tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/climate-reporting-88492/articlesClimate reporting – The Conversation2023-12-14T13:19:21Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2196592023-12-14T13:19:21Z2023-12-14T13:19:21ZMaking fossil fuel companies accountable for their products’ emissions would support the clean energy transition<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/565451/original/file-20231213-19-i7u4ln.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C11%2C3834%2C2140&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/cars-traffic-jam-create-huge-exhaust-2341640587">Konrad Kozaczuk/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>I recently found myself among a group of alarmed scientists, writing a fervent <a href="https://www.smurfitschool.ie/news/openletterexpertspleaforadvancementoftheeuropeansustainabilityreportingstandards.html">plea to the European Commission</a> to be more ambitious when it comes to corporate greenhouse gas reporting requirements. Our open letter calling for comprehensive disclosure of corporations’ contribution to the climate crisis gathered support from over 100 fellow researchers around the world. </p>
<p>So, news from the COP28 global climate change conference this year that countries have agreed to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/countries-push-cop28-deal-fossil-fuels-talks-spill-into-overtime-2023-12-12/#:%7E:text=DUBAI%2C%20Dec%2013%20(Reuters),end%20of%20the%20oil%20age.">“transition away from fossil fuels”</a> is welcome, although it’s far from the level of ambition needed. </p>
<p>One of the actions that could help properly address fossil fuel production is a much stronger stance from regulators on the fossil fuel sector’s <a href="https://ghgprotocol.org/blog/you-too-can-master-value-chain-emissions">scope 3 emissions</a>, which arise from other parts of a company’s supply chain, and so are indirectly linked to a company’s activities. In particular, we need more transparency around a scope 3 category called “use of product” emissions – those that come from people using a company’s product after it’s sold.</p>
<p>This was also <a href="https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2023-12-03/secretary-generals-remarks-roundtable-report-of-high-level-expert-group-net-zero%C2%A0">pointed out recently</a> by António Guterres, secretary general of the UN.</p>
<p>“On the one hand, the fossil fuel industry – the giant behind the climate crisis – is finally starting to wake up,” he said. “But the promises made clearly fall short of what is required … the announcement to achieve net zero by 2050 says nothing about eliminating emissions from fossil fuel consumption – the so-called Scope 3.”</p>
<p>Under the <a href="https://ghgprotocol.org/">greenhouse gas protocol</a>, the industry standard for accounting for corporate emissions, scope 3 emissions include “upstream” emissions, for example, goods and services bought by a company, but also “downstream” emissions such as those related to distribution or waste management. </p>
<p>Importantly, scope 3 also includes emissions from the use of products a company sells. This means it’s an excellent test of whether a business model will actually work in a net zero world. </p>
<p>Fossil fuels, by their nature, will always emit greenhouse gases when burned in a car or plane, or in gas-fired power plants. An oil firm may reduce direct emissions from its own operations (generally called scope 1 and scope 2) by putting solar panels on its refineries and improving its efficiency, but its use of product emissions is directly related to the amount of fossil fuels the firm sells, which generates the revenues the company depends on.</p>
<p><a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4100089">Research</a> I conducted with a fellow academic looked at emissions across 11 sectors. This paper, which is a preprint and so has not been through the peer-review process yet, shows that scope 3 emissions constitute an average of 86% of total emissions. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Bar chart showing Scope 3 emissions as much higher than Scope 1 & Scope 2 for all sectors." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/564956/original/file-20231211-17-r88izb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/564956/original/file-20231211-17-r88izb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/564956/original/file-20231211-17-r88izb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/564956/original/file-20231211-17-r88izb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/564956/original/file-20231211-17-r88izb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/564956/original/file-20231211-17-r88izb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/564956/original/file-20231211-17-r88izb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4100089">Hoepner & Schneider</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To put the size of scope 3 in perspective: in 2022 oil giant ExxonMobil’s self-reported emissions from the use of its crude and natural gas products – that’s just one of the 15 scope 3 categories – were <a href="https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/media/global/files/advancing-climate-solutions-progress-report/2023/2023-acs-ghg-data-supplement.pdf">540 million metric tons CO₂-equivalent (Mt CO₂e)</a>. This is <a href="https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2023#:%7E:text=all%20world%20countries-,Main%20findings,61.6%25%20of%20global%20GHG%20emissions">more than</a> the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions (426 Mt CO₂e) and close to Australia’s (571 Mt CO₂e). Despite this, scope 3 emissions have historically been broadly excluded from mandatory reporting requirements and net-zero targets. </p>
