CLIMATE CHANGE FATIGUE? COVERAGE DOWN AGAIN IN 2011 !

“It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities”. -- Josiah Stamp

Globally, are people getting less interested in talking about climate change? What might be the reasons for the seemingly less interest in climate change stories? Is there a feeling that enough has been said about climate change? Are people frustrated that they talk about climate change and yet see that nothing is happening? Is it to the benefit of the earth that we stop creating awareness of climate change and put pressure on ourselves to find solutions?

Last week, I had a discussion with a friend and we arrived at a conclusion that “climate change” is gradually fading away just as some words had become very topical some years ago and they gradually faded away. Our assertion was not backed by any real facts or analysis but we were convinced of what we said, basing our assertion on the frequency at which we are hearing and reading articles and editorials on climate change in the Ghanaian media. ‘Sustainability’, at some point, was the ‘catchword’ of every debate on the environment but this word gradually faded away; we will discuss this another time. Now, it seems climate change is gradually fading away too.

Then this week I come across a publication by DailyClimate.org that had the headline, ‘Climate coverage down again in 2011’. So we might be right with our assertion after all! In the article, it is stated that “media coverage of climate change continued to tumble in 2011, declining roughly 20% from 2010's levels and nearly 42 % from 2009's peak, according to analysis of DailyClimate.org's archive of global media”. Despite the many extreme weather events that occurred across the globe, famine in the Horn of Africa, Australia's approval of a carbon tax, COP 17 climate conference in South Africa, etc, coverage of climate change issues went down.

According to DailyClimate.org, at least 7,140 journalists and opinion writers published some 19,000 stories on climate change in 2011, compared to more than 11,100 reporters who filed 32,400 stories in 2009. Also, 20% fewer reporters covered the issue in 2011 than in 2010, 20% fewer outlets published stories, and the most prolific reporters on the climate change beat published 20% fewer stories. This information, in my opinion, is a wake-up call for all who are concerned to get back to work and write about this global challenge. We need to make more people aware of what is happening around us. Relentless efforts at creating public awareness of climate change issues which reached its peak in 2009 have helped to make the society more aware of the key issues in the problem. If media outlets and all writers would not relax but step up their game, some more minds would change to accept that climate change is real and there is the need to address it.

Climate-related issues published by the BBC in 2011, for instance, dropped by 30% from 2010, whilst ‘The New York Times’ published 953 stories and blog posts, against 1,116 in 2010 and 1,408 in 2009; according to dailyclimate.org. Reuters published 1,235 stories in 2011 – more than three per day – its output was down 27% from 2010. Looking at this reducing trend, it seems climate change is no longer ‘that new girlfriend’ that was found to be extremely attractive and one couldn’t stop talking about!

One important consideration if we want the reading public to attach importance to climate change issues: “CLIMATE CHANGE should be seen in banner headlines”. “People take their cues about what's important from what shows up in the headline of the newspaper. It doesn't matter really what the articles say," says Robert Brulle, Drexel University.

So I ask again, is there a lack of interest in talking about climate change? What might be the reasons for the seemingly less interest in climate change stories? Is there a feeling that enough has been said about climate change? Are people frustrated that they talk about climate change and yet see that nothing is happening? Is it to the benefit of the earth that we stop creating awareness of climate change and put pressure on ourselves to find solutions?

Let’s wake up!

“In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments; there are consequences”. -- Robert Green Ingersoll

Tweet

From Durban, with HOPE!

Coming from Durban, world governments committed themselves to write a comprehensive global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, covering both developed and developing countries, for the first time. Despite this good progress at Durban, the conference could not arrive at a legally binding deal to bail out the planet. This global agreement that has received commitment is to come into force in 2020. I wish it would be earlier than 2020, though. It has been a long and tiring journey. Sometimes I ask myself, “Why is it so easy to save the banks – but so hard to save the earth?”

There have been such climate change agreements before, but never like this. The 1997 Kyoto protocol is an example of a treaty stipulating cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, but the cuts only apply to developed countries and the US never joined in. Several accords were struck under the Kyoto Protocol but they were voluntary, not legally binding. Politicians could easily walk out of such non-binding agreements, compared with legally-binding treaties. Coming out of Durban, the new phase of negotiations about to start should be "a protocol, a legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force", which will effectively mean countries are legally bound. Unfortunately, it is worrying that the Durban talks had nothing on how how far and how fast countries should be cutting their carbon dioxide.

Scientists say when global temperatures rise beyond 2 degrees Celsius, climate change will become catastrophic and irreversible. And emissions have risen by nearly 50% in the past 20 years, and still rising. With every year of increase, we have much less chance of keeping global temperature rises to less than 2 degrees Celsius. But the earth needs to wait till 2015 when governments will wrap up negotiations and a legal document will be ready to for signing; and a further 5 years for ratification. In between now and 2015 and then 2020, advocacy must go on to ensure that nothing goes wrong. It’s a delicate process but “working together, we will save tomorrow today”. I have HOPE!

There are more positives which make the Durban conference great, in my opinion. Compared with previous meetings, it seems this time Africa had a better representation. The African Group made up of 54 nations presented a united front throughout the negotiations, with few disagreements among them. The group had clear priorities and stood by them. The leader of the African group made this statement "Whether we are reducing our priorities to two, while yesterday I spoke about five priorities, I will even go further and say that the priority that we have is only one: to keep one billion Africans safe as regards the adverse effect of a climate change phenomenon to which they did not contribute." Reports were still rife that some of the African delegates were just out of touch with the issues that were being discussed but it is a great improvement on previous delegations. As usual, some African delegates were reported to have found the shopping malls and streets of Durban a better conference room. Some were obviously there on holiday! But this time, the continent had better representation and I believe it is getting better and a time will come that National Delegations will be made up of people who really understand what is to be discussed and not because they are government functionaries and there is an opportunity to travel.

Tweet

Clear more forest; cause more climate change

Deforestation in Ghana has undoubtedly had an effect on greenhouse gas emission contributions from Ghana. The cumulative effect of the volume of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere annually from clearing and burning of forests in Ghana over the last century has surely had devastating effects on the world's climate. when forest are burnt, the carbon stored in trees are released into the atmosphere via carbon dioxide gas coming from the burning of biomass.

When our forest are allowed to stand, carbon is removed from the atmosphere and absorbed in wood, leaves and soil. Due to the ability of forests to absorb and store carbon over an extended period of time, they serve as “carbon sinks”. In effect, when forests are removed, this unique role that they play to keep carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere at normal levels is lost and rather the carbon stored in them is released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide gas, upon burning. Overall, the world’s forest ecosystems are estimated to store more carbon than the entire atmosphere (Greenfacts, 2007).

From 1990 to 2000 and to 2004, carbon dioxide emissions in Ghana have increased steadily from 0.2419 to 0.3075 and to 0.326 metric tonnes per capita, respectively (UNEP, 2008). This is not surprising considering the deforestation rate and how “slash and burn” method of farmland preparation is widely practised all over Ghana. Unfortunately, as we contribute to climate change through deforestation, Climate change will in turn affect the remaining forests profoundly through increasing damage to forest health through proliferation of forest fires, pests and diseases (FAO, 2007).

Unfortunately, both the “1948 Forest Policy” and the “1994 Forest and Wildlife Policy” had no real policy direction on climate change. Let's assume that at the time these policies were developed. climate change was not a 'major issue'. This means at it stands now these policies can not help in mitigation and/or adaptation to climate change which is a major environmental issue. At this juncture, I think a review of Ghana's forest and wildlife policy is long overdue.

Tweet