A stark warning from United Nations agency, UNICEF, this week outlined why practically all of the world’s children are now exposed to at least one major climate change factor. The report was covered in different ways by different media, given the way the data could be sliced and diced.
Reuters reported that 1.8 billion were being impacted by droughts, while 1.2 billion were affected by rising, extreme temperatures. Al Jazeera brought in the statistics on heatwaves too, but then also went on to highlight how "nearly every child is exposed to air pollution, while one billion are exposed to malaria."
The Guardian, on the other hand, referenced how the report showed that “rising temperatures and extreme weather are putting more stress on infrastructure, and warned that key roads and bridges are being hit, with dire consequences for the local community.”
Unsurprisingly, nations with emerging economies and large populations were the hardest hit statistically. But, the sheer scale of impact revealed that children in practically every country are now exposed to the implications, and are having to adjust to new challenges than before.
The latent bias
The figures make for dramatic headlines. They also illustrate how one major report can be covered in a number of different ways. It was also noticeable how many major media houses chose not to write about the report.
This is an example of the challenges that major agencies and organisations face when sharing information about the impact of climate change on a global scale. They tend to lead with how much of the population is now caught up in the consequences, compared to stories that take a more localised and personally relevant approach.
Neither is right or wrong, but as some outlets have reported previously, there is always a risk that some audience will be overwhelmed by the sheer scale of the challenge, leading to inaction or muted responses from the public. The Reuters Institute covered this factor across several major countries’ media at the tail end of last year, concluding that there was “a stagnation in public views, attitudes, and engagement with climate information over time”.
Media outlets realise this too. Many of the major international publishers have covered scientific projections about the increased effect of the El Niño weather phenomenon in recent days. Look at the likes of the Daily Telegraph though – it aimed to connect global risks with impact on daily lives on a much more local level. In its coverage, it suggested that El Niño could create greater demand for energy due to the increased use of air conditioning in hot countries over the coming months – meaning potentially higher bills to heat British homes in the winter.
The major numbers and global perspectives approach adopted by institutions such as the UN will need to continue. But businesses, charities and non-profits communicating their climate action and causes should be conscious that it will take more than the big number in the big headline to win hearts and minds.