<p>It’s <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-securities-regulator-signals-it-may-curb-climate-rule-ambitions-2023-11-20/">often argued</a> scope 3 is beyond a company’s control, as the data often cannot be obtained. A producer might say it <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/scope-3-emissions-10-myths-debunked-net0/">doesn’t control</a> how the commodities it sells on global markets are converted into different energy products or used by consumers, for example. But this is an evasive tactic that shifts blame to a company’s suppliers and customers.</p>
<p>This narrow focus also extends to financial markets. Major oil company Eni, for example, just secured a €3 billion (£2.6 billion) “sustainability-linked” <a href="https://www.eni.com/en-IT/media/press-release/2023/12/eni-signs-new-3-billion-euro-sustainability-linked-credit-line.html#:%7E:text=San%20Donato%20Milanese%20(MI)%2C,last%20updated%20in%20April%202023.">revolving credit line</a> involving 26 global banks, including Goldman Sachs, Société Générale and Barclays Bank. This type of loan provides companies with better access to finance if they hit certain sustainability targets. Eni’s deal is linked to sustainability targets related to scope 1 and 2 emissions and disregards scope 3.</p>
<h2>How to cut scope 3 emissions</h2>
<p>The first step to holding firms accountable on scope 3 emissions is to boost transparency. So far, nearly half of companies with material scope 3 emissions <a href="https://clarity.ai/research-and-insights/tackling-scope-3-emissions-a-critical-step-towards-carbon-neutrality/">do not report sufficiently</a>.</p>
<p>Not only is scope 3 reporting significantly behind scope 1 and 2, the most carbon-intensive scope 3 categories are actually the ones that are significantly underreported by most firms. </p>
<p>Recent <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000208">research shows</a> that while 86% of firms disclose travel emissions, a mere 24% disclose emissions related to the use of sold products. But travel emissions account for just 0.3% of all scope 3 emissions versus 63% for the use of sold product emissions category – much more than any other scope 3 category.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A wind farm on green fields against a cloudy sky." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/565458/original/file-20231213-19-7pb1j2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/565458/original/file-20231213-19-7pb1j2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565458/original/file-20231213-19-7pb1j2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565458/original/file-20231213-19-7pb1j2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565458/original/file-20231213-19-7pb1j2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565458/original/file-20231213-19-7pb1j2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565458/original/file-20231213-19-7pb1j2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">More transparency about emissions should help reduce fossil fuel use.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/clean-renewable-energy-reduce-carbon-emissions-2241174043">iSOMBOON/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>While there has been <a href="https://www.wemeanbusinesscoalition.org/blog/we-mean-business-coalition-launches-the-supplier-cascade-to-accelerate-supply-chain-decarbonization/">some progress</a> on addressing (upstream) supply chain emissions in company’s purchasing decisions, the downstream use of product emissions will be harder to tackle. You can’t buy your way out of an unsustainable business model – not that some fossil fuel firms don’t try. </p>
<p>Cheap carbon credits sold on the <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-22/occidental-to-sell-net-zero-oil-to-south-korea-s-top-refiner?leadSource=uverify%20wall">voluntary carbon offset market</a> are used to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/lundin-sells-its-first-carbon-neutral-oil-climate-activism-grows-2021-04-26/">“offset” emissions from fossil fuels</a> that are then <a href="https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/how-to-sell-carbon-neutral-fossil-fuel-that-doesn-t-exist-1.1638878">labelled and sold</a> as “carbon neutral” – but less than 5% of offsets actually <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-14/what-are-carbon-offsets-and-how-many-really-work-quicktake?leadSource=uverify%20wall">remove carbon from the atmosphere</a>.</p>
<p>That’s why it’s even more critical to require companies to disclose “gross” – the total without deducting offsets – rather than “net” emissions. </p>
<p>The EU missed the opportunity to introduce such emission reporting as part of mandatory disclosures under its Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, implemented via the European Sustainability Reporting Standards in July 2023. As a result, it risks falling behind on climate leadership. </p>
