Writing about climate change should be getting easier. The science is more concrete, the effects now tangible. However for journalists it always appears a struggle. BBC’s offering by Matt McGrath is a good example. The only scientific law on display is Betteridge’s law of headlines.
Firstly the headline of the piece is itself ambiguous. Does it mean that Trump is good for Climate Change, i.e. the acceleration of the climate warming process, or does it mean that Trump is good for action against Climate Change? The article reads as if the headline means the latter.
The premise is that Trump is “good” or at least not as bad as you think, because of the following reasons, illustrated by the quotes from the article below;
- Trump unites other countries in their climate action.
“China, India and all the major emitters have reiterated their belief at this conference that the deal is irreversible and they will honour their commitments. Mr Trump appears to have forged a spirit of unity among all parties at the conference, even the World Coal Association (WCA).”
2. Trump’s pro fossil fuel policies inspire resistance
“If President Trump revives the Keystone pipeline, he could galvanise a new generation of climate activists”
3. Money promised for infrastructure will be spent on energy efficiency
“City mayors and other authorities are likely to want to see some of that cash spent on green measures like energy efficiency in offices, homes and buildings”
Before dealing with these three points in turn, we wonder what Matt McGrath is benchmarking Trumps impending presidency against. A Clinton presidency promised the following within 10 years
- Generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of Hillary’s first term.
- Cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals and offices by a third and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world.
- Reduce American oil consumption by a third through cleaner fuels and more efficient cars, boilers, ships, and trucks.
Translating to
“…reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30 percent in 2025 relative to 2005 levels and put the country on a path to cut emissions more than 80 percent by 2050.”
Although there is always a naïve optimism in assuming a politician’s words translate into actions, these are clearly better words than Trump, who has no climate change section in his policy positions and his position on energy makes no reference to climate change, environment, and the only mention of emissions, is related to Hilary’s promise to curb them.
So the three points above, would have to account for the gap in policy positions (80% cut by 2050 vs nothing) before Trump could even be considered to be equivalent on Climate Change. So what of them?
- Uniting Other Countries.
The countries mentioned in the article are already signatories to the Paris agreement and have not changed their position since the election. Therefore the talk of the new President galvanising them is misplaced, as it has not affected them. The article only talks of commitment to the Paris agreement, which was also in place prior to the election and therefore does not present any form of improved position. The standard set by the Paris agreement itself is contentious, with many believing it is inadequate, with only a promise of action that might be tossed aside at the first signs of economic stress, such as when a country, say, leaves a major trading block.
2. Increased Activism.
How much easier is it to stop damaging climate programmes by activism, rather than policy? I am not going to conduct a study of every sustained environmental protest to see if it yielded victory. But here is a picture of Twyford Down.
And this is what a victory for pipeline protesters looks like
3. Money promised for infrastructure will be spent on energy efficiency
This is complete speculation. With more money available more money is likely to be spent on ANY project. Whether energy efficiency is prioritized is not even suggested. The confidence that this money will be spent on energy efficiency projects comes from…another journalist, the intrepid Matt McGrath has not even asked anyone who is in charge of allocating this money.
The overall message of the article is that Trump is not going to be as bad for the climate as people think, or he himself even projected. This is backed up by absolutely nothing. The only source quoted is another journalist who wrote a similar article himself for the church times.
The real message of the article is that journalists believe that writing on a scientific subject can be treated with the same nebulous sourcing and speculative conclusions that they apply to all their other writing. There is no idea presented here as to what “good” is. Relativism only is used, which permits not only the normalisation of a controversial President but the normalisation of inadequate climate change policy.
But then we all have deadlines.
You can follow Matt McGrath on Twitter and Facebook.