Security measures and civil action: an analysis of media coverage at #COP21

Blog by Alan Ouakrat

The day after the Paris attacks, a state of emergency was declared in France.

As a result, civil liberties were restrained and exceptional police powers were dedicated to regulating the movement and residence of the public. The state of emergency was promulgated by the French Assembly for a period of three months beginning on November 26, 2015. Demonstrations planned in Paris for COP21, such as the November 29 climate march, were banned. In this constrained context, what demonstrations by civil society related to COP21 were covered by media?

Police clash with protesters in Paris

Our brief case study analysed media coverage from six online players which are Vice, Buzzfeed, Huffington Post, Le Monde, Le Figaro and Reporterre, so respectively three ‘new players’ of online news, two mainstream legacy media and one specialized in environmental questions. Our period of analysis ran from Wednesday 25 November until Wednesday 2 December and we gathered articles relating to climate change and COP21. 272 articles were collected in total. Among those, a corpus of 65 pieces of news (24%) were captured because their content was either referring to security measures around the COP21 (34 articles) or civil society actions (31).

Chart 1. Articles selected compared to COP21 media coverage

Chart1. Articles selected compared to COP21 Media Coverage

If we take a look at the distribution of the articles produced, we clearly see that Le Monde, Le Figaro and the Huffington Post produced most of the coverage. Altogether, they represent 80% of the media coverage of our sample. Part of this is related to their size since the two legacy mainstream media rely on large teams of journalists. Meanwhile, Huffington Post content is written by personalities and composed of a large number of blog/opinions pieces (a third of its content). To get a glimpse at types of journalistic production, we can label the content by the signature or absence of it in the article (see chart 2). This way, we divided our corpus in four categories: journalist, personality, press-agency and unsigned content.

Chart 2. Type of production

Chart2. Types of production

Going back to the re-partition of content produced in our corpus, we distinguished two main categories: civil society actions and security measures (see chart 3). The idea is to highlight the proportion of media coverage per media. As we can see, two of the ‘new players’ of the news online industry, Vice and Buzzfeed, have a coverage strictly focus on the security measures. They do not seem really interested in civil society actions. Also, this type of content dominate the coverage of Le Figaro, since more than two third of their content is interested in this matter. It could be an effect related to the quantity of press-agency articles (re-hash) contained in our sample for this title. As we can observe in chart 2, 15 of the 23 articles selected are either press-agency re-hash or unsigned.

Chart 3. Proportion of media coverage between civil society actions and security measures around the COP21

Chart3. Proportion of media coverage between civil society actions and security measures around the COP21

Each of the two main categories “Civil society actions” and “Security measures” can be split in two to have a clearer picture of their precise topic. For security measures, we aggregate articles about the security measures around the COP (controls at the borders, restriction of traffic, policeman effective deployed, etc) and articles about violence either anticipated regarding the November 29 march or debriefing what happened during and after the march. The category “Civil society actions” refers to articles on counter-actions organized by civil society around the COP or advocacy for the actions of civil society.

As we can see on the chart 4, the coverage is really unbalanced between the different news players. Globally, security measures and counter-actions appear to be the main sub-categories, since approximately a third of our corpus is represented by each one of them. “Violence” is just behind totalizing 15 articles and “advocacy for the actions of civil society” is the last sub-category with 11 articles.

What is interesting here is to take into consideration each media. Vice focuses exclusively on violence, even if there is only 2 of their articles in our corpus. Buzzfeed is a mixture between security measures and violence, with 2 articles as well. The four other players have different weighting between the sub-categories: the Huffington Post seems mainly interested in advocacy for the actions of civil society and counter-actions organized and less than the others by violence and security measures (only 25% of their coverage). The least interested in violence seems to be Le Monde (only 1 article), followed by Reporterre which gives a large place to counter-actions of civil society (44% of its coverage). Le Monde appears to devote the majority of its coverage to civil society actions as well, with not less than 6 articles dedicated to the counter-actions organized by civil society. Le Figaro has a coverage more oriented towards security measures, since it represents approximately 40% of its coverage in our corpus. We can draw the hypothesis that it might be linked with its political orientation and readers, who does not really seem particularly fond of environmental activists.

Chart 4. Proportion of coverage per media and per category

Chart4. Proportion of coverage per media and per category

If we look now at the temporal dynamic of the media coverage, we can see how it evolved from a topic to another. The main thematic was security measures before the forbidden march of November 29th then it focuses on violence. Counter-actions seems less appealing to the media although they make good photos and videos to illustrate what is happening around the COP21. Another aspect not taken into account here is the format which could have maybe demonstrate this point. In this short period of a week, we can observe different media moments in a very condensed way (see chart 5).