<p>Indeed, in California <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/09/california-carbon-emissions-law">a law</a> was just passed mandating firms, including those privately held, to report on emissions (including scope 3 from 2027) if they operate in the state and have a minimum revenue of US$1 billion (£800 million). This will probably apply to big names like Apple and Chevron. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/exxon-apple-and-other-corporate-giants-will-have-to-disclose-all-their-emissions-under-californias-new-climate-laws-that-will-have-a-global-impact-214630">Exxon, Apple and other corporate giants will have to disclose all their emissions under California's new climate laws – that will have a global impact</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Accounting for scope 3 emissions encourages companies to consider their entire business model when it comes to meeting net zero goals. Merely outsourcing scope 1 or 2 emissions is not feasible; a comprehensive decarbonisation approach is needed. </p>
<p>This could significantly accelerate global decarbonisation efforts. But even more crucially, it would put the onus on corporations, which have been profiting from polluting for years. As a result, they not only have the means but also the ethical obligation to act.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/219659/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fabiola Schneider receives funding from public and philanthropic sources to fund research on scope 3 and fossil fuel finance. </span></em></p>Scope 3 emissions remain a crucial sticking point when it comes to strengthening climate reporting by corporations around the world.Fabiola Schneider, Assistant Professor, Dublin City UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1706582021-10-28T04:31:10Z2021-10-28T04:31:10ZClimate change misinformation fools too many people – but there are ways to combat it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/428547/original/file-20211026-13-10hbfpi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5000%2C2776&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/paris-france-aug-12-2021-woman-2044600301">Hadrian/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In recent decades, people in the UK have watched <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/climate-change-27">climate change</a> shift from being an abstract threat discussed on the news to an increasingly common presence in everyday life. As the frequency and intensity of heatwaves, floods and other extreme weather events has risen, so has public concern about climate change. <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-rolls-reveal-surge-in-concern-in-uk-about-climate-change">A 2019 poll</a> found 80% of people were fairly or very worried, while <a href="https://inews.co.uk/news/cop26-climate-change-economy-glasgow-summit-uk-british-public-1246621">a more recent survey</a> ranked climate change as the most important issue.</p>
<p>People are more engaged with the climate crisis than ever before. But how well do they understand it? And which sources of information do they trust the most? We wanted to understand where the public gets much of its information on the topic and what the most effective ways of keeping people informed are. </p>
<p>We surveyed more than 1,700 adults living in the UK and found that almost half the sample were unable to correctly identify 50% of fake climate change news headlines, and almost half (44%) of all respondents were unaware of how often they encountered misinformation online. These numbers suggest that people need more guidance on how to effectively spot misinformation, and how to find reliable information about climate change. </p>
<h2>What we found</h2>
<p>Working with YouGov and The Conversation, we asked 1,722 people to read five real and four fake news headlines about climate change. Almost half (46%) mistakenly believed that “Scientists disagree on the cause of climate change” and 35% incorrectly thought that “Scientists believe the Sun has impacted the Earth’s rise in temperature”.</p>
<p>However, a majority of respondents also correctly identified fake headlines such as “Carbon dioxide levels are tiny. They can’t make a difference” (70%) and “Melting an ice cube in a measuring cup full of water doesn’t raise the water level, so melting icebergs cannot raise sea levels” (68%). </p>
<p>Over half of respondents correctly guessed the real headlines “More than one million species are at risk of extinction by climate change” (65%), “Earth had its second warmest year in recorded history in 2019” (62%), and “The worst impacts of climate change could be irreversible by 2030” (55%). </p>
<p>But only 15% knew that “Switching to jet fuel made from mustard plants would reduce carbon emissions by nearly 70%” was false, and only 34% were right in thinking that “Enough ice melted on a single day to cover Florida in two inches of water”.</p>
