Last month the UK’s broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, cleared Channel 4 of “materially misleading the audience so as to cause harm or offense” on its television documentary challenging the theory that man-made activities are causing global warming.
Channel 4, a mainstream commercial broadcaster, ran the program in March 2006. It claimed that man-made global warming was a conspiracy and a fraud. There was outcry from environmentalists, scientists, and the public. One group sent Ofcom 176 pages of detailed complaints, arguing that the film seriously misled viewers.
Ofcom carried out a 15-month investigation and concluded that in the last portion of the program Channel 4 did breach the rules of impartiality on the impact climate change policies were having on developing countries. It also felt that senior high-profile government scientists had been misrepresented because of questionable editing of their quotes. Essentially, Ofcom said that it could not rule on the matter of accuracy because this was not a news program where the standards were different.
Verdict slammed
Critics have slammed the verdict as perverse because they were unhappy with the factual inaccuracies, and they stress that Ofcom’s narrowing definition of harm to actual rather than potential is ludicrous.
This incident has been interesting to follow because it has highlighted the media’s powerful role in circulating information in an impartial, balanced, and fair way regarding the causes of climate change. How much space should be given to the view that the drivers of global warming are other than man-made? Do editors push journalists to pursue these alternative perspectives in writing copy or broadcasting material? One scientist told me that journalists within British Broadcasting Corp. who wanted to write about these analyses were not encouraged to do so.
The primary fear is that promoting these viewpoints would discourage people from changing their behavior to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and invest in energy efficiency. This era of the oil and gas industry is unique. High energy prices and rising inflation mean that many people are struggling to meet daily living costs. Saving the environment is the last thing on their minds when analysts in the UK are predicting that energy bills could increase by 40% by the end of the year.
According to a survey by Ernst & Young in March, around 60% of respondents did not agree that their home energy bills needed to rise to combat climate change. The opinion poll said that 67% of the sample was not prepared to pay anything extra on home energy bills over the next 12 months to help combat climate change.
But this revelation on environmental apathy is not surprising when people are peeved about cost increases and inconvenience. Global warming campaigners feel that public education is crucial to triggering behavioral change. But mustering a sense of urgency is difficult when the threat is abstract or slow-moving. Opinion poll data show high levels of awareness but no sign of behavioral shift apart from switching of light bulbs and small steps in recycling
If anything, according to a survey initiated by the Environmental Transport Association, environmental apathy is rife. Thirty percent of people felt there was too much coverage in the media about CO2 emissions, and over half were “bored hearing about it.” Men are twice as likely as women to be bored by coverage about CO2 emissions.
Two minds
Research company Ipsos Mori said in its June report surveying the British public’s attitude to climate change: “The research also finds the public caught in two minds: despite large numbers backing government action [on climate change] two in five (41%) acknowledge that they are worried this might lead to restrictions on the things they want to do.” And, of course, there is the fear that the government may use the global warming agenda to raise taxes.
For Nick Eyre, senior research fellow at the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford, a change in policy approach can help the public reduce its energy demand. Community-based initiatives, an emphasis on user-friendly feedback, and linking advice to support for action have been some of the recent developments.
But changing behavior will coincide with changing technology to see significant demand reduction. The question is: Who will take responsibility for it?
