Investigation into Guardian articles on carbon offsetting finds most are ‘clickbait’ and may worsen global heating.
source: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/11/30/how-the-eu-can-help-save-indigenous-lives-and-the-amazon
A series of articles about carbon offsetting published in a leading newspaper are largely worthless and could make global heating worse, according to a new investigation.
The research into UK based ‘the Guardian’, one of the world’s most read sources of climate news, has found that, based on new AI analysis of their carbon ‘offsetting’ reporting, 90% of the articles are likely to be ‘clickbait’ and do not represent genuine balanced climate reporting.
The analysis raises questions over the reporting standards of a newspaper previously known for its expert and timely climate coverage, and read by many policymakers, corporate leaders and other key decision makers involved with tackling the climate crisis. Some of them have even told their stakeholders to dismiss carbon credits altogether – thus endangering one of the best available tools to fight the climate crisis.
The nine-month investigation was undertaken by the Institute of Studies together with newspaper rating agency NewzX. It is based on a new, non-peer reviewed AI algorithm that fact checks newspaper articles for accuracy, balance, and the correlation between the article’s headline and the underlying research referred to in the article. Based on this information, it uses AI to process the data to rate each article on a scale from AAA to D.
The investigation uncovered that:
- 90% of Guardian articles on the subject of carbon ‘offsetting’ were found to be of C or D rating – i.e. ‘clickbait’ grade. This was in stark contrast to reporting of other environmental issues by the newspaper where 90% of articles received an ‘A’ rating or higher. Forests are critical in reaching our global climate goals. Photo by David Clode
- The widely-shared articles had the consequence of undermining confidence in one of the few ways to channel large sums of finance into underfunded climate solutions such as forest protection (known as REDD+) which according to the IPCC’s latest report is second only to renewable energy as a climate mitigation tool.
- Falsely claimed that companies were using ‘offsets’ instead of reducing their own emissions, despite two recently published pieces of research by Sylvera and Trove finding that companies who buy carbon credits do more decarbonisation, not less.
- Falsely claimed that the main standard body in question, Verra, has changed its REDD+ methodologies as a result of the Guardian investigation when in fact, this was a long-planned move and part of a process of continuous improvement.
- Ignored the Indigenous voices speaking out in support of carbon projects.
- Unfairly painted many charities, conservation groups and Indigenous communities as unscrupulous.
- Criticised companies for voluntarily compensating for their emissions, while ignoring those companies who do nothing.
- Ignored the view, shared by thousands of scientists, NGOs, policymakers and communities, that the best way forward is to continuously improve one of the most promising climate tools available, rather than throwing it out with no credible alternative.
When asked for comment, the under-fire Guardian issued the following statement: “We are aware of some undesirable readers misinterpreting our content. To that end, we will shortly be introducing a policy of only allowing ‘high integrity’ readers to access our ‘high quality’ content and are currently asking every prospective reader to submit detailed plans outlining their ethical improvement pathway. Based on our assessment of those plans, we will grant individuals access to our content. Additionally, we have announced a new policy to go ‘clickbait neutral’ by 2024, by publishing one genuinely balanced article on carbon credits to compensate for each clickbait one we produce”.
Source:
NEWS Today. Tuesday, 23 August 2023. Issue #1