<p>We also asked people how much trust they had in certain sources of climate change information. While online influencers (6%), social media outlets (7%), tabloid newspapers (13%), politicians (20%), journalists (30%), broadsheet newspapers (37%), and broadcast media outlets (38%) were among the least trusted sources, the vast majority trusted academics (67%) and their own friends and family (59%) to convey information about climate change that was trustworthy. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A scientist in red jacket stands before a glacier in Greenland." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/428564/original/file-20211026-15-1q651fo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/428564/original/file-20211026-15-1q651fo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428564/original/file-20211026-15-1q651fo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428564/original/file-20211026-15-1q651fo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428564/original/file-20211026-15-1q651fo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428564/original/file-20211026-15-1q651fo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428564/original/file-20211026-15-1q651fo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Academic researchers were the most trusted source on climate change.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/global-warming-greenland-iceberg-landscape-ilulissat-1500740060">Maridav/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A majority of those we surveyed thought accurate reporting was important, with 78% saying that climate change misinformation is very or fairly damaging to efforts to tackle the climate crisis.</p>
<p>When asked about media coverage of climate change, 39% claimed that media reporting overall was too abstract, with excessive focus on the future rather than the issues of today. Similarly, 29% thought media coverage was confusing, citing too many conflicting opinions (55%) and a distrust of politicians (55%) and news outlets (54%).</p>
<p>Finally, the majority of respondents (59%) were worried about climate change, with an even larger majority (80%) reporting a general willingness to make relevant lifestyle changes to stem the crisis.</p>
<h2>What this means</h2>
<p>Despite widespread awareness of the problems caused by fake news, many people we surveyed didn’t recognise their own role in this process. While large majorities worried about the effects of climate change misinformation and said that they didn’t share it themselves, 24% reported hardly ever fact-checking the information they read. </p>
<p>This could suggest the public aren’t sure which sources are reliable, making them more vulnerable to the very misinformation they see as damaging to the cause of tackling climate change. </p>
<p>Clearly, more can be done to educate people on how to distinguish real from fake climate change information. One way to do this is through a process called <a href="https://theconversation.com/covid-19-misinformation-scientists-create-a-psychological-vaccine-to-protect-against-fake-news-153024">inoculation</a>, or prebunking. </p>
<p>Just as vaccines train cells to detect foreign invaders, <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/gch2.201600008">research</a> has shown that stories which pre-emptively refute short extracts of misinformation can help readers develop mental antibodies that allow them to detect misinformation on their own in the future. Recent work has even used <a href="https://crankyuncle.com/">games</a> to help people detect the larger strategies that are used to spread misinformation about climate change.</p>
<p>Although social media companies such as Facebook have <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2021/09/tackling-climate-change-together/">started</a> to debunk climate myths on their platform, politicians and social media outlets appear to have an untrustworthy reputation. This was not the case for sources with perceived expertise on the topic, such as scientists. We therefore recommend that the trust held towards experts should be harnessed, by more frequently disseminating their views on social media and in traditional media outlets. </p>
<p>In our survey, only 21% of people understood that between 90% and 100% of climate scientists have concluded that humans are causing climate change (99% according to a <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966">recent</a> paper). Decades-long campaigns by <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58989374">fossil fuel companies</a> have sought to cast doubt on the scientific consensus. Media messages should therefore continue to communicate the overwhelming scientific consensus on <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33609913/">climate change</a>. </p>
<p>Through years of research on the topic, we have <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03189-1">identified</a> several ingredients for trustworthy science communication. These include prebunking myths and falsehoods, reliably informing people (don’t persuade), offering balance but not false balance (highlight the weight of evidence or scientific consensus), verifying the quality of the underlying evidence, and explaining sources of uncertainty. If communicators want to earn people’s trust, they need to start by displaying trustworthy behaviour.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/170658/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mikey Biddlestone's research is funded by a Cabinet Office Infodemic Grant.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sander van der Linden has consulted on this research for The Conversation and receives research funding on misinformation from the UK government, Google, and the EU Commission. He consults on climate misinformation for Facebook.