Chart 5. Temporal dynamic of media coverage

Chart5. Temporal dynamic of media coverage

Of course, the approach developed here is very limited but it leads to many questions which can be dealt with in-depth. If we open what is a black-box for this (quick) quantitative analysis and do a more qualitative one, political stances might appear more clearly. For instance, Reporterre covers the violence and security measures but gives a voice to activists and relates police brutality with a critical lens, whereas it is less apparent – to say the least – in the other media. This example shows us what we miss with this kind of quantitative-only analysis. To go further, a carefully reading of each news piece is needed in order to find context elements about the history of the title and its position in the news field.

At first glance, Le Monde and Le Figaro seem to favour a stance of passing on government instructions on the ban of the march on November 29 and the necessity of respecting the state of emergency rather than detailing the motivations of civil society against the COP21. Vice and Buzzfeed which are considered as ‘new players’ and digital natives’ actors do not differ that much from the other news players. However, naturally their tone of coverage is different. The component of original media material in the coverage, especially for Buzzfeed, is also very light. They are focusing on violence, which can be linked to their business model which only relies on advertising. This could be a first explanation: they are chasing clicks and trying to maximize their page views with more visual content. In that regard Huffington Post might be the most surprising in its coverage: it offers a lot of opinions pieces and also a more nuanced coverage than elsewhere.

This quick analysis raises more questions than it brings answers, nevertheless, if we refuse shortcuts in the interpretation, it might be useful to draw a first (raw) picture of media coverage about civil society actions and security measures.

Do the mainstream media tell the full story? A critical account of coverage at COP21

Blog by Max Boykoff

Do you need a ticket to COP21 in order to get the full story of what goes on? A week ago in Bilbao Spain, this provocative question was posed by Dr. Unai Pascual to a discussion group at the Basque Center for Climate Change. Unai’s question is an open one I’ve pondered in the lead up to the Paris round of negotiations and something I ask you to consider now.

Attending talks, observing negotiations, meeting with co-workers, researching and learning about new topics are all important dimensions of COP21 participation. However for those who aren’t attending COP21, media outlets are usually the way to go. From Europe alone, media actors from BBC to France24 to The Guardian and El Mundo – seemingly populate every part of the sprawling venue in Le Bourget. See Chris Russell’s good commentary of media resources ‘on the ground’ at Paris COP21 

Relying on your trusted sources in mainstream media can help sate your appetite for understanding big issues. Layer on good resources like IISD Reporting Services Earth Negotiations Bulletins the climate change policy & practice listserv and Climate Action Network Media Briefings and you’ve got a substantial entrée to main actions and attractions unfolding. Going further, following tweets from inside and around the summit, you may start to feel quite full as the first two weeks of December pass.

The entrance to the United Nations conference on climate change (COP21). Do you need to go to get the full story?

This is only a start: you can add toppings of Facebook posts from Associated Press, New York Times, Democracy Now, Deutsche Welle, EuroNews, Reuters until you’re overstuffed.

A clear advantage as we attend to our daily demands and responsibilities in these December days – is that media actors are working hard to help us all make sense of the complexities of the climate. Journalists can unpack concepts such as “mitigation”, “adaptation”, “Green Climate Funds”, “loss and damage,” “REDD+” and more. They investigate so you don’t have to. However, while these media representations link us to these critical issues being negotiated in Paris, we can still recognize the mainstream media’s limits.

The media, by their nature, inevitably privilege certain story lines over others. Through decisions made at various levels of the media hierarchy, media actors –journalists, publishers, editors, bloggers etc – shape narratives on climate change. This occurs through the application of journalistic norms and values within a larger landscape of political, economic, environmental, and cultural pressures.

With so much occurring at any one time at the Paris Summit: a large and potentially world-changing event, media consumers can generally only access ‘climate stories’ media actors select from the steady stream of events. As such, television and radio broadcasts, print stories and online posts do not simply inform, they help the public make sense about what are today’s (and tomorrow’s) climate challenges.

