Energy and the Environment:
A Report on the Vancouver Sun

IN 1981, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC published a special report entitled "Energy: Facing up to the problem, getting down to solutions." The report contained the following excerpt on global warming: "the accumulation in the atmosphere of carbon dioxide from burning coal and other fossil fuels ... tends to trap heat on the Earth's surface; in sufficient concentration it could create the dreaded greenhouse effect. Studies in both the United States and the United Kingdom forecast that the concentration of carbon dioxide by the middle of the next century will be double what it was before the industrial revolution. Such a concentration, say some scientists, could increase average global temperatures by two degrees Celsius, and polar temperatures by as much as 7 degrees. . . . It would be an irreversible catastrophe of unparalleled magnitude, affecting all mankind." [National Geographic, "Energy: Facing up to the problem, getting down to solutions", 1981, p. 22.]

The spectre of global warming and the predicted onslaught of floods, hurricanes, droughts, and pestilence has fascinated the media. Last year, global warming received extensive coverage in both print and broadcast media as Canada prepared for the UN-sponsored environmental meeting in Kyoto, Japan. At Kyoto, Canada committed to a 26 percent reduction in its emissions of so-called greenhouse gases by the years 2008-2012. The governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan, the Reform Party, and many Canadian corporations cried foul, and accused the federal government of blindly agreeing to major changes in Canada's production and use of energy without considering the economic impact.

There are communications scholars who argue that the media seldom report scientists' predictions of global warming. Communications professor James Winter of the University of Windsor, for example, contends that since the media are owned by large corporations, they will bias the news in favour of the owners' values. He further argues that since Hollinger, owned by Conrad Black, has taken over majority control of the Southam News chain, the chain is more likely to express the "far right" views of its new owner.

Although Winter provides no evidence to support his assertion, the statement can be tested empirically. Are the media, and in particular the Southam papers, lapdogs of the corporate elite who seek to marginalize dissent, or do they act as agents for social change? How few stories are presented by "frustrated scientists," and how "numerous" are the news stories that dismiss those fears? To answer these questions we examine a year's worth of Southam's Vancouver Sun as a case study.

During 1997, the Vancouver Sun published 71 reports that discussed the environmental impact of specific energy sources, such as oil and gas, coal, hydro-electric, solar, wind and fuel cells. The Media Archive examined all commentary in these reports that discussed either environmental or economic considerations. Not surprisingly, given the potentially wide-ranging implications of the emissions targets negotiated in Kyoto, Japan last December, fossil fuels accounted for almost three-quarters of the media coverage. Discussion of hydro-electric power accounted for a further 9 percent. Vancouver Sun attention to alternative energy sources, such as solar energy, accounted for 15 percent (figure A).

Figure B shows the environmental impact of traditional energy sources according to the Vancouver Sun. References to oil received 10 times more negative than positive attention. For example, the Vancouver Sun reported on July 2, 1997 that: "Greenpeace activists will leave today for a two-month expedition to the Beaufort Sea, where they plan to protest against oil companies . . . [Greenpeace] will be charging the oil industry is largely responsible for the emissions believed to cause global warming."

References to fossil fuels in general, that is, oil, gas, and coal, received five times more negative than positive coverage. The vast majority of this coverage was associated with "greenhouse gas" emissions and global warming. And while climatologists sometimes have difficulty predicting tomorrow's weather, media reports contained many apocalyptic predictions on the impact of global warming.

For instance, on February 21, 1997, the Vancouver Sun focused on the potential impact of global warming on the Lower Mainland. "These changes could bring floods and landslides, summer droughts, falling water quality, and increased health risks, more days of smog or low-level ozone, huge expenditures on diking systems and an influx of refugees from flood prone regions of the world."

Hydro-electric power received over three times more negative than positive coverage. Negative attention to hydro-electric power focused on Alcan's Kemano project in BC, and the Sambor dam in Cambodia. For example, on January 23, 1997, the Vancouver Sun reported: "[The B.C. Utility Commission] concluded that the sockeye and chinook salmon runs on the Nechako would indeed be threatened if Alcan had its way." Attention to the proposed dam in Cambodia was highly critical, with the Sun reporting displaced peoples, endangered habitat, and "possible `water wars' as each [country] syphons off more water and leaves less for those downstream." (Water is classed as a renewable resource in Canada, but is a scarce resource in many densely populated countries.)

Coal also received more negative than positive attention, with a ratio of more than two negative statements to every one positive statement. While some statements were quite scathing, other coverage highlighted the fact that new technologies are being developed that will enable coal to be burned more cleanly.

On November 28, 1997, the Vancouver Sun reported: "Coal is considered so `dirty' that many people don't see much future in the fossil fuel that keeps close to 21,000 British Columbians employed."

Click Here to View Figure C

Other reports were more optimistic. On September 11, 1997, the Vancouver Sun reported that: "[DynaMotive Technologies Corp.] will spend $27 million to build an integrated refinery using bio-oil combined with ethanol to produce an `eco-crude' to make a range of high-value environmentally friendly products. The most important is BioLime, which combines eco-crude's end product with pure gypsum to make an additive that helps high-sulphur coal burn more cleanly in electric power plants."