</span></em></p>Academics are among the most trusted sources for news about climate change.Mikey Biddlestone, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Social Decision-Making Lab, University of CambridgeSander van der Linden, Professor of Social Psychology in Society and Director, Cambridge Social Decision-Making Lab, University of CambridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1464022020-10-04T18:54:54Z2020-10-04T18:54:54ZArdern’s government and climate policy: despite a zero-carbon law, is New Zealand merely a follower rather than a leader?<p>Back in pre-COVID times last year, when New Zealand passed the <a href="https://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/zero-carbon-amendment-act">Zero Carbon Act</a>, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern insisted “New Zealand will not be <a href="https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/HansS_20191107_056100000/ardern-jacinda">a slow follower</a>” on climate change. </p>
<p>It struck a clear contrast with the previous National government’s approach, which the then prime minister, John Key, often described as being “<a href="https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/HansS_20161116_051900000/5-climate-change-policy-leadership-and-donald-trump">a fast follower</a>, not a leader”. </p>
<p>He had lifted this language from the New Zealand Institute’s 2007 <a href="https://nzinitiative.org.nz/reports-and-media/reports/were-right-behind-you/">report</a>, which argued against “lofty rhetoric about saving the planet or being a world leader”. Instead, it counselled New Zealand to respond without “investing unnecessarily in leading the way”.</p>
<p>Key was eventually accused of failing to live up to even this unambitious ideal — New Zealand came to be known as a climate <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057%2F9781137494122_6">laggard</a>. </p>
<p>With her hand on the nation’s rudder since 2017, has Ardern done any better?
Is New Zealand a climate leader, and not merely a symbolic leader on the international speaking circuit but a <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2019.1522033">substantive leader</a> that sets examples for other countries to follow?</p>
<h2>Finally a fast follower</h2>
<p>On my analysis of Ardern’s government, New Zealand is now, finally, a fast follower. </p>
<p>The government’s climate policy is best evaluated from three perspectives: the domestic, international and moral. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/nz-has-dethroned-gdp-as-a-measure-of-success-but-will-arderns-government-be-transformational-118262">NZ has dethroned GDP as a measure of success, but will Ardern's government be transformational?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>From a domestic perspective, where a government is judged against the governments that preceded it, Ardern is entitled to declare (as she did when the Zero Carbon Act was passed) that: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We have done more in 24 months than any government in New Zealand has ever done on climate action. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>But at the international level, where New Zealand is judged against the actions of other countries and its international commitments, it is more a fast follower than a leader, defined by policy uptake and international advocacy rather than innovation. </p>
<p>At the moral level, where New Zealand is judged against objectives such as the 1.5°C carbon budget, its actions remain inadequate. A recent <a href="https://www.oxfam.org.nz/news-media/reports/afair2030targetforaotearoareport/">report</a> by Oxfam notes New Zealand is off-track for its international obligations. </p>
<p>The nation’s record looks even worse when we factor in historical responsibilities. From this perspective, New Zealand, like <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(20)30196-0/fulltext">other countries</a> in the global north, is acting with an immoral lack of haste. It is for the next government to go from being merely transitional to truly <a href="https://theconversation.com/nz-has-dethroned-gdp-as-a-measure-of-success-but-will-arderns-government-be-transformational-118262">transformational</a>.</p>
<h2>Turning in the right direction</h2>
<p>The formation of the Ardern government in 2017 inaugurated a phase of rapid policy development, drawing especially from UK and EU examples. But the evidence of substantive climate leadership is much less clear. </p>
<p>The government’s most prominent achievement is the <a href="https://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/zero-carbon-amendment-act">Zero Carbon Act</a>, which passed through parliament with cross-party support in November 2019. This establishes a regulatory architecture to support the low-emissions transition through five-yearly carbon budgets and a <a href="https://www.climatecommission.govt.nz/">Climate Change Commission</a> that provides independent advice.</p>
<p>Its other major achievement, less heralded and more disputed, was the <a href="https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/planning-future-no-new-offshore-oil-and-gas-exploration-permits">suspension of offshore oil and gas permits</a>. This supply-side intervention is surely Ardern’s riskiest manoeuvre as prime minister, not only on climate but on any policy issue. </p>