A ‘Keep it in the Ground’ demonstration creates news and is covered by many media actors, including Bill McKibben of and Amy Goodman from Democracy Now

Which stories are selected and which are excluded has consequences. Local Parisian philosopher Jacques Derrida once talked of how one must critically examine how portrayals not only gain traction in discourses, but also how those who are absent become effectively marginalized and silenced. There are an estimated 40,000-45,000 participants here in Paris. That is approximately the capacity of Hamburger SV’s Imtech Arena. Yet, instead of this being a venue of spectators watching a few dozen athletes perform (and make the news on the pitch), this is a place filled with content producers, story-makers and tellers.

A worker inside the IISD Reporting Services office at COP21 cuts a lonely but highly-influential figure

Talking this morning with colleague Phaedra Pezzullo, she noted how the
pace of events here easily can outpace the speed of reporting, even in this hyper-fast new and social-media dominated age. You can read Phaedra’s blog posts on COP21 here. There are many more stories at COP21 than capacities to report them. Media at COP21 seek to provide first drafts of history in these privileged spaces of Paris. In that context, we need to all be critically engaged as we learn from as well as question these media accounts; our collective future depends on such critical engagement.

How data journalism is impacting the climate change debate

Blog by Fenja Schmidt

Climate conferences serve multiple purposes. Besides being important political events, they are also global media spectacles which push the topic of climate change to the top of political, scientific and public agendas.

Scientific data is always at the heart of the way climate change is discussed. Whether it be weather records, measurement of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere or the PH-value of the oceans.

Aside from data derived from the natural sciences, there are many other sources. One such example is the database our Online Media Monitor. It is creating data about media coverage on climate change around the world. Climate data is not only interesting for scientists  – it can also be a tool for journalists. Data journalists find stories hidden behind the numbers to help readers understand something which otherwise might be impenetrable and complex.

My research shows that data journalists increasingly use personalized coverage to counter the abstractness of the data. Personalized visualizations or news apps allow readers “to find their own narratives amongst the data points” (Yale Climate Connections 2014). The first projects allowing personalized coverage related to climate change were personalised carbon footprint calculators, as shown in this early example from 2009.

In the meantime, these calculators include more detail and are available in many languages. An example is the German “CO2-Rechner” by the WWF Germany. Below I’ve posted other examples that I’ve collected over the past years.

Screenshot Fenja
The Guardian published an interactive called “Climate change: how hot will it get in my lifetime?” It shows the user a personalized view of the latest temperature projections that were published in 2013. With this visualization, readers can easily see what climate change might mean for their own, but also their children’s future.

This infographic from 2014 shows how high the sea levels will rise, if the meltdown of the polar ice continues: “When Sea Levels Attack”. Another Guardian interactive, accompanying the last climate conference in Lima (Peru), showed how the global carbon emissions have evolved since the beginning of the industrial revolution: “Carbon emissions: past, present and future.”

A more recent example of an interactive feature dealing with climate data is the “Climate Change Calculator” by the Financial Times. It shows how the global temperature will evolve in different scenarios, depending on how much the world’s nations reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. The intention behind the project is “to show the effectiveness of nations’ pledges in advance of the COP21 climate summit to prevent dangerous climate change” (Hay 2015). The calculator is easy to use and helps to visualize the pledges different nations have made.

These are just a few examples of how climate change is covered by data journalism but more projects are regularly released. As climate change is a very complicated and multi-layered topic, data journalism tries to make a contribution towards helping people understand this important issue and its relevance to everyday folk.


Hay, Nick: “Will data journalism unravel the climate spiral of silence?” Climate-KIC Blog, 27 October 2015.

Loosen, Wiebke/Reimer, Julius/Schmidt, Fenja: “When Data Become News. A Content Analysis of Data Journalism Pieces.” Future of Journalism Conference, Cardiff, 11 September 2015.

Yale Climate Connections: “Data Journalism: Do the Numbers Add Up to Climate Action?” On Journalism, 23 April 2014.

Was the “failure” of the Copenhagen climate summit key to expected “success” in Paris?

Blog by Professor Hans von Storch

Professor Hans von Storch is a highly distinguished ocean and climate scientist. He has written 20 books and sits on numerous climate advisory boards. He usually writes for the climate blog: Die Klimazwiebel

Recently, a journalist asked me in passing – which was the best COP so far, which the worst?

Honestly, I have not been a good observer of these meetings. All I know there were many and the next is #21. There was Copenhagen, sometimes labelled Hopenhagen by enthusiasts. It was COP15 and the year was 2009. Copenhagen, the last exit, it was called, the last chance for instituting a binding policy which would make “us” limit global anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change to a stable 2 deg in 2100.

