20 April 2019 | NewScientist | 25Adam VaughanGLOBAL warming will enjoy a rare
moment in TV’s spotlight when the
BBC airs an hour-long film on the
subject on 18 April, presented by
David Attenborough (pictured above).
“Right now, we’re facing our gravest
threat in thousands of years: climate
change,” says Attenborough at the
start of Climate Change – The facts.
The involvement of this influential
star on BBC1, the corporation’s biggest
channel, in a prime 9 pm slot has
raised expectations that the film could
significantly shift attitudes and spur
action. Perhaps it could do for climate
change what 2017’s Blue Planet II did
for plastics.
But is the documentary too little,
too late from the BBC on climate
change? We have known about the
severity of global warming for years.
Shouldn’t a show in 2019 be about
actions rather than facts?
The film is, however, an excellent
primer on climate change, sprinting
through the basics of the science,
why we have failed to cut carbon
emissions and how we might reduce
future warming. It features a who’swho of climate academics, from
Michael Mann, James Hansen and
Naomi Oreskes in the US to UK figures
including Peter Stott, Mark Maslin
and Catherine Mitchell.
Somewhat oddly, there is no one
from the world’s biggest emitter,
China. Indian environmentalist Sunita
Narain is there though. “If the poor are
suffering today, then the rich will also
suffer tomorrow,” she says.
Attenborough is a soothing balm,
popping up as a voice of calmwhenever you might be freaking out
about the sheer scale of the problem.
As with previous climate
documentaries, such as 2007’s The
11th Hour, it occasionally drags a little
due to the reliance on talking heads
and generic stock visuals. But there
are some memorable scenes: bats
killed by extreme heat in Australia and
dashcam footage of a father and son
speeding through a wildfire.
The best thing about the film is thatit does, in fact, give time to solutions
and action. A whistle-stop tour covers
necessary changes in energy, diet
and consumption, plus collective
action such as Greta Thunberg’s
school climate strikes and the global
movement she spawned. Somehow,
it avoids becoming a sermon.
“There’s a message for all of us in
the voices of these young people,”
says Attenborough of the strikers.
“Every one of us has the power to
make changes and to make them
now.” You should be fired up by the
time the credits roll.
How does the film fit into the
BBC’s wider record on climate
change coverage? Environmental
campaigners have focused on failures
by presenters on its high-profile
shows, such as John Humphrys and
Andrew Neil, to challenge climate
change scepticism. But looked at
across the whole of its output, the
BBC has a strong track record of
reporting on the science, economics
and politics of global warming.
Climate Change – The facts is part
of a renewed BBC drive to tell climate
change stories and follows its decision
to give them a higher profile, which
started last September. Insiders say
that push is spurred by the desire to
stay relevant with younger audiences.
The danger is that the drive leads
the BBC to cover stories that are
unimportant or boring. But judging
from Attenborough’s new film, that’s
not a problem yet. ■Climate change finally
makes it to prime time
ANALYSIS Science on TV
POLLYALDE
RTON/BBC^ STUDIOS“ Attenborough is a soothing
balm, popping up as a voice
of calm whenever you
might be freaking out”For more opinion articles, visit newscientist.com/opinion
into developing new antibiotics.
There isn’t enough profit in them
because they are only used for
short periods. Governments are
also partly to blame. Most haven’t
put in place financial incentives
to encourage more research by
pharmaceutical firms.
But rather than focusing on
who is to blame, we must work
together to solve the problem.
For example, we should continue
doctors’ education around
antibiotic prescriptions. And we
could support them in the face of
public pressure. Greater public
awareness, perhaps delivered by
campaigns such as the National
Health Service’s Keep Antibiotics
Working, would help.
One thing could help far more
quickly. Doctors culture bacterial
samples from people to identify
infections. This method is cheap,
but unreliable. What we need
are tests that can immediately
diagnose the type, severity
and antibiotic sensitivity of an
infection. Without that, doctors
are working in the dark.
Such tests are becoming
available, but they are still at the
experimental stage. We must put
a rocket under their development
and light the fuse now. ■Colin Garner is the chief executive
of Antibiotic Research UKJASON’s demise presents an
opportunity for public-minded
scientists to rethink their
relationship to power. Scientists
are right to worry about the
dangers of their creations,
but wrong to think they can
stop them on their own. When
scientists oppose defence policy,
they should speak out publicly,
not behind closed doors. They
should share their concerns and
work with broad coalitions of
citizens – not just scientists –
to prevent harm. ■Audra J. Wolfe is the author of
Freedom’s Laboratory: The cold war
struggle for the soul of science