April, 29 2019, 12:00am EDT
Network News Diminishes Urgency, Severity of Climate Change
Very Few Segments Call Climate Change a ‘Crisis’ or an ‘Emergency’
WASHINGTON
When U.S. television news networks discuss climate change and its impacts, few news reports call the phenomena a "crisis" or "emergency," a designation clearly merited by the science, a Public Citizen report shows.
According to the report, in 2018, only 50 of 1,429 national television news segments (3.5 percent) that mentioned climate change referred to it by either of these terms. CNN had the most mentions with 26, but it trailed MSNBC and NBC in the rate of mentions. MSNBC used the terms crisis or emergency in 7 percent of its segments; NBC in 6 percent; and CNN in 3 percent.
In 2018, Fox News mentioned the words crisis or emergency in relation to climate change on five occasions. All five were attempts to minimize the issue with false logic, mockery or misinformation.
"Words matter - and the words we use to characterize an issue make a difference in how it is perceived and prioritized politically," said David Arkush, managing director of Public Citizen's Climate Program. "When media outlets consistently fail to use language that conveys that climate change is a crisis or emergency, they unwittingly put a heavy thumb on the scale in favor of complacency and inaction."
The report comes as the Climate Reality Project and Public Citizen prepare to launch a campaign on May 1 to pressure national television news outlets to call climate change a crisis - and cover it like one. The campaign includes a petition drive, a letter to network CEOs and a May 8 Tweetstorm aimed at the networks.
The first quarter of 2019 saw a spike in mentions of climate as a crisis or emergency. Through April 24, 141 segments referred to climate change by those terms, almost triple the number for all of 2018. However, a major reason for the increase was the president's declaration of a national emergency at the border. Sixty-three percent of the uses of crisis or emergency language in 2019 discussed whether a future Democratic president could use the same power as Trump to designate climate change as a national emergency.
The number still improved significantly if one excludes segments discussing Trump's emergency declaration. The adjusted figure is 52 uses of crisis or emergency in the first quarter of 2019, which is more than the total for 2018 (50). This is a positive trend, but the percentage of mentions is still far too low, with only 7 percent of all segments in 2019 referring to climate change as a crisis or emergency, the report stated.
"Climate coverage on broadcast and cable television news is still at best spotty and at worst riddled with misinformation," said Allison Fisher, outreach director for Public Citizen's Energy Program. "Calling it a crisis indicates that the stakes are high and that the issue is urgent. Most of all it signals to viewers that the time to act on climate is now."
For the analysis, Public Citizen evaluated television news transcripts that included the word "crisis" or "emergency" within 75 words of "climate change" or "global warming." Public Citizen used Nexis to search transcripts from six national television news networks: ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, MSNBC and NBC.
Read the full report here.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
House to Take Up GOP Megabill Serving 'Oil Company CEOs, Hedge Fund Donors, and Climate Deniers'
"Senate Republicans advanced the most anti-environment, anti-job, and anti-American bill in history," said one campaigner.
Jul 01, 2025
After U.S. Senate Republicans on Tuesday sent President Donald Trump's so-called "Big Beautiful Bill" back to the House of Representatives, defenders of the planet sounded the alarm on several provisions that remain in the massive budget reconciliation package.
"This is a vote that will live in infamy," said Greenpeace USA deputy climate program director John Noël after Vice President JD Vance broke a tie to advance the legislation. "This bill is what happens when a major political party, in the grips of a personality cult, teams up with oil company CEOs, hedge fund donors, and climate deniers. All you need to do is look at who benefits from actively undercutting the clean energy industry that is creating tens of thousands of jobs across political geographies."
"The megabill isn't about reform—it's about rewarding the superrich and doling out fossil fuel industry handouts, all while dismantling the social safety nets on which millions depend for stability," Noël added. "It is a bet against the future."
Although Sen. Mike Lee's (R-Utah) provision to force the sale of public lands as well as a proposed excise tax on wind and solar projects were removed, other controversial policies survived, including required onshore and offshore fossil fuel lease sales, mandates for timber harvesting, the recision of various Inflation Reduction Act funding, an end to a moratorium on new coal leasing, and attacks on clean energy.
