forbes.com
2024 Extreme Weather: Death Toll, Economic Losses, and Declining Climate News Coverage
In 2024, climate change-intensified extreme weather events killed at least 3,700 and displaced millions, costing over $184.8 billion, yet broadcast news climate coverage dropped 25%, failing to adequately connect extreme weather to climate change and underrepresenting diverse expert voices.
- What were the human and economic costs of extreme weather events in 2024, and how did broadcast news coverage of climate change compare to the previous year?
- In 2024, extreme weather events intensified by climate change caused at least 3,700 deaths and displaced millions, exceeding $184.8 billion in damages across 27 events costing over $1 billion each. However, broadcast news coverage of climate change decreased by 25% compared to 2023, with minimal connection made between extreme weather and climate change in many reports.
- Why did broadcast news coverage of climate change decline in 2024 despite the severity of climate-related events, and how did this coverage relate to political and economic news?
- The disconnect between severe climate events and news coverage stems from competing news priorities, including political events and global conflicts. While climate and energy were key campaign issues, networks rarely linked policy decisions to election coverage, limiting public awareness of the Inflation Reduction Act's climate impact.
- How did the underrepresentation of women and people of color as climate experts, and the insufficient coverage of the Inflation Reduction Act's impact, affect public understanding of climate change and available solutions?
- The underreporting of climate change, particularly its connection to extreme weather, coupled with the underrepresentation of women and people of color as climate experts, hinders public understanding of the crisis and the potential of existing solutions. This lack of comprehensive coverage leaves audiences less informed about both the risks and the opportunities for climate action.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing of the article emphasizes the negative aspects of decreased climate change coverage and the underrepresentation of women and people of color as experts. While the statistics presented support this framing, the article could benefit from including a more balanced perspective by acknowledging potential reasons for the decreased coverage, beyond those mentioned, while still maintaining the urgency of the situation. The headline, if there was one, would likely be framed to support this negative perspective.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral and factual, relying on statistical data and quotes from reports. However, the choice of words like "significant," "escalating," and "critical" conveys a sense of urgency and alarm, which, while appropriate for the topic, could be considered slightly loaded. More neutral alternatives might include "substantial," "increasing," and "important." The use of the phrase "wiping out entire communities" is emotionally charged and could be considered loaded language, but is appropriate considering the context of extreme weather events.
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses on the significant omission of the connection between extreme weather events and climate change in broadcast news coverage. While the report acknowledges political and economic events as potential distractions, it doesn't fully explore other contributing factors, such as media ownership structures or advertising pressures that might incentivize downplaying climate change. Furthermore, the lack of detailed analysis on the types of solutions covered, beyond a general mention of adaptation and resilience, limits a complete understanding of the bias. The underrepresentation of women and people of color as climate experts is also noted, but deeper exploration of the reasons behind this imbalance is missing. The piece also neglects to address the potential impact of a lack of climate change coverage in shaping public policy and voter behavior.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat false dichotomy by implying a direct causal relationship between the lack of climate coverage and the lack of public awareness of the Inflation Reduction Act's climate impact. While the connection is plausible, it simplifies a complex relationship that might involve several other variables influencing public awareness, such as public education efforts, social media conversations, and general political climate.
Gender Bias
The analysis explicitly points out the significant gender imbalance in climate experts featured in broadcast news segments. It correctly highlights the underrepresentation of women, particularly women of color, and provides statistics to support this claim. However, it lacks a deeper analysis into the underlying reasons for this imbalance. Suggestions for improvement could include analyzing media selection processes for experts, and exploring potential biases in newsrooms related to gender.
Sustainable Development Goals
The report highlights the significant increase in extreme weather events in 2024, causing widespread devastation and loss of life. This directly contradicts progress towards Climate Action (SDG 13), which aims to strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards. The insufficient media coverage further exacerbates the issue by hindering public awareness and the implementation of necessary solutions.