The 2 degree goal is an old one. It was discussed by the now mostly forgotten German climate researcher Wilfrid Bach in an interview with Spiegel in 1988. The idea was that the agreement must take the form of a legally binding treaty; that the sum of these promised reductions of emissions must lead to the 2 degree reduction in the long term, and that in the short term definite plans needed to be set up for the change of trend before 2020.

None of this came to pass in Copenhagen. What the partners could agree on was that the 2 degree goal should continue as a reference for the rest of the century. Apart from that, the international community could not agree on anything definite and left home empty handed.  That was it; the famous meeting of the leaders of the western nations, including Obama, came to an end. Somewhat surprisingly, after this Obama was seen in the room negotiating with other leaders, the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries. They had arrived at the conclusion of Copenhagen and a meeting with the then new US President was seen as a recognition in the important part these countries could play in climate change deals.

Activists were devastated; the last exit has not been used, and six years after Copenhagen we continue on our high-speed train into the abyss. Gradually, the process of tackling climate change resumed. After COP20 in Lima we could read again the first optimistic assessment about possible future developments. The rhetoric seemed to have changed; it was no longer the drama of the last exit, but more the coalition of the willing, a concept which George W Bush had also applied to the climate issue, arguing that there needed to be cooperation among the big players (emitters). Now, in Paris, COP21, we are still on this track, and I sense an optimism based on the voluntary list of all-too-small “Intended National Determined Contributions.”

Something has changed between Copenhagen, Lima and now Paris. I suggest that the first important change happened in Copenhagen, namely the destroying of the overly naïve and “world-leader” attitude of the western countries, which seemingly had hoped that the old colonial division of labor would do it. We (the west) had sinned, indeed, and we have to rectify that. But any such a rectification has to consider our superiority in technology, importance of issues and even diplomacy. We lead, you follow. But Obama had moved into the other room. The spell of western superiority was broken, and that is why I answered the original question of the “best” COP eventually with: Copenhagen.

Now, we seem to be on a reasonable path; not a really good one; certainly not a path of perfect justice. We still have a very high chance of not meeting the goal. But we are underway in reducing emissions. It’s very likely not enough for what the econometric calculation indicates are needed to stay below the 2 degrees warming. However, we are improving. While the previous COPs were confronted with the choices “all or nothing” – and chose mostly “nothing” – we can now say – what? About 47.2%? What a wonderful progress. Let “us” achieve what is achievable, while not forgetting that maybe other issues of significance may emerge. I expect that the numbers will improve over time.

Paris Climate Summit – Media Summary – 30.11.2015 – New Zealand publications

Today we briefly survey media coverage of the Paris summit from the two largest online news sites from this author’s homeland, New Zealand.

Climate photo Herald
Screen shot of The New Zealand Herald, 30.10.2015

By Feilidh O’Dwyer

New Zealand’s most popular online news site is owned by Australasian media giant Fairfax Media. It curates stories from regional newspapers as well as covering original breaking news stories. On the 30 November, Stuff posted at least 10 stories relating to the summit, although several were sourced from The Guardian, AP or other foreign sources. Several of the stories reflected on regional climate protests in New Zealand in towns such Nelson and Palmerston North. These protests occurred as part of global climate protests on 29 November. Stuff included an editorial from the Wellington daily paper The Dominion Post. The editorial referred to New Zealand’s offering at Paris as “mediocre” and pointed out New Zealand’s large agricultural sector was basically excluded from having to make carbon reductions by the present government.  Another article also mentions the emissions from agriculture, stating that the sector accounts for 48 percent of all of New Zealand’s carbon emissions.  The story also shows statistics about the enormous amounts of palm kernel that New Zealand imports which is said to contribute to deforestation in Indonesia.

New Zealand Herald

This is the online edition for New Zealand’s largest circulating daily newspaper published in New Zealand’s biggest city, Auckland. The Herald also provided around 10 articles relating to the summit, half of which were sourced from abroad. One was a timeline of key events in the UN history of climate summits. Several stories referred to Obama’s actions in Paris, including him visiting the sites of the Paris terror attacks and his push for a strong change in policy on climate matters when facing a combative domestic environment in the United States. Another article in the business section discussed the amounts governments and prominent tech billionaires such as Bill Gates are willing to invest in clean energy technologies.

Check back tomorrow for another climate summit media summary from another part of the globe!


COP21: A new chance for common sense and common action?