"Make no mistake, while the Senate did not include a punitive new excise tax on wind and solar projects, the bill is still devastating for the clean energy transition," warned Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) president Gretchen Goldman. "The bill would spike energy costs, threaten energy reliability, and strand hundreds of billions of dollars in clean energy and transportation investments along with the tens of thousands of domestic jobs that come with them. The provisions attacking clean energy and clean transportation are not about the budget, but rather Congress using the budget bill to boost fossil fuels by crushing these booming new industries."
Sierra Club executive director Ben Jealous declared that "today, Senate Republicans advanced the most anti-environment, anti-job, and anti-American bill in history."
"This shortsighted plan will put lives at risk, endanger our growing economy, and raise electricity rates on families and small businesses," he said. "The proposal expands drilling on public lands and in the Arctic, guts cost-cutting clean energy investments and the thousands of stable jobs they've created, and includes massive giveaways to corporate polluters and the very wealthiest Americans."
Jealous celebrated that public outrage led to the federal land sales and excise tax provisions getting axed, but added that "even with those important changes, a terrible bill is still a terrible bill, and this proposal fails the American people in every measure."
Margie Alt, director of the Climate Action Campaign, also highlighted how the legislation—if signed into law—will benefit rich individuals and corporations while causing working-class Americans to lose their jobs and pay higher energy bills.
"The Senate has turned its back on our clean energy future, raising our utility bills while mortgaging our health and environment to deliver massive tax breaks for billionaires," Alt said. She warned of job losses and increased climate pollution, meaning "kids will struggle with asthma and other respiratory problems. And, more people will suffer from devastating extreme weather catastrophes."
Manish Bapna, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, similarly said that "with spiking power demand and rising bills, we need more clean, affordable American energy, but Senate Republicans just voted to kill jobs and deliver the largest utility bill increase in U.S. history."
"Every senator who voted for this bill chose tax cuts for the wealthiest over the rest of our health, pocketbooks, public lands and waters, and a safe climate," Bapna argued. "This is like Robin Hood in reverse. The very rich will get richer and the rest of us will have to pay the price."
After 27 hours, Republicans passed their Big Ugly Bill—a catastrophic assault on health care, food, and climate.They chose Trump and billionaires over families and our future.This fight isn't over. Now it’s the House’s turn to stop it.We can't agonize—we must organize.
[image or embed]
— Senator Ed Markey (@markey.senate.gov) July 1, 2025 at 1:22 PM
The bill not only "will race us toward climate catastrophe" while giving tax breaks to the wealthy, said Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog Public Citizen, it also "steals assistance from vulnerable Americans, the bill would supercharge Trump's barbaric mass deportation policy, and throw an extra $150 billion at Pentagon contractors."
"Any member of Congress with a conscience knows that this bill must not become law," she added. "It's time for the House to stand up to President Trump and vote against it."
The GOP-controlled House had already passed a version of the megabill before every Senate Republican but Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Rand Paul (Ky.), and Thom Tillis (N.C.) advanced the latest edition on Tuesday. Now, the lower chamber's leaders plan to take up the new version in hopes of sending it to Trump's desk by his July 4 deadline.
"House members got it wrong the first time but have another chance now to do their jobs," said Goldman of UCS. "They must reject this bill, voting with their constituents in mind, not simply to avoid the ire of the president."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge Slaps Down RFK Jr's Likely 'Unlawful' Mass Layoffs at HHS
"We're not going to let Trump and RFK Jr. dismantle our nation's health systems to promote conspiracy theories and tax breaks for billionaires," said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong.
Jul 01, 2025
A federal judge on Tuesday blocked planned mass layoffs at the Department of Health and Human Services while declaring that the firings were likely unlawful.
Judge Melissa DuBose of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island ruled that the Trump administration exceeded its legal authority when it moved to lay off thousands of HHS employees on the grounds that such large-scale firings would leave the agency unable to fulfill its legislatively mandated duties that can only be altered by an act of Congress.
"The executive branch is vested with the power and is imbued with the responsibility to faithfully execute the laws which govern the governance structure of our country," wrote DuBose. "The executive branch does not have the authority to order, organize, or implement wholesale changes to the structure and function of the agencies created by Congress."
