A window into what we are reading at the Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program

The Perils of Climate Reporting: Global Threats to Journalists Surge

Environmental journalists are under attack. That is the conclusion of a new global survey conducted by Internews’ Earth Journalism Network and Deakin University. These researchers found that nearly 40% of climate and environment journalists have been threatened with harm, with 11% experiencing actual physical violence—often from individuals involved in illegal logging, mining, and other activities. Testimony from journalists at a recent ECSP event titled Environmental Journalists on the Frontlines of Democracy also made it clear that covering such illegal activities is increasingly perilous.

While environment- and climate-related stories have risen in prominence over the past decade, the increased focus also has had its share of negative consequences. Climate and the environment are issues that have become increasingly politicized, and a perceived need to appear balanced has prompted over 60 percent of journalists surveyed to include viewpoints skeptical of climate change skepticism in their stories. Journalists also participate in self-censorship due to fear of repercussions from parties including governments and those engaging in illegal activities.

Growing attention has not brought environmental journalism increased acclaim when compared to other areas of news gathering. Many journalists in this space also lack the resources they need to undertake in-depth stories and investigations. Fully 76 percent of journalists reported insufficient resources to do the crucial work of raising awareness and understanding of our most pressing global environmental challenges. This means that there is an urgent need for more support and funding for reporters covering these issues.

READ | Environmental Journalists on the Frontlines of Democracy

Surviving Disasters: Lives Saved, Livelihoods Lost

Fewer people are dying from climate-related disasters like cyclones, floods, and droughts, even despite their increasing frequency of occurrence. The number of deaths per storm event have dropped from a decade-long average of 24 in 2008 to only 8 in 2021, according to the EM-DAT International Disaster Database. In many cases, this positive trend is due to better early warning systems, planning, and resilience

Enhanced preparedness and early warning systems have led to significant decreases in deaths from storms and floods in countries like India and Bangladesh. Driven by the necessity to cope with these events, Bangladesh has become a leader in disaster risk reduction. The country has drastically reduced cyclone fatalities from over 300,000 from one cyclone in 1970 to far fewer deaths in recent years through its sustained disaster risk reduction efforts.

Yet while a reduction in fatalities is welcome, climate change continues to cause significant economic and livelihood losses, especially in developing countries. “We’re doing a better job of saving lives but not of livelihoods,” said UN Assistant Secretary-General Kamal Kishore in an interview with AP News. To minimize such losses, greater investment in resilience and support for vulnerable populations is needed. 

READ | Disasters Have Changed. So Must Our Response.

Global Taxes for Climate Change?

Ever wonder what it would cost to manage climate change? Simply limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2030 requires levels of climate finance to reach $9 trillion annually, according to historian and climate policy expert Michael Franczak. If this figure seems large, however, consider the fact that governments spent $7 trillion on fossil fuel subsidies in 2022. So reaching a mere 30 percent of that goal (or $2.7 trillion) with public sector contributions should be feasible—allowing the other 70% of required funds to come from the private sector).

Much of this money would flow to developing countries through grants and loans, as development assistance has proven unable to meet the needs of developing countries. So various innovative finance mechanisms are being explored to bridge the funding gap. These measures include global taxes on shipping, aviation, fossil fuel production, financial transactions, and extreme wealth. Franczak notes that the International Tax Task Force is evaluating such proposals, including a 2% global wealth tax which has been endorsed by finance ministers from Brazil, Germany, South Africa, and Spain. That levy alone could raise $250 billion annually for climate action.

Franczak also points out that, as in other areas of climate change, it is small island states that have led the charge for ambitious climate finance initiatives. And while these initiatives are important, the central question remains: who pays? If industry pays, then the tax will be passed on to consumers around the world. Franczak worries about the fairness of that approach: “Why should consumers in developing countries be taxed to pay for a problem they did not create?”

READ | A Climate Finance Rethink Can Help Those Most Impacted by Climate Change