Brigitte Nerlich photo
Blog by Brigitte Nerlich

The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference opens in Paris today. This is the 21st ‘Conference of the Parties’ or COP since the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.

Since then each year, without fail,  governments have discussed when, where and how much to cut greenhouse gas emissions and to engage in the mitigation of and, increasingly, adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

Gradually, but indeed rather slowly, discussions have moved forward. But there has also been a set-back: in COP15 the 2009 Copenhagen summit – things “turned sour”. Between 2006 and 2009 climate science had become increasingly confident in diagnosing that there is a problem called climate change (or rather a complex bundle of such problems) and this diagnosis had increasingly begun to influence political and public thinking. It had almost become a matter of common sense to think that climate change poses problems to the global and local governance of the planet we live on.


However, at the end of November 2009, six years ago, private emails between climate scientists were made public without their authors’ consent, and they were mined for quotes that could cast doubt on the credibility of climate scientists and climate science. The emerging climate change common sense was shaken and indeed fractured for a while after what became known as the ‘climategate’ affair.

Although most politicians in the world now agree man-made climate change is real – many Republicans in the United States such as leading R presidential contender Donald Trump. Credit: Will C Fry

Since then there “has been a significant shift in understanding of the scale of the climate challenge by scientists, politicians and the public”, and while efforts are still being made to cast doubt on the credibility and integrity of climate scientists, most recently by US Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), such efforts seem no longer able to undermine an emerging global sense of urgency any more, at least in the United States. A recent survey by the Center for Climate Change Communication at Mason University in the United States has found that the majority of Americans think it is important to reach an agreement in Paris this year to limit global warming.

This means that despite world carbon emissions falling for a variety for reasons, a low-carbon world is not yet around the corner. Although it seems that politicians worldwide have begun to accept that scientists have done their job and that it’s now their turn to do theirs, their thinking and planning is still governed by political rather than scientific pressures, by short-term rather than long-term visions. Why else would the UK government, for example, axe a £1bn grant for developing new carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology and why would the Department for Energy and Climate Change downgrade “its expectations for each of the main low-carbon sources of electricity”. Such political decisions are just what they are: political.

However, there are other factors, which contribute to public support declining for a tough climate deal. In some countries around the world, worries about the economy and terrorism are stronger than worries about climate change.  There is nothing scientists, whether natural or social, can ‘do’ in this context, unless they are invited into the process of decision making on realistic terms. Once invited in, scientists should no longer be expected to (endlessly) demonstrate that climate change is a problem; rather they should be allowed to use their energy and expertise to explore ranges of context-sensitive solutions. There are signs that such collaborations are happening or at least being called for.

In the 2015 context of a world faced with multiple crises, political actions intent on undermining the credibility and integrity of climate scientists, based on allegations that their work is politically or financially motivated, might almost seem frivolous. However, there is a larger problem, namely that thinking, yet again, about climate change might also seem almost frivolous. To talk about climate change in this new world of political and economic tensions is fraught with difficulties. As Hugo Rifkind expressed so well: “the overall vibe is one of weary angels dancing on a pinhead.” It would probably not take much to topple those angles.

While there are still advocates for non-action and while politicians might still decide that for whatever reasons of political exigency non-action is the best way forward in the short-term, such thinking and acting is being increasingly challenged. There is some chance then that common sense might return to these political negotiations in Paris and the weary angels might be able to continue dancing on a pinhead.

One can only hope that freed up from having to prove that climate change is a problem, climate scientists, together with social, cultural and communication scientists, can be involved with politicians and citizens in talking about and, in particular, sketching out possible solutions or solution scenarios. How wide or narrow the scope for such solutions is, depends entirely on politics and publics, not on science.

Paris Climate Summit – Media Summary – 29.11.2015 – The Guardian, New York Times, Sydney Morning Herald

Guardian Pic
Screenshot of The Guardian’s top story about climate protestors 29.11.2015

Here is a short overview of articles that were posted on 29 November in three major Western media outlets from the United Kingdom, The United States and Australia. This summary comes from The Guardian, New York Times and Sydney Morning Herald (online editions).

The Guardian:

The Guardian was heavy on climate coverage on the eve of the summit. The leading story which occupied the top portion of their website related to climate protests happening around the world.  The Guardian ran a total of 14 articles for the 29th of November, four of which contained video. Their coverage included several opinion pieces and reports from climate protests around the globe.  The story “Global climate march 2015: hundreds of thousands march around the world -As it happened” contained photos from protests in more than 20 countries around the world as well as live updates throughout the day. The Guardian’s editorial was titled “There is no planet B.” The publication’s views on the climate summit were perhaps best summarised by this line: “The world’s hopes for a sustainable future depend on what happens in Paris over the next two weeks.”