DuBose further noted that courts have the power to "set aside" actions taken by federal agencies that are "unlawful," and she argued that the actions taken by HHS under the leadership of Trump-appointed Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. likely flouted the law.
The judge granted a preliminary injunction against the agency and blocked it from carrying out its planned reduction in staffing that it first announced this past March 27. HHS has until July 11 to file a status report affirming compliance with the court's order.
The lawsuit was originally filed by the attorneys general of 19 states plus the District of Columbia, who alleged that the layoffs violated the United States Constitution's separation of powers doctrine, as well as the Constitution's appropriations clause and the Administrative Procedure Act that prohibits agencies from taking "arbitrary and capricious" actions.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong took a victory lap in the wake of the ruling but cautioned that there was still a long fight ahead to save HHS.
President Donald Trump and Kennedy "are playing dangerous games with the health and safety of American families, and we just stopped them," he said. "Today's order means vital programs and services—including those supporting Head Start, disease monitoring at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] and Medicaid eligibility, and others—will remain accessible. This is still the beginning of a long fight ahead, but we're not going to let Trump and RFK Jr. dismantle our nation's health systems to promote conspiracy theories and tax breaks for billionaires."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'You Know It's a Terrible Bill': Murkowski Helps GOP Gut Safety Net After 'Bribe' Shields Her State
Sen. Lisa Murkowski was the deciding vote to pass Republicans' massive social safety net cuts through the Senate. She said she didn't like the bill, but voted for it anyway after getting Alaska exempted from some of its worst harms.
Jul 01, 2025
By the thinnest possible margin, the U.S. Senate voted Tuesday to pass a budget that includes the largest cuts to Medicaid and nutrition assistance in U.S. history while giving trillions of dollars of tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans.
The deciding vote was Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who admitted she didn't like the bill. However, she voted for it regardless after securing relief for her home state from some of its most draconian cuts.
But in an interview immediately afterward, she acknowledged that the rest of the country, where millions are on track to lose their healthcare coverage and food assistance, would not be so lucky.
"Do I like this bill? No," Murkowski told a reporter for MSNBC. "I try to take care of Alaska's interests. I know that in many parts of the country there are Americans that are not going to be advantaged by this bill. I don't like that."
The 887-page bill includes more than $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program over the next decade—cuts the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects will result in nearly 12 million people losing health coverage. The measure also takes an ax to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—imperiling food aid for millions.
In recent days, Murkowski—a self-described "Medicaid moderate"—expressed hesitation about signing onto a list of such devastating cuts, calling the vote "agonizing". To get her on board, her Republican colleagues were willing to give her state some shelter from the coming storm.
As David Dayen explained in The American Prospect, Murkowski was able to secure a waiver that exempts Alaska from the newly implemented cost-sharing requirement that will force states to spend more of their budgets on SNAP.
In The New Republic, Robert McCoy described it as a "bribe."
Initially, Republicans attempted to simply write in a carve-out for Alaska and Hawaii. But after this was shot down by the Senate parliamentarian, they tried again with a measure that exempted the 10 states with the highest error rates.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) called it "the most absurd example of the hypocrisy of the Republican bill."
"They have now proposed delaying SNAP cuts FOR TWO YEARS ONLY FOR STATES with the highest error rates just to bury their help for Alaska," she said.
Murkowski also got a tax break for Alaskan fishing villages inserted into the bill. She attempted to have Alaska exempted from some Medicaid cuts as well, but the parliamentarian killed the measure.
"Did I get everything that I wanted? Absolutely not," she told reporters outside the Senate chamber.
However, as Dayen wrote, "Murkowski decided that she could live with a bill that takes food and medicine from vulnerable people to fund tax cuts tilted toward the wealthy, as long as it didn't take quite as much food away from Alaskans."
Murkowski showed herself to be well aware of the harms the bill will cause. After voting to pass the bill, she said, "My hope is that the House is gonna look at this and recognize that we're not there yet."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) called Murkowski's bargain "selfish," "cruel," and "expensive."
"Voting for the bill because [of] a carve-out for your state is open acknowledgement that people will get kicked off healthcare and will have to go to much more expensive emergency rooms," Jayapal wrote. "Clear you know it's a terrible bill for everyone."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular