Our House Is Burning: Discrepancy in Climate Change vs. Biodiversity Coverage in the Media as Compared to Scientific Literature

Pierre Legagneux,Joel Bêty,Dominique Berteaux,Dominique Gravel,Pascale Ropars,Marie-José Naud,Kevin Cazelles,Nicolas Casajus,Fanny Noisette,Lorelei Guéry,Mikael Jaffré,Philippe Archambault,Clément Chevallier,Claire Jacquet,Steve Vissault,Marion Chevrinais

doi:10.3389/fevo.2017.00175

Abstract

Scientists, policy makers and journalists are three key, interconnected players involved in prioritizing and implementing solutions to mitigate the consequences of anthropogenic pressures on the environment. The way in which information is framed and expertise is communicated by the media is crucial for political decisions and for the integrated management of environmental issues. Here we present a comparative study of scientific literature and press articles addressing climate change and biodiversity. We extensively scrutinized the scientific literature, research funding and press articles from the USA, Canada and United Kingdom addressing climate change and biodiversity issues between 1991 and 2016. We found that media coverage of climate change was up to eight times higher compared to biodiversity. This discrepancy could not be explained by different scientific output between the two issues. Moreover, climate change media coverage was often related to specific events whereas no such indication of a connection was found in the case of biodiversity. An international communication strategy is urgently required to raise public awareness on biodiversity issues. We discussed several initiatives that scientists could undertake to better communicate major discoveries to the public and policy makers.

Highlights

Loss of Biodiversity and Climate Change, Two Irreversible Environmental IssuesRecent changes in biodiversity (BD) and climate (CC) threaten planet Earth’s integrity (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Cardinale et al, 2012; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2014) with both issues having already surpassed safe limits (Rockström et al, 2009)
Short-term media coverage should mirror specific events such as major discoveries, international conferences, climatic, or environmental catastrophes that can lead to cascading effects involving political decisions, scientific expertise, and public awareness
We focused media coverage on three countries: USA, Canada, and the United Kingdom (UK)

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Recent changes in biodiversity (BD) and climate (CC) threaten planet Earth’s integrity (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Cardinale et al, 2012; IPCC, 2014) with both issues having already surpassed safe limits (Rockström et al, 2009). The political and scientific spheres interact; funding agencies orient academic research program priorities, and discoveries in turn affect political decisions Intergovernmental environmental initiatives, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), already exist in order to bridge the communication gap between the scientific community and stakeholders. IPCC and IPBES link scientific and political agendas (Brooks et al, 2014) and can thereby attract substential interest from the media, such as COP21 held in Paris in 2016 (Depoux et al, 2017) Because it does not encompass public awareness, the science-policy bond seems insufficient to resolve CC and BD societal issues. Short-term media coverage should mirror specific events such as major discoveries, international conferences, climatic, or environmental catastrophes that can lead to cascading effects involving political decisions, scientific expertise, and public awareness

METHODS

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

DATA ACCESSIBILITY