New York Times

The New York Times had a total of 10 pieces relating to the summit. One piece focused on the tight security for the conference, given the recent terror attacks. Another article provided a guide for readers to understand technical terms and acronyms relating to the summit such as “CBDR” – Common But Differentiated Responsibilities.

The NYT’s Editorial was titled “What the Paris Climate Meeting Must Do.” It put forward the view that Paris is unlikely to save the planet over the next two weeks but it could help “foster collective responsibility” and a “global solution to a global problem.” It concluded that Paris would be judged a success if it produces “stronger commitments and a shared sense of urgency”.

Sydney Morning Herald

Yesterday SMH ran 12 original articles relating to the summit and sourced about five others from either Britain’s The Telegraph or Bloomberg. Several of the articles revolved around the climate marches in Sydney and they had a Question and Answer article. Several of their stories were framed in reference to actions of domestic political actors such as Australian Prime Minister – Malcolm Turnbull. There had three opinion pieces – one which promoted the advantages of switching to solar energy for Australia.

Paris rises after attacks while some pacific islands are going under

Elisabeth Eide
Blog by Elisabeth Eide

The Paris climate protests on Sunday 30 November were largely silent. After the 13 November terror attacks and the state of emergency introduced by President Hollande, demonstrations are banned.

At Place de la République, where the monument is still surrounded by messages of grief and the scent of roses, activists gathered in the morning. Several thousand pairs of shoes were placed to draw attention to the ban on demonstrations. A few hours later, some people tried to march, but were stopped by a massive contingent of police who barred all the roads exiting the place.

A few kilometers away, at Bataclan, where «Eagles of Black Metal» posters still hang promoting the “next performing artists”, representatives of indigenous and small island states gathered in the mass of candles and flowers to show their compassion. From there they joined the long human chain which snaked its way from Nation to République.

The protests in Paris. Demonstrants are represented by shoes, Credit: Elisabeth Eide


Not two degrees, 1.5!

One of the participants at Bataclan was the poet Kathy Jetnil Kijiner from the Marshall Islands. This island state with 71 000 citizens has sent forty representatives to the COP to fight for the 1,5 degree target, which might secure the survival of itself and other island states. In her blog Kijner writes about a CNN reporter who asked her to write a poem about the two degree target. She accepted, but changed the target to 1.5, since two degrees warming would mean the end for many of the island states in the Pacific and elsewhere. The Marshall islands experienced a major flood in 2008, which caused extensive damages in the capital Majuro. Unfortunately, natural disaster again struck in 2013 when they were hit by a serious drought which caused a precarious water shortage.

Poet Kathy Jetnil Kijiner, Credit: Elisabeth Eide

Among wreaths and numerous messages for the victims from November 13th at Bataclan, Kijiner expresses her hopes that more people will listen this time, when island state leaders speak. She is an official delegate at the conference. For the second time this year she has crossed continents to speak about the vulnerable situation of her home country. The first time she was invited to speak was at the UN summit in September. There, she recited a poem she had written for her 21 month old daughter. Unfortunately Obama arrived too late, but a large number of state leaders were present.

A question that remains for people like Kijiner is “Will activists from island states find support for the 1,5 degree target?”

“Well, the alliance between islanders and indigenous people of the world is strengthened. And after the last elections in Canada, we have received support from prime minister Trudeau. President Obama has also given some positive signals, but the congress is not very supportive,” Kijiner said.

The Marshall islands have recently encountered much more extreme weather than they had in previous years. According to Kijiner they even lost one island, Ellakan. This island used to be a place where people would go to gather fruit and other products but had “died” during the last ten years. More islands could die in a country where large areas, including the capital, are less than four feet above sea level.

“Just before I left I met with women organizing a chicken barbecue, to raise funds for their sea wall, which had been destroyed. Such ruining of protective walls happen more frequently than before,” she said.

What does climate justice mean for you? Some G77-states, such as India, have argued that historical justice implies that the ones who have contributed the most to global warming should have to contribute more than the rest.

“We have friends in India who think differently. The historical responsibility is important, but not decisive. In our alliance now, we think that all states have to act to save the climate.”

Protests in Paris, Credit: Elisabeth Eide


The manifestation at Bataclan is silent and respectful. Kijiner says that the French grief is also theirs to share.

