This piece is by Charlotte Cameron, a student on our MSc Media, Power and Public Affairs.
Around 120 world leaders were gathering for what many believed was the last chance to avoid the worst effects of climate change. The world was watching, the cameras were focused and the journalists were ready. COP26, the biggest climate conference to date, was about to begin.
Each media article would have the world gripped, with the media playing a vital role in telling us about the deals being done. The media spectrum is vast and each platform would want to create their own narrative, telling their own story. I collated headlines from five UK media outlets: The Daily Mail, Sky News, The Independent, BBC News and The Guardian to track how different media outlets framed COP26.
News outlets will publish articles that engage their readers the most and, as climate change is the greatest risk facing us all, the implications of this are far-reaching. One narrative, one headline and one story could change the way everyone thinks about climate change.
The beginning of COP26
There was a lot of expectation for COP26 and while most media outlets focused their attention on PM Boris Johnson’s opening speech, some turned to the events unfolding outside. The Guardian focused on the “queueing chaos” whereas The Daily Mail drew attention to Glasgow’s image as “the city's refuse collectors went on strike hours before the start.”
Inside, the PM opened his speech by declaring that “it’s one minute to midnight.” This was a simple notion that the media portrayed in multiple ways. Sky News and BBC News quoted the PM, emphasising his warning. However, The Independent attacked the PM stating that “the children of tomorrow will watch Boris Johnson’s COP26 speech and ask – WTF, could you not have even tried?” The conference had not yet begun and media narratives were already being spun.
The deal for deforestation
Many activists were hoping that COP26 would see world leaders make a commitment to stop deforestation. In what was the first big deal of COP26, leaders representing 85% of the world’s forests committed to halting and reversing deforestation by 2030 – a significant step forward.
Considering how the various media outlets approached the beginning of COP, it is surprising that the first major deal was received almost unanimously. The Daily Mail, Sky News and BBC News focused on the fact that more than 100 countries had agreed to the deal, with The Guardian also emphasising the role of Biden, Bolsonaro and Xi Jinping. Irrespective of this, The Independent stood out again by highlighting that action is needed now and the deal was simply words on a page.
Is the end in sight for fossil fuels?
Burning fossil fuels emits harmful gases, including methane, which is one of the biggest contributors to climate change. The next big deal from COP26 was the US-EU deal that promised to reduce methane emissions 30% by 2030.
Some media outlets focused on the number of countries who signed the deal, like before. The Independent focused on that fact that nearly 100 countries signed the pledge whereas The Guardian referred to the 90 countries except China, India and Russia. In comparison, The Daily Mail, Sky News and BBC News simply referred to the deal while emphasising its aim to reduce global methane emissions.
All good news? Well, so we thought. As news about the deal circulated, media outlets began revealing that COP26’s largest delegation was those who had something to gain from fossil fuels. In particular, The Daily Mail and The Independent both published stories questioning why the biggest delegation was from an industry causing the most significant amounts of climate change.
A cause for thought, when only a week later the ‘phase-out’ of fossil fuels became ‘phase-down’. Did the influence of this delegation put pressure on this change or was it decided independently? Only with further investigation would an answer be found.
Why was President Obama there?
One of the most surprising media events of COP26 did not come from climate deals but from President Obama’s appearance. On the day he spoke, many said there was chaos inside. When asked about the commotion, someone simply replied ‘Obama’.
Opinions were divided about the relevance of his appearance. The Daily Mail undermined his speech by finding comedy in the fact he referred to Scotland as the ‘Emerald Isles’. Sky News focused on what he said, highlighting that he believes the world’s effort against climate change is falling short. Similarly, BBC News focused on his motion for young people to stay angry whereas The Independent focused on how he brought political clout to the conference. While there is little doubt President Obama would have drawn attention to COP, The Guardian published a scarring review stating that he had a nerve preaching about the climate crisis.
COP26 ends, or does it?
COP was due to end on Friday the 12th November with a deal that would help us fight climate change. However, as the day drew to a close, there was no deal.
In a time where the world needed collective action, it looked like we were far from getting it. The Daily Mail told of a “Climate deal in crisis,” Sky News emphasised the watered down vows, The Independent spoke of a deal hanging in the balance, BBC News emphasised that we were entering overtime and The Guardian stated that pressure was mounting. After two weeks of promised negotiation, were world leaders going to fail at the final hurdle?
At long last the deal was signed. The Glasgow Climate Pact aims to speed up action against climate change, with 197 countries signing. Will it be enough? Only time will tell.
The role of the media throughout COP26 was clear. They gave us ways of accessing news from COP as and when it happened. All the media platforms I analysed played a role in reporting the facts to the UK public. However, only one acted as a judge. The Independent held COP26 and world leaders to account by reporting all the facts, including the uncomfortable ones. As many followed the stories as they happened, The Independent was determined to tell the whole picture. Perhaps this is because they realised that this summit, and the fate of the world, was more important than selling a story.