By Helen Gloege ’23
Staff Writer
Climate change has been evident this summer, between enough hurricanes to run out the 21 annual alphabetical names and forest fires across the West Coast and southwestern U.S. Along with the sharp and unwavering presence of environmental emergencies, there is a necessity to learn the truth about the climate crisis and its effects on daily life. In a modern and increasingly online era, people wishing to learn about the climate crisis often turn to online news platforms and social networks such as Facebook.
Various news organizations have already been seen making changes in the information they report on climate change. Covering Climate Now was created to allow climate coverage to improve and give information to the public. The site was co-founded by the Columbia Journalism Review and The Nation in association with The Guardian and aims to help news organizations increase and improve coverage of the climate crisis as well as possible solutions. Various news services that have joined include The New York Times, The Washington Post, NBC News, CNN, the Los Angeles Times and many others.
NBC News, which joined Covering Climate Now in April, launched Planet 2020, a new series, during the week of September 21. This broadcast involves Al Roker, the network’s chief climate correspondent and longtime weather forecaster who has been talking about climate change on the “Today” show for years now, and co-host Savannah Sellers. Together Roker and Sellers connect dots between extreme weather, climate change and the upcoming 2020 election. They hope to target millennials and Generation Z, groups that make up 37 percent of eligible voters.
Another Covering Climate Now partner, Bloomberg, has launched a new digital outlet and print addition, Bloomberg Green, that aims to deal with economic aspects of the climate story.
Of course, this hasn’t solved all of the problems in relation to coverage of climate change. It was found that only one of 93 segments that aired on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox and MSNBC during the week Hurricane Laura hit the Louisiana coast connected the storm to climate change. In addition, out of the 46 segments ABC, NBC and CBS aired about the California wildfires, only seven of them mentioned climate change, demonstrating a huge need for improvement in journalistic coverage of significant climate events.
Along with news outlets, social media is a big source of information for the public. Recently, Facebook pledged to create a Climate Science Information Center aimed at connecting people with science-based information and putting the company at net zero emissions by the end of the year. The information center includes factual resources from the world’s leading climate organizations and actionable steps one can take in everyday life. This includes facts, figures and data from places such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and climate science partners, including the U.N. Environment Programme, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the World Meteorological Organization, the Met Office and others. They will also be partnering with 70 independent fact-checking organizations globally that will cover over 60 languages. Outside of the information center, they plan to reduce false climate-related posts in News Feed and apply warning labels to tops of posts on Facebook and Instagram so viewers understand the content is false. This has already launched in France, Germany, the U.K. and the U.S. and will expand to other countries later on.
This is a new step for Facebook, which has in the past allowed false, misleading or disputed information on the platform. However, since the announcement, climate scientists and environmental groups claim the effort doesn’t do enough to rein in false climate change information and conspiracies. As many people use social media for their news, there is pressure on social media companies to do more to address climate change misinformation on their platforms. Distrust from climate activists and environmental groups with Facebook grew back in September 2019 when the CO2 Coalition claimed carbon dioxide from humans is beneficial for the planet, labeled as an opinion by Facebook. This has created a general concern from the public that climate misinformation will continue to run rampant despite these new measures.
Additional concerns say that this initiative enables Facebook to set clear lines on fact and fiction. Outside of the Climate Science Information Center, Facebook plans to continue with warning labels that show false information but won’t take down posts unless they are an immediate safety risk. It is also unclear how many users will visit the information centers or how many people will see false information before it is labeled as false. Facebook is trying to find a balance between allowing free speech and tackling misinformation.
Part of the concern about Facebook misinformation comes from a larger concern about social media in general. In a recent study done through online network analysis firm Graphika, climate deniers were found to be posting on average four times as much as climate scientists, experts and campaigners. Since virality is how social media companies make money, it is likely that groups of people who post frequently can cause posts to go viral and receive attention without going through fact-checking processes. Social media also allows for echo chambers to form where groups of like-minded users will gather together and frequently share news and opinions that are similar. For example, there could be a Facebook group that claims that climate change is false and would ignore the false statement on Facebook posts because it disagrees with their idea.
After the announcement in regard to the climate hub was made, hundreds of accounts linked to Indigenous, environmental and social justice organizations were suspended. For three days, over 200 people with posting privileges on pages involving those organizations were locked. Around the time they were suspended, there were events planned through Facebook that would have occurred during the lockout period. Facebook notices claimed account holders had posted the content that infringed on or violated others’ rights or the law; however, when reinstated, Facebook told them it wasn’t for these reasons. It is unclear why the accounts were taken down and Facebook has yet to provide a clear explanation. Bans are frequently performed by a social media algorithm without human involvement, meaning there is a possibility for loopholes that claim true information is false or don’t flag false information.
With the increased visibility of the effects of climate change in our daily lives, news agencies and Facebook have begun to act on the responsibility they hold to the public by providing information and updates on climate change. It is important for the information on climate change to be accurate in order for appropriate actions to be taken. There is still a long way to go in preventing the spread of misinformation in relation to climate change.