SECTION ONE: Based on a briefing from your communications team

Your Key Messages

The fact that UN Climate Change Conference in Paris in December will fall short of expectations and so more must be done.

Interview Objectives

To prompt policymakers and governments to consider building review mechanisms and targets into any agreement.

Interview format

Live, down the line – radio interview

Broadcaster / Media / Programme

BBC Radio 4.

The Today Programme.

Interviewer / Background

John Humphrys. Arguably one of the media’s toughest and most sceptical interviewers.

Interviewee

Lord Stern

Interview Hyperlink

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05ssnfy

(Interview starts at 01:51:58. Listen again available until 01/06/2015)

Interview Background

The UN Climate Change Conference in Paris in November and December this year will draw the attention of the world’s media as countries and large corporations reveal what they’ve done so far in the battle against climate change and ask what more needs to be done.

According to a report published on Monday 4^th May, the answer to this question is “quite a bit more.” Nicholas Stern, author of the 2011 report on climate change, says in his latest comments on the issue, that the world is not doing enough to keep global warming below 2C, the level that previous UN negotiations have agreed on.

To discuss his report Lord Stern appeared on the Today programme.

SECTION TWO: Interview Analysis

Interview Time Stamp

Feedback

01:51:58

It was great to hear you start with a brisk and energetic “Good morning,” and this clearly shows that you realise the importance of energy and enthusiasm in a broadcast interview.

1:52:00

Humphrys opens with a typical example of journalist hyperbole: “Are you saying that this conference is going to fail before it has even begun?”

You’re right to be assertive in your response with a clear rebuttal of “No I’m not.” You take the initiative here to explain what you are saying. “I’m saying that it’s going to fall short of the 2C target. The total amount of emissions pledged for 2030 will be above what we need for a 2C target but it will be a major change from anything like business as usual…we need to ramp up our ambitions before December this year when the pledges will be made…we have to see it as a floor or first step,” you explain, adding: “We have to build into that agreement mechanisms for review of where we are and for ramping up.” This is interesting but rather vague and opaque.

Read our suggestions in Section Three: Your Language.

1:52:59

Humphrys challenges you again, asserting that many of those attending will see it “not as a floor but as a ceiling - the maximum they will accept.”

People are often concerned about negative questions that might be put to them but journalists are only asking these questions because they think that the audience will be asking them and because they test the hypothesis or case that the interviewee is laying out.

1:53:11

“I don’t think so,” you reply. Could you be more assertive here? Perhaps, but a thoughtful approach is also useful at times

See more in Section Three: Your Language.

Interviewees can then bring in some examples or case studies to back up their own point, as you do here. “A few years ago in Durban there was clear recognition of the gap between current intentions and where we need to be. I think that gap will be an integral part of discussions and there will be a focus on how that gap will be closed.”

This is a good example and it demonstrates your experience. You could then bridge across to your key points and the message about the Paris meeting from your latest report, which has not really been covered yet.

1:53:40

“It feels as if we’ve had endless conferences,” says Humphrys, going on to assert that these meetings have achieved little or nothing. To which you reply: “This is 21.” You’re right to make light of Humphrys’ criticism but you could then have bridged on to one of your key messages and taken control of the interview here.

1:53:53

Humphrys declares that the world is getting hotter, implying that you and your colleagues have been wasting your time.

1:53:56

You reply: “As we’ve moved on, the understandings have grown clearer and the commitments grown stronger but you’re absolutely right, John, the world has been getting hotter.” You go on: “We’ve seen the effects of that. It’s about 0.8 degrees higher than the end of the 19^th century, the usual benchmark...we’re headed on current plans for 3.5 degrees or four degrees hundred years from now. So the consequence that we’ve seen are very small, big as they are, relative to what we could see and that’s why it’s so urgent to get an agreement.”

Getting an agreement is a key message for you and you make the point well here. The only problem is that this last answer is rather convoluted and confusing – especially with the various statistics that you quote. What exactly are you saying?  Is the situation serious or isn’t it?   A few vivid examples of the effect of climate change on human beings right now would really help to bring your comments to life and make them relevant and understandable for a general audience - Read our suggestions in Section Three: Your Language.

1:54:52

Humphrys accuses you of having “misdiagnosed the obstacles to climate change,” and that “the people who matter are people who don’t want a wind farm next to them or the field facing their village to be covered in solar panels.” These simple everyday illustrations are what journalists like the people that they’re interviewing to use.

1:55:43

“I’m not a preacher, I’m a professor of economics,” you say, again asserting yourself. You’re also right to remind the audience that you’re a professor of economics, as this will speak to those listeners who might be sceptical about climate change.     After all, it’s a lot more difficult to be sceptical about something as scientific as economics so you’re emphasising your authority. “No one pretends that the politics are easy,” you say and you’re also right to make this concession to Humphrys’ criticism since making a concession can help you to look reasonable and conciliatory.

