their environmental effects, that is, allowing us to consume more, but reduce our environmental footprint at the same time.”
Citing innovation as an excuse to delay mitigation is not only a moral hazard, it is unscientific and akin to a religious fanaticism attachement to intangible mystical quality called “innovation”. First — innovation put in perspective is a nice-to-have compared to clean water, food and the stable climate that enables the supply of these necessary resources to sustaining human life. Innovation cannot happen in a world of dead corpses. This should be obvious. Second — Innovation is not guaranteed, one can only create the conditions ripe for innovation, absent of a directed research agenda, there is no guarantee that the market will provide the solutions in the time that is required — it might, it might not, it depends on the financial incentives, the availability of research skills, institutions, and many other factors. The world has one year to start peaking emissions — that is hardly enough time for innovation. In those time scales proven technology must begin deployment with or without innovation. At the time scales required — less than 11 years runway — and the low tolerance for overshoot — waiting on new technology is not an option, the proven technologies must be put up front so that we have high confidence that we can achieve these targets. Finally the conditions necessary for innovation have little relationship to fossil fuels. The minimal electricity required to keep lights on and power electronics in the home, schools, libraries, hospitals, public institutions and government offices can well fit in an energy budget powered by renewables at < 2,000 kWh/ca. These conditions should be sufficient to achieve the basic human development index outcomes. Beyond that, the remaining factors for innovation are rule of law, trust to open into contracts with strangers and specialization of labor. Again — fossil fuels are not in that equation.
Next, the claim that fracking is good for the environment.
“One such example that has sadly been castigated by activists is the innovation of fracking, which has increased energy output at the same time as it reduces our dependence on dirtier coal. In fact, concerning energy policy, there is good news: The International Energy Agency in 2016 found that CO2 emissions were flat for the third straight year even while the global economy grew.”
The instructions are to reduce emissions to zero, flat emissions is not sufficient, also, there are no brownie points for growing GDP. The metric is emissions reduction — period.
Next, the author tries to refute the risks of climate science, again, one only needs to look to the numerous body of research by the IPCC.
Next, the author claims that unrestrained markets are the best solution to climate change
“Market-tested innovations are improving the environment around the world. Singaporean entrepreneurs are already testing new green technologies that promise to make Singapore a leader of green innovation. I hope those who care about climate change here express support for these bottom-up initiatives.”
All economic theory on capitalism acknowledges the limitation of externalities. Singapore has regulatory bodies that set limits on polluters by limiting stack emissions on Jurong Island for NO2, SO2 and other pollutants. Cabon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are a pollutant that are creating an externalities cost which is currently not priced in correctly. This is the root cause of the global warming problem. Our society has been developed around the wrong set of rules and “cheating” by having a cheaper source of energy than the true cost of energy. We now are confronted with the reality that now must incorporate those externalities costs into our economic system through regulation, carbon pricing and other mechanisms and it is no different than what we do for other pollutants. Only when the externalities are correctly accounted for can markets function effectively by assuring that the basic conditions hold for that the resource inputs into the economy can be assured in the long term.
Finally, it is the responsibility of journalist organizations to review not only the quality of the articles, but also the conflict of interests from their sources. This article was written by an author who identifies with the Adam Smith Center, which appears to have an affiliation with the Adam Smith Institute, a known organization with funding ties to the fossil fuel industry, and believed to be intentionally subverting the Paris Agreement and the IPCC.
According to a study by Drexel university, the Koch Industries from the United States has funded climate skepticism through “Dark Money” to influence political campaigns and suppress environmental regulations. Koch Industries, which also has business ties on Jurong Island. Due to the inherent subversive funding tactics, the full light of the funding sources for these organizations remains out of the public eye. As the public awareness and literacy of climate science grows however, the evidence grows when the few remaining voices of skepticism are these same organizations voicing solo to an unsympathetic audience.
Climate skepticism organizations with ties to Singapore
- Ayn Rand Institute
- Adam Smith Center which appears to have similar philosophical aims and views on climate change as the Adam Smith Institute —which has been identified in the climate skepticism propaganda network “The Kochtopus”.