Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 11246-21 Extinction Rebellion v The Spectator
Summary
of Complaint
1. Extinction
Rebellion complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The
Spectator breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “Stupid Fuels”, published on 6th November 2021.
2. The
article was a comment piece that gave the writer’s opinion that “[n]et zero is
a disastrous solution to a nonexistent problem”. The article reported that the
“government’s COP26 targets are ambitious (and eye-wateringly expensive)” but
that we had failed to ask ourselves “Are we really facing an existential
threat? Or might the climate change ‘crisis’ in fact be quasi-religious
hysteria, based on ignorance?”. It acknowledged that the amount of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere had been increasing. However, whilst “[t]he
know-nothings […] customarily refer to this as pollution […]it is the very
reverse: so far from carbon dioxide being pollution, it is the stuff of life.
It is the food of plants, and without plants there would be little animal life
and no human life”. The article said this was because “increased carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere [helps] to stimulate plant growth, known as the fertilisation
effect”. The article continued that increased CO2 in the atmosphere “warm[s]
the planet slightly” and said that “[t]his is no bad thing: many more people
die each year from cold-related illnesses than from heat-related ones”. It
appeared as a companion piece to another article, by a different contributor,
headlined “No choice; The urgent case for net zero”.
3. The
article also appeared online under the headline, “Net zero is a disastrous
solution to a nonexistent problem”.
4. The
complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because
it claimed that “many more people die each year from cold-related illnesses
than from heat-related ones”. The complainant said this was inaccurate as there
was a wealth of peer-reviewed data that demonstrated that the reverse was true.
It said that, where studies have looked at the impact of climate change on
temperature-related deaths, it had been shown that rising temperatures caused
an increase in deaths; for example, the complainant cited studies that
suggested climate change increased the number of heatwaves which led to greater
food insecurity. The complainant further said that heat-related illness would
increase due to climate change on account of the nature of certain diseases
(such as skin cancer and asthma), how they spread (such as Covid-19), and a
reduction in treatment options (due to deforestation and receding rainforests).
5. The
complainant also said the article also breached Clause 1 because it made claims
about CO2 fertilisation that were misleading. The article had claimed that CO2
was “the stuff of life”, which the complainant disputed. It provided a paper
that stated “[t]he more CO2 you have, the less and less benefit you get” and
that research had found that increased CO2 levels led to nutrient deficiencies
within people’s diets, due to a reduction of nutrients in plants.
6. The
publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It stated that the article
under complaint was an opinion piece and the writer was entitled to give his
views on a controversial subject. It provided a research paper published in the
Lancet which had demonstrated that temperature-related mortality was falling
despite rising global temperatures. This study had claimed that “[f]rom 2000–03
to 2016–19, the global cold-related excess death ratio changed by −0.51
percentage points (95% eCI −0.61 to −0.42) and the global heat-related excess
death ratio increased by 0.21 percentage points (0.13–0.31), leading to a net
reduction in the overall ratio”. The findings of the study stated: “Globally,
5,083.173 deaths… were associated with non-optimal temperatures per year,
accounting for 9.43%... of all deaths (8.52%... were cold-related and 0.91%...
were heat-related)”. The publication stated that this supported the assertion
in the article that “many more people die each year from cold-related illnesses
than from heat-related ones”. The publication also referred to another two
studies which stated there had been more cold-related deaths than heat-related
ones.
7.
Regarding the point of the complaint about the impact of CO2, the publication
did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It stated that the article said that CO2
stimulated plant growth. The research cited by the complainant questioned the
nutritional value of crops as a result of increased CO2, it did not suggest
that increased CO2 did not stimulate plant growth.
8. The
complainant said the publication had selected parts of the study that would
support the article’s claim that there were more deaths from cold-related
illnesses than heat-related ones but that the co-author of this paper had said
that the research had not analysed whether the changes in heat-related and
cold-related deaths during the period examined was due to temperature changes
or other factors.
Relevant
Code Provisions
Clause 1
(Accuracy)
i) The
Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted
information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.
ii) A significant
inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and
with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases
involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.
iii) A
fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when
reasonably called for.
iv) The
Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly
between comment, conjecture and fact.
Findings
of the Committee
9. The
article under complaint was a comment piece and was clearly distinguished as
such. However, it had claimed as fact, rather than as conjecture or comment,
that “many more people die each year from cold-related illnesses than from
heat-related ones” and as such the publication was required to provide a basis
for such a claim. The publication had referenced three studies that it
considered showed that there were more deaths related to cold than heat,
whereas the complainant had provided studies that he said showed the opposite.
10. The
publication had cited research papers published in a well-known peer-reviewed
journal in order to support the statement, including one that explicitly
concluded that: ““Globally, 5,083,173 deaths… were associated with non-optimal
temperatures per year, accounting for 9.43%... of all deaths (8.52%... were
cold-related and 0.91%... were heat-related)”. The Committee was satisfied that
this paper, which had appeared in a respected scientific journal, provided a
basis for the claim of fact that “many more people die each year from
cold-related illnesses than from heat-related ones”. While other papers might
reach alternative conclusions, the commentator was entitled to rely on the
findings of this study. The Committee was therefore satisfied that the
publication had taken sufficient care over the accuracy of the statement and
there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
11. The
Committee then considered the point of the complaint regarding whether CO2 was
the “stuff of life”. It acknowledged the evidence provided by the complainant
that showed that increased CO2 could adversely affect the nutritional density
of food. However, where the point being made in the article was that CO2
stimulated plant growth, and where the complainant did not dispute this, there
was no breach of Clause 1.
Conclusion(s)
12. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
Date
complaint received: 10/11/2021
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 25/05/2022