Nuclear power and natural gas also received more negative than positive attention, although attention to the environmental impact of gas was only slightly more negative than positive. Coverage of nuclear power contained 2 negative to each positive statement and attention to natural gas contained 1.2 negative to 1 positive statement. Part of the coverage of natural gas reflected the Canadian Gas Association's position that gas is "part of the solution" to global warming and a more environmentally friendly alternative to oil.

Overall, media attention to the Kyoto protocol said, in a phrase, "Bravo." Indeed, even Gherson, who provided one of the least optimistic articles with regards to the potential economic impact of Kyoto, applauded a possible environmental outcome—the "worldwide green technology race."

As figure C shows, statements suggesting that greenhouse gases need to be reduced to avert environmental disasters were four times more frequent than statements claiming that the cost of emissions reductions would be too high. In examining both environmental and economic concerns in the Vancouver Sun's coverage of the UN meetings, we found that 77 percent of the coverage focused on the environmental impact of greenhouse gases, while just 23 percent focused on economic costs.

Click Here to View Figure D

While the majority of the Sun's coverage highlighted the environment, the October 7, 1997 Vancouver Sun report was one of the stories that focused on the economic implications. The Sun reported: "Canada's largest industries contend the global warming treaty poses a greater threat to prosperity than public debt or high taxes. More than 100 of the country's leading CEOs signed a letter . . . [which stated] `Deeply disturbing to us is the fact that there is so little public awareness or understanding of how devastating the outcome of these negotiations could be to Canada's economic growth prospects, in particular as they affect jobs and exports.'"

Canada's energy sector is vital to the health of the Canadian economy. Access to cheap energy is a major boon to both Canadian industry and Canadian living standards. However, while focusing critical attention on Canada's traditional energy sources, the Sun was very optimistic about the development of alternative sources of energy. Attention to alternative energy is shown in figure D. The overall ratio of positive to negative statements for alternative energy sources was three positive statements to each negative statement.

The Vancouver Sun's December 27, 1997 article quoted journalist Ross Gelbspan's comment that: "we have the possibility of a fix in clean alternative energy sources —solar power, wind power, tidal power—and new technologies in the hydrogen fuel cell which permits internal combustion engines [to work] without burning the polluting hydrocarbons that contribute to global warming."

Similarly, a November 28, 1997 Sun article stated: "[Studies] suggest companies and countries that lead in reducing greenhouse gases stand to make fortunes. Burnaby's Ballard Power Systems, which is developing emission-free fuel cells for vehicles, is one of them. Brighter days may be ahead for alternative energy including nuclear and hydro-electric, despite their environmental problems. There are plenty of rivers that could be dammed to generate more hydro-electric power—one of the cleanest forms of energy, but one that has devastating impacts on rivers. Reactors have plenty of problems, but like dams, they don't generate puffs of greenhouse gases."

Jim Bruce, labelled as "one of the world's foremost authorities on climate change," had this cavalier comment on the people that would loss their jobs in BC's "coal" towns of Sparwood, Tumbler Ridge and Elkford if coal was phased out: "Maybe they could make solar panels or wind-powered systems or develop biomass."

Click Here to View Figure E

Is "global warming theory"—the idea that human exploitation of fossil fuels is warming the earth—the ruling paradigm of climate science? Yes, at least according to the newspaper examined here. A survey of all articles discussing global warming in the Vancouver Sun throughout 1997 found, overwhelmingly, the theme that the scientific community believed the global warming theory to be true. Examining 80 statements attributed to "scientists," and thereby representing the scientific community, we found that claims in support of the theory outnumbered those that questioned it by a factor of eight to one. Eighty-nine percent of statements attributed to "scientists" supported the view that burning fossil fuels contributed to global warming, whereas just 11 percent of statements argued that the theory is deficient (figure E).

Further, the Vancouver Sun coverage implied that there was consensus within the scientific community. Over two-thirds of statements were attributed to either "scientists" (36%), which implies ALL scientists, "most scientists" (12.5%) or "many" scientists (19%). These included statements such "Scientists predict that unchecked global warming will lead to rising seas and an increase in the number of forest fires, severe storms, and drought" (October 7, 1997) or "Most scientists predict the gases, if they continue to collect in the atmosphere at their present rate, will warm the Earth by one to 3.5 degrees Celsius over the next century, triggering floods, droughts, killer heat-waves, and an exodus of environmental refugees" (December 8, 1997). In contrast, "some scientists" comprised just 32.5 percent.

The net result was that the scientific community was presented as being more or less united in their beliefs about global warming. The truth is more likely to be the exact opposite, with scientists highly polarized on the issue, forming anything but a consensus. In a Gallup poll of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society, 83 percent of scientists disagreed when asked "Do scientists think human actions are causing global warming?"