Climate change coverage
- 8 Mar 07, 04:12 PM
We're doing a lot on climate change this week on The World Tonight with the EU summit over the next couple of days expected to come up with ambitious targets to cut emissions from industry, transport and households.
Earlier in the week, the British environment secretary, David Miliband was on the programme arguing for an end to dependence on oil (listen here). That interview sparked a lively debate in our editorial meeting about whether we - ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ journalists - are too ready to pose the question to government ministers that they regulate in order to solve problems like climate change.
On Monday, Mr Miliband had made a speech arguing we end our dependence on oil, but was reluctant to commit to - for example - making energy-saving light bulbs compulsory - he argued that such action has to be EU-wide because of the single market.
We also pressed him on whether the new building regulations to ensure new homes are carbon neutral are being enforced.
The question we discussed the next morning was whether there should be a default expectation that governments regulate to solve problems.
There is a body of opinion that argues the market and consumer pressure will drive the economic and environmental policy changes that most scientists agree are needed to arrest climate change and global warming. Others argue that the urgency of the situation is such that governments must regulate - as they did when CFCs were phased out to stop the erosion of the ozone layer.
The question we discussed was whether we - ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ journalists - give too much prominence to the regulatory argument and not enough to the market argument.
And before people say we don't give enough coverage to the argument that climate change is a myth and is not man-made, I can say we do give airtime to people who argue this, despite the fact that the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion is that climate change is happening and human activity is a major cause - even if it is not the only one.
This raises another issue we are grappling with at the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ. Namely, that our commitment to air all sides of a debate can sometimes challenge our commitment to accuracy and impartiality. Put crudely, if the overwhelming majority of climatologists believe that climate change is happening and is largely driven by human activity, do we distort the picture of the scientific debate by airing the views of the small number of dissenting scientists too often?
This is not to suggest we stop interviewing people who deny climate change is happening or that it is happening but is a natural phenomenon, but it is to ask whether we interview them too often and our audience can be given a distorted impression of the balance of opinion in the scientific community.
And if that is so are we doing our audience disservice?
Alistair Burnett is editor of the World Tonight