“Lives were lost here, lives are lost at our islands, in a sense, all of our struggles are connected. And when we stand together, we emphasize this connection.”

”At home people do their share to save the climate. Many of our islands are solar powered. We try to promote cycling instead of driving, and we work for a cleaner sea transportation.”

The Marshall islands have a special relation to the U.S, going back to the nuclear testing at the Bikini atoll in the 1940s and 1950s. The country is independent, but has a friendly association with the U.S.

With the current threats to their livelihoods, do many Marshall Islanders think of leaving?

“Some do, but our mentality is rather that we should not need to evacuate. We still think it is possible to avoid this”, says Kathy Kininer.

The poem read by Kathy Kijiner at the UN conference in September.

[1] Opplesningen på denne lenken.

Time to Move on: The Paris Summit as Opportunity to Develop New Narratives on Climate Change

Blog by Michael Brüggemann

The debate about climate change is almost thirty years old. Endless time and energy has already been spent in unproductive ways: discussing whether climate change actually exists, whether humans contribute to global warming, whether the risks that come with global warming are real and then whether we need to cut down on emissions.

These questions are settled, but many important questions remain to be open for discussion in climate science and climate politics. The upcoming summit in Paris draws our attention towards tackling the challenges associated with climate change in the present, rather than repeating discussions from the past. Part of this is to reclaim the attribute of being “skeptical” as an essential feature of good science. Yet, wise scientists will attempt to direct their skepticism to hypotheses which are not properly grounded in empirical evidence. Continuing the old debate is only in the interest of those actors who feel they need to protect their vested interests in oil, coal and gas and the attached industries with the aim of blocking effective limits to our carbon emissions.

Credit: CIFOR

There is no use to trying to persuade professional lobbyists. As Upton Sinclair put it: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Journalists have been prone to report climate change within the frame of “skeptics” vs. “warners”. Journalism research has identified two reasons why journalists do so: The first reason is a misguided application of the norm of journalistic balance. The second reason is that the story line provides for conflict and news value and serves as a simple and entertaining way to talk about climate change. It is true that the excesses of climate denial provide for excellent entertainment: A great example of an entertaining way to tell this story, is the recent National Geographic production starring Bill Nye and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Yet, while it is important to keep one’s good humor even in the face of severe problems, journalism also needs to seek out new ways to talk about climate change.

Journalists are among those people who are at the forefront to raise the relevant questions about climate policy and come up with new narratives to be told about climate change. The keep-it-in-the-ground-campaign of the Guardian about raising awareness for the issue of divestment is a good example of such an attempt. The summit in Paris is another prime opportunity to develop a new stories about climate change.

This is why we will not only continue to study the ongoing debates on climate change in our research projects, but we also want to provide day-to-day commentary and analysis of the climate debates during the next three weeks. For this purpose we have invited researchers (ranging from established professors to some of our MA students) from different countries to join our team of bloggers. The blog entries should not be read as communications of scientific research, we will also blog in our role as citizens, who may be able to add to the debate as professional watchers of journalists who are themselves watching climate politics and directing your attention not only to failures of climate journalism but also to interesting stories and perspectives on climate policy.

Expectations for Paris Summit 2015 – What’s at stake?

Blog by Feilidh O’Dwyer

Author’s note: Hello and a very warm welcome to the first entry of the Climate Matters blog. For the two weeks of the Paris Summit (30.11-14.12), this University of Hamburg blog will provide regular, global media summaries using our Online Media Monitor.

We’ll also post daily entries from one or more of our exceptional team of bloggers. We have leading climate researchers, communicators and journalists who each bring unique, critical and analytical perspectives on happenings in Paris. We hope you enjoy!

On July 12, 2011, crew from the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Healy retrieved a canister dropped by parachute from a C-130, which brought supplies for some mid-mission fixes. The ICESCAPE mission, or "Impacts of Climate on Ecosystems and Chemistry of the Arctic Pacific Environment," is a NASA shipborne investigation to study how changing conditions in the Arctic affect the ocean's chemistry and ecosystems. The bulk of the research took place in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas in summer 2010 and 2011. Credit: NASA/Kathryn Hansen NASA image use policy. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center enables NASA’s mission through four scientific endeavors: Earth Science, Heliophysics, Solar System Exploration, and Astrophysics. Goddard plays a leading role in NASA’s accomplishments by contributing compelling scientific knowledge to advance the Agency’s mission. Follow us on Twitter Like us on Facebook Find us on InstagramCredit: NASA/Kathryn Hansen

The 21st United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Paris (COP21) is almost upon us. As you read this, leaders and government representatives from almost 200 nations are converging on France’s capital amid unprecedented security. With the current iteration of the Kyoto protocol set to expire in 2020 – leaders will negotiate and potentially sign a new climate change agreement.