<p>It stands as an exception to her careful, incremental style. It signalled that the Crown’s <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2830332">historical indulgence of the oil and gas sector</a> was coming to an end.</p>
<p>But both policies involve followership. The Zero Carbon Act is closely modelled on the <a href="https://www.productivity.govt.nz/assets/Documents/cea3a9faa8/Examining-the-UK-Climate-Change-Act-2008.pdf">UK’s Climate Change Act 2008</a> and the leadership came from outside government. It was initially championed by the youth group <a href="https://www.generationzero.org/">Generation Zero</a>. The independent <a href="https://www.pce.parliament.nz/">Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment</a> then <a href="https://www.pce.parliament.nz/publications/a-zero-carbon-act-for-new-zealand-revisiting-stepping-stones-to-paris-and-beyond">picked it up</a>.</p>
<p>Similarly, the offshore oil and gas ban builds upon longstanding activism from Māori organisations and activists. In 2012, Petrobras <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/122566/petrobras-pulls-out-of-nz-oil-exploration">withdrew prematurely</a> from a five-year exploration permit after resistance from East Cape iwi (tribe) Te Whānau-ā-Apanui. New Zealand was also only following in the footsteps of more comprehensive moratoriums elsewhere, such as Costa Rica in 2011 and France in 2017. </p>
<h2>Towards climate leadership</h2>
<p>There are many other climate-related policies, including:</p>
<ul>
<li>the <a href="https://www.teururakau.govt.nz/funding-and-programmes/forestry/one-billion-trees-programme/">One Billion Trees Program</a></li>
<li>the NZ$100 million <a href="https://nzgif.co.nz/">Green Investment Finance</a> fund</li>
<li>the pledge to transition to <a href="https://www.labour.org.nz/release-renewable-electricity-generation-2030">100% renewable electricity</a></li>
<li>investment in the new clean energy centre <a href="https://www.araake.co.nz/">Ara Ake</a></li>
<li>a <a href="https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resources/energy-strategies-for-new-zealand/">green hydrogen strategy</a> that includes a nationwide hydrogen refuelling network</li>
<li>completion of the first national <a href="https://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/assessing-climate-change-risk">climate change risk assessment</a></li>
<li>budget boosts for rail and sustainable land use</li>
<li>the <a href="https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-wind-down-irrigation-funding-while-honouring-existing-commitments">ending of subsidies for irrigation schemes</a></li>
<li>a regional fuel tax in Auckland to fund public transport</li>
<li>NZ$1.1 billion for <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/14/new-zealand-budget-1bn-for-nature-jobs-but-dismay-at-lack-of-climate-action">nature-based jobs</a></li>
<li>enhanced climate-aligned investment in the research and innovation sector</li>
<li>the reincorporation of climate mitigation into resource consenting processes for local government</li>
<li>and the adoption of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (<a href="https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/publications/final-recommendations-report/">TCFD</a>) framework for mandatory reporting of climate-related risks.</li>
</ul>
<p>Only the last policy is a world first. Even then, private companies throughout the world are already adopting this approach without a mandate from government.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/new-zealand-will-make-big-banks-insurers-and-firms-disclose-their-climate-risk-its-time-other-countries-did-too-146392">New Zealand will make big banks, insurers and firms disclose their climate risk. It's time other countries did too</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In all likelihood, New Zealand’s greatest claim to pioneering policy is its decision to <a href="https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/blog/new-zealands-farmers-have-a-chance-to-be-climate-leaders/">split targets for carbon dioxide and methane</a> in the Zero Carbon Act, which means agricultural methane is treated separately. If the <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab6d7e">science behind this</a> decision eventually informs the international accounting of greenhouse gases, it will have major ramifications for developing countries whose economies also rely heavily on agriculture.</p>
<p>Not all proposed policies made it through the political brambles of coalition government. Most conspicuously, commitments to an emissions-free government vehicle fleet, the introduction of fuel-efficiency standards, and feebates for light vehicles were all thwarted. </p>