You then talk about the world investing more now in non-hydrocarbons than in hydrocarbons. This is a good point because it ticks the “unusual” box in our list of the ingredients of a new media story. It would be good to have a case study or example here of an exciting, UK based, non-hydrocarbon investment.

1:56.47

You assert: “the big subsidy is to fossil fuels.” You then quote a figure of about $500billion a year.

“What? The oil companies get subsidies from the tax payer?” asks Humphrys – again, because many of his listeners will be asking this too. You certainly tick the “unusual” box here again as this is counter intuitive. However, in order to back up this surprising assertion you should remind us of your economic credentials and should include an example or case study to prove your point.

1:57:10

You go onto explain what you mean by referring to exploration subsidies in emerging markets but again a case study, example or surprising statistic would allow you to be more concise - and more memorable.

1:57.45

“That subsidy is big and that subsidy is on fossil fuels.” You finish on a confident, assertive note, which is great. But you could have just reiterated your key points and finished with final memorable fact or figure or simply restated your key message.

SECTION THREE: Your Language

You said…

Why not try…

1:52:59 “We have to build into that agreement mechanisms for review of where we are and for ramping up.”

“We have to build into that agreement something that allows us to see how we’re doing and where we need to work harder.”

This would be simpler and easier to understand for a general audience.

1:53:11 “I don’t think so”

“No, not at all.” This would be firmer.

1:53:56 “We’ve seen the effects of that. It’s about 0.8 degrees higher than the end of the 19th century, the usual benchmark...we’re headed on current plans for 3.5 degrees or four degrees hundred years from now. So the consequence that we’ve seen are very small, big as they are, relative to what we could see and that’s why it’s so urgent to get an agreement.”

“I’ve seen the effects of that while I’ve been doing my research over the last few years. For instance, milder winters and longer summers allow tree-killing insects to thrive. Trees weakened by prolonged drought have lower defence mechanisms. This cycle of warmer weather, weak trees and thriving insects is probably what’s behind the massive die-off of 70,000 square miles of Rocky Mountain conifers.”

A striking, familiar and visual example would work well here to illustrate your point and to help them stick in people’s minds.

1:56.09 “We now have more investment in non-hydrocarbons than hydrocarbons.”

“We’re now investing more in technology that doesn’t involve oil and other carbon-based fuels than we are in technology that does use these things. There’s a start up company just outside Coventry, for instance, that’s doing some amazing work…”

1:57.45 “That subsidy is big and that subsidy is on fossil fuels.”

“That subsidy is big and that subsidy is on fossil fuels – and that’s one of the issues that those attending the meeting in Paris in December must look at if we’re going to have a planet that can support our children and grandchildren.”

Overall Comments for Section Three

You’re articulate and knowledgeable but some of your language is rather managerial and general. Using more simple, direct words and phrases and adding examples will work better for a general radio audience.

SECTION FOUR: Your use of voice, tone, pitch and pace.

You said…

We thought…

1:53:56 “As we’ve moved on, the understandings have grown clearer and the commitments grown stronger but you’re absolutely right, John, the world has been getting hotter.”

You could add a bit more passion and more of a sense of urgency here – this is a key message for you.

1:56:45 “The big subsidy is to fossil fuels.”

You’re right to stress the word “big” here but you could add more emphasis and drama to this whole sentence given how surprising it is how key it is to your arguments.

Overall comments for section four:

You speak at the right pace and sound thoughtful and considered.   You avoid the slightly hectoring tone that some environmental campaigners use. You could, though just vary your tone a bit, add some more “light and shade” and put some emphasis behind key words and phrases.

SECTION FIVE: Achievement of your goals and other comments

Delivery of Key Messages

The general message that much has been done but there is still much to do came across well. You could, though, be more specific about your latest report and about the Paris meeting.

Control of interview

John Humphrys was very much in charge of this interview in that he drove the agenda. However, you clearly had answers to all his questions, even those that were particularly sceptical and negative questions.

Achievement of objectives

You certainly put across a key message about where we are in relation to slowing climate change. However, you could have been a bit clearer about your Call to Action and about what exactly you wanted the policy-makers and politicians to do.

Other comments

One problem here is that you were “on the line” and not in the studio with the presenter. I also noticed a slight delay on the line which makes the interview stilted and puts you at a greater disadvantage. We always advise interviewees to get into the studio and face the presenter if possible as this reduces the risks of technical problems and also allows the interviewee to read the body language of the person they’re talking to and to maintain eye contact.