Any such agreement will commit nations to targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to cap global temperature rises to 2°C from pre-industrial times. Anything above that is considered the “danger zone”, where temperature rises will become uncontrollable. Unfortunately, recent scientific estimates show earth is already half way towards this limit.

Is this summit any different from all the others?

Many people might be skeptical as to whether world leaders will make meaningful progress in Paris, given a long history of inaction or half-measures on climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 and has since met 20 times. Each time a climate summit rolls around, media outlets and public figures loudly proclaim that this year is earth’s last opportunity to change. Prior to the Bonn summit in 2001, that year’s Time article was titled “A Global Warming Treaty’s Last Chance.” And yet, 14 years on – global temperatures in October were at their highest average ever in 136 years of record keeping.

Apocalypse Wow
Climate change predictions can sometimes seem a bit apocalyptic. Credit: WIS News 10, Columbia

Evidently – much more needs to be done. In September, French President Francois Hollande, in keeping with a tradition of doomsday platitudes said that if there was no decision in Paris it would be “too late for the world.” Is he right?

The good news and the bad

There are a few positive indicators we are making progress towards combating climate change.  2014 was the first time in 40 years the global economy grew but carbon emissions stayed flat. Two of the biggest carbon emitters: The US and China, are maybe, just maybe starting to get their acts together. This year, Obama passed the Clean Energy Act – which commits to reducing national electricity sector emissions to 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.  Last year, Chinese President Xi Jinping, faced with his country’s enormous air pollution problem, led the world in investing in clean energy spending US $89.5 billion. Another positive omen is the mass mobilisation of climate protestors. In the last days, hundreds of thousands of people around the globe hit the streets to urge governments to urgently take meaningful action on climate change. Even the Pope has spoken up: during his recent visit to America, he said climate change “can no longer be left to a future generation.”

Despite some good signs, there is still plenty to be concerned about.  This month the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere again surpassed 400 parts per million, an emission level 43 percent higher than pre-industrial times. Dr. Erika Podest, a NASA Carbon and water cycle research scientist was quoted as saying:

“CO2 concentrations haven’t been this high in millions of years. Even more alarming is the rate of increase in the last five decades and the fact that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years. This milestone is a wake up call that our actions in response to climate change need to match the persistent rise in CO2. Climate change is a threat to life on Earth and we can no longer afford to be spectators.”

In short, every person is a stakeholder when it comes to decisions around climate change.

Credit: John Duffy. Climate protesters in Seattle, Washington, October 2015

Media Coverage of climate change

Only a media hermit could miss the perilous predictions scientists have made for the planet’s future should we fail to take decisive action on climate change. Sea-level rises, droughts and extensive loss of biodiversity are just some of the grim effects that could result from the earth’s climate rising by several degrees.

Despite climate change existing in the public sphere for at least two decades, it hasn’t always been publicly accepted.  Traditional Western news media’s emphasis on objectivity meant that in climate change debates, climate skeptics were given equal coverage/legitimacy to climate scientists.  To the undiscerning news consumer, this may convey the impression that both points of view were equally valid. However, as John Oliver brilliantly summarised earlier this year in Last Week Tonight, more than 97 percent of world climate scientists agree that the world is warming as a result of an excess of human-produced carbon dioxide in earth’s atmosphere.

Some of the major issues up for debate in Paris

  • Limits – Under the Kyoto protocol, developing countries had no cap on their emissions. Now that China is the world’s largest polluter – will developing countries accept some limit, even if it’s smaller than that of developed nations?
  • Accountability and enforcement ­– Who will hold countries to the targets they commit to in Paris?  What penalties might a nation face if they fail to reduce their emissions?
  • Ambition ­–  Current commitments made by nations will be insufficient to reduce global emissions enough to limit warming to just 2°C.  A potential mechanism may be implemented to bring nations back to the negotiating table at regular intervals to increase their contributions.

We are all looking forward to see what happens in Paris this year. In upcoming daily blogs we will summarise and comment on media coverage of the climate summit from selected major news outlets around the world.

See the latest blog here