<p>This is symptomatic of this government’s major weakness on climate. Its emphasis on institutional reforms rather than specific projects will yield long-term impacts, but not produce the immediate emissions reductions to achieve New Zealand’s 2030 <a href="https://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/climate-change-and-government/emissions-reduction-targets/about-our-emissions">international target</a> under the <a href="https://cop23.unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement">Paris Agreement</a>. This is where a future government can make the rhetoric of climate leadership a reality.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article is adapted from an upcoming book - <a href="https://rsa.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2019.1522033#.X2k-q4tS9eU">Pioneers, Leaders and Followers in Multilevel and Polycentric Climate Governance</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/146402/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Hall receives funding from National Science Challenge (Biological Heritage).</span></em></p>New Zealand’s climate policy is largely copied from other countries, and when judged against objectives such as the 1.5°C target, its actions remain inadequate.David Hall, Senior Researcher in Politics, Auckland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1404502020-06-15T23:04:13Z2020-06-15T23:04:13ZThe number of climate deniers in Australia is more than double the global average, new survey finds<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/341728/original/file-20200615-153817-3574a7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=44%2C98%2C5946%2C3880&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Australian news consumers are far more likely to believe climate change is “not at all” serious compared to news users in other countries. That’s according to new research that surveyed 2,131 Australians about their news consumption in relation to climate change.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.canberra.edu.au/research/faculty-research-centres/nmrc/digital-news-report-australia-2020">The Digital News Report: Australia 2020</a> was conducted by the University of Canberra at the end of the severe bushfire season during January 17 and February 8, 2020. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/media-impartiality-on-climate-change-is-ethically-misguided-and-downright-dangerous-130778">Media 'impartiality' on climate change is ethically misguided and downright dangerous</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It also found the level of climate change concern varies considerably depending on age, gender, education, place of residence, political orientation and the type of news consumed. </p>
<p>Young people are much more concerned than older generations, women are more concerned than men, and city-dwellers think it’s more serious than news consumers in regional and rural Australia. </p>
<h2>15% don’t pay attention to climate change news</h2>
<p>More than half (58%) of respondents say they consider climate change to be a very or extremely serious problem, 21% consider it somewhat serious, 10% consider it to be not very and 8% not at all serious. </p>
<p>Out of the 40 countries in the survey, Australia’s 8% of “deniers” is more than double the global average of 3%. We’re beaten only by the US (12%) and Sweden (9%). </p>
<p><iframe id="8tUQo" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/8tUQo/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>While most Australian news consumers think climate change is an extremely or very serious problem (58%), this is still lower than the global average of 69%. Only ten countries in the survey are less concerned than we are.</p>
<h2>Strident critics in commercial media</h2>
<p>There’s a strong connection between the brands people use and whether they think climate change is serious. </p>
<p>More than one-third (35%) of people who listen to commercial AM radio (such as 2GB, 2UE, 3AW) or watch Sky News consider climate change to be “not at all” or “not very” serious, followed by Fox News consumers (32%). </p>
<p>This is perhaps not surprising when some of the most strident critics of climate change science can be found on commercial AM radio, Sky and Fox News. </p>
<p>Among online brands, those who have the highest concern about climate change are readers of The Conversation (94%) and The Guardian Australia (93%), which reflects that their audiences are more likely left-leaning and younger. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/we-want-to-learn-about-climate-change-from-weather-presenters-not-politicians-123761">We want to learn about climate change from weather presenters, not politicians</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>More than half of Australians get their information about climate change from traditional news sources (TV 28%, online 17%, radio 5%, newspapers 4%).</p>
<p>However, 15% of Australians say they don’t pay any attention to news about climate change. This lack of interest is double the global average of 7%. Given climate change impacts everyone, this lack of engagement is troubling and reflects the difficulty in Australia to gain political momentum for action.</p>
<p><iframe id="f5wtw" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/f5wtw/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>The polarised nature of the debate</h2>
<p>The data show older generations are much less interested in news about climate change than news in general, and younger people are much more interested in news about climate change than other news.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/bushfires-bots-and-arson-claims-australia-flung-in-the-global-disinformation-spotlight-129556">Bushfires, bots and arson claims: Australia flung in the global disinformation spotlight</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>News consumers in regional Australia are also less likely to pay attention to news about climate change. One fifth (21%) of regional news consumers say they aren’t interested in climate change information compared to only 11% of their city counterparts. </p>
