TV Meteorologists as Local Climate Change Educators

Author(s):  
Edward Maibach ◽  
Bernadette Woods Placky ◽  
Joe Witte ◽  
Keith Seitter ◽  
Ned Gardiner ◽  
...  

Global climate change is influencing the weather in every region of the United States, often in harmful ways. Yet, like people in many countries, most Americans view climate change as a threat that is distant in space (i.e., not here), time (i.e., not now), and species (i.e., not us). To manage risk and avoid harm, it is imperative that the public, professionals, and policy-makers make decisions with an informed understanding of our changing climate. In the United States, broadcast meteorologists are ideally positioned to educate Americans about the current and projected impacts of climate change in their community. They have tremendous reach, are trusted sources of climate information, and are highly skilled science communicators. When our project began in 2009, we learned that many U.S.-based TV weathercasters were potentially interested in reporting on climate change, but few actually were, citing significant barriers including a lack of time to prepare and air stories, and lack of access to high-quality content that can be rapidly used in their broadcasts, social media, and community presentations. To test the premise that TV weathercasters can be effective climate educators—if supported with high-quality localized climate communication content—in 2010 George Mason University, Climate Central, and WLTX-TV (Columbia, SC) developed and pilot-tested Climate Matters, a series of short on-air (and online) segments about the local impacts of climate change, delivered by the station’s chief meteorologist. During the first year, more than a dozen stories aired. To formally evaluate Climate Matters, we conducted pre- and post-test surveys of local TV news viewers in Columbia. After one year, WLTX viewers had developed a more science-based understanding of climate change than viewers of other local news stations, confirming our premise that when TV weathercasters report on the local implications of climate change, their viewers learn. Through a series of expansions, including the addition of important new partners—the American Meteorological Society, National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and Yale University—Climate Matters has become a comprehensive nationwide climate communication resource program for American broadcast meteorologists. As of March 2016, 313 local weathercasters nationwide (at 202 stations in 111 media markets) are participating in the program, receiving new content on a weekly basis. Some leaders in the World Meteorological Organization are now promoting the concept of “TV weather presenters as climate change communicators,” and collaborative discussions are underway with Climate Central. In this article, we review the theoretical basis of the program, detail its development and national scale-up, and conclude with insights for how to develop climate communication initiatives for other professional communities of practice in the U.S. and other countries.

Author(s):  
Michael B. McElroy

The discussion in chapter 2 addressed what might be described as a microview of the US energy economy— how we use energy as individuals, how we measure our personal consumption, and how we pay for it. We turn attention now to a more expansive perspective— the use of energy on a national scale, including a discussion of associated economic benefits and costs. We focus specifically on implications for emissions of the greenhouse gas CO2. If we are to take the issue of human- induced climate change seriously— and I do— we will be obliged to adjust our energy system markedly to reduce emissions of this gas, the most important agent for human- induced climate change. And we will need to do it sooner rather than later. This chapter will underscore the magnitude of the challenge we face if we are to successfully chart the course to a more sustainable climate- energy future. We turn later to strategies that might accelerate our progress toward this objective.We elected in this volume to focus on the present and potential future of the energy economy of the United States. It is important to recognize that the fate of the global climate system will depend not just on what happens in the United States but also to an increasing extent on what comes to pass in other large industrial economies. China surpassed the United States as the largest national emitter of CO2 in 2006. The United States and China together were responsible in 2012 for more than 42% of total global emissions. Add Russia, India, Japan, Germany, Canada, United Kingdom, South Korea, and Iran to the mix (the other members of the top 10 emitting countries ordered in terms of their relative contributions), and we can account for more than 60% of the global total. Given the importance of China to the global CO2 economy (more than 26% of the present global total and likely to increase significantly in the near term), I decided that it would be instructive to include here at least some discussion of the situation in China— to elaborate what the energy economies of China and the United States have in common, outlining at the same time the factors and challenges that set them apart.


Significance The United States has already committed, in an unprecedented deal with China in November 2014, to reducing its emissions to 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025 (an improvement on its previous 17% goal). China in return pledged that its emissions would peak around 2030. This agreement is a game-changer for combating global climate change, since the two countries are the world's largest sources of carbon emissions, together accounting for 40% of the total, and were not covered under the now-expired Kyoto Protocol. Impacts Washington is poised to reclaim its place, lost after Kyoto, as a leader in global efforts against climate change. US-China climate cooperation initiatives could serve as templates for other developing countries. There are new opportunities for trilateral cooperation involving the EU. Fears that the bilateral agreement makes the UNFCCC obsolete are unwarranted, but it could preclude more ambitious efforts.


2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 219-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miranda A. Schreurs

The Paris Agreement would not have come into being had China, the United States (US), and the European Union (EU), which together contribute more than half of all global greenhouse gas emissions, not signaled their intent to take major steps to reduce their domestic emissions. The EU has been at the forefront of global climate change measures for years having issued binding domestic emission reduction targets for 2020 and 2030. For many years, China refused to announce a target date for when it might begin reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, and the US Congress blocked action on climate change.  In the lead up to the Paris climate negotiations, however, there were major shifts in China’s and the US’s climate positions. This commentary examines the climate policies of the three largest emitters and the factors motivating the positions they took in the Paris negotiations. Given that the commitments made in Paris are most likely insufficient to keep global temperature from rising 2 °C above pre-industrial levels, the commentary also considers what the likelihood is that these three major economies will strengthen their emission reduction targets in the near future.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document