<p>Given this survey was conducted during the bushfire season that hit regional and rural Australia hardest, these findings appear surprising at first glance. </p>
<p>But it’s possible the results <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/3235.0Main+Features12018?OpenDocument">simply reflect</a> the ageing nature of regional and rural communities and a tendency toward more conservative politics. The report shows 27% of regional and rural news consumers identify as right-wing compared to 23% of city news consumers. </p>
<p><iframe id="IfiuL" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/IfiuL/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>And the data clearly reflect the polarised nature of the debate around climate change and the connection between political orientation, news brands and concern about the issue. It found right-wing news consumers are more likely to ignore news about climate change than left-wing, and they’re less likely to think reporting of the issue is accurate. </p>
<p>Regardless of political orientation, only 36% of news consumers think climate change reporting is accurate. This indicates low levels of trust in climate change reporting and is in stark contrast with <a href="https://www.canberra.edu.au/research/faculty-research-centres/nmrc/publications/documents/COVID-19-Australian-news-and-misinformation.pdf">trust in COVID-19 reporting</a>, which was much higher at 53%. </p>
<p><iframe id="a9FuN" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/a9FuN/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>The findings also point to a significant section of the community that simply don’t pay attention to the issue, despite the calamitous bushfires. </p>
<p>This presents a real challenge to news organisations. They must find ways of telling the climate change story to engage the 15% of people who aren’t interested, but are still feeling its effects.</p>
<h2>19% want news confirming their worldview</h2>
<p>Other key findings in the <a href="http://www.canberra.edu.au/research/faculty-research-centres/nmrc/digital-news-report-australia-2020">Digital News Report: Australia 2020</a> include:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>the majority of Australian news consumers will miss their local news services if they shut down: 76% would miss their local newspaper, 79% local TV news, 81% local radio news service and 74% would miss local online news offerings</p></li>
<li><p>more than half (54%) of news consumers say they prefer impartial news, but 19% want news that confirms their worldview</p></li>
<li><p>two-thirds (62%) of news consumers say independent journalism is important for society to function properly</p></li>
<li><p>around half (54%) think journalists should report false statements from politicians and about one-quarter don’t</p></li>
<li><p>news consumption and news sharing have increased since 2019, but interest in news has declined</p></li>
<li><p>only 14% continue to pay for online news, but more are subscribing rather than making one-off donations</p></li>
<li><p>TV is still the main source of news for Australians but continues to fall.</p></li>
</ul>
<h2>The ‘COVID-trust-bump’</h2>
<p>In many ways these findings, including those on climate change reporting, reflect wider trends. Our interest in general news has been falling, along with our trust. </p>
<p>This changed suddenly with COVID-19 when we saw a big rise in coverage specifically about the pandemic. Suddenly, the news was relevant to everyone, not just a few. </p>
<p>We suspect that key to the “COVID-trust-bump” was the news media adopting a more <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/about/backstory/2020-06-11/abc-news-constructive-solutions-journalism/12335272">constructive approach</a> to reporting on this issue. Much of the sensationalism, conflict and partisanship that drives news – particularly climate change news – was muted and instead important health information from authoritative sources guided the coverage. </p>
<p>This desire for impartial and independent news is reflected in the new <a href="http://www.canberra.edu.au/research/faculty-research-centres/nmrc/digital-news-report-australia-2020">report</a>. The challenge is getting people to pay for it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/140450/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Caroline Fisher receives funding from the Judith Neilson Institute for Journalism and Ideas, Social Science Research Council and Google News Initiative.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sora Park receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Social Science Research Council, Google News Initiative and the Judith Neilson Institute for Journalism & Ideas. </span></em></p>Australia ranks third in the world in climate change deniers. It’s a bronze medal we don’t want.Caroline Fisher, Co-author of the Digital News Report: Australia 2020, Deputy Director of the News and Media Research Centre, and Assistant Professor of Journalism, University of CanberraSora Park, Lead Author of Digital News Report: Australia 2020, Associate Dean of Research, Faculty of Arts & Design, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.