Climate and Nature Crisis
1. Introduction
The climate and nature crisis (sometimes referred to as the ecological crisis) is a defining story of this century, shaping health, security, livelihoods, migration, and justice worldwide. How it is reported has profound implications for public understanding, democratic decision-making and accountability.
Why this matters: Under-reporting, false balance, or framing climate as a niche or purely “environmental” issue can obscure risks, delay action and reinforce misinformation. Conversely, rigorous, contextual reporting helps people understand what is happening, who is responsible, and what responses are possible.
Common issues in coverage:
Treating climate breakdown as a distant or purely future problem.
Giving equal weight to scientific consensus and fringe denial.
Under-reporting, including neglecting critical climate breakdown developments, like AMOC collapse, despite their catastrophic potential.
Focusing on individual lifestyle choices while sidelining systemic drivers (fossil fuel industry, policy, finance).
Over-emphasising dramatic weather or disaster imagery without context, solutions or affected communities’ voices.
Purpose:
These guidelines aim to support all journalists in every sector, in producing accurate, contextual, and public-interest reporting on the climate and ecological crisis.
2. Do’s and Don’ts (Quick Reference)
Do
State clearly that climate change is real, human-driven, and supported by overwhelming scientific evidence.
Explain links between events (e.g. heatwaves, floods, wildfires) and climate change where evidence supports this – and say when it doesn’t.
Include the role of policy, industry, finance and regulation, not only individual behaviour.
Seek expert comment from independent climate scientists and reputable research institutions.
Include impacts on people and ecosystems, with attention to inequality, justice and displacement.
Cover responses and solutions critically – costs, benefits, limitations, trade-offs.
Disclose relevant conflicts of interest when interviewing or quoting individuals or organisations with ties to fossil fuel companies who will financially benefit from eroding public belief in climate change.
Don’t
Present climate science as a “debate” between two equal sides when there is strong consensus.
Platform misinformation or denial unchallenged. If included, clearly contextualise and fact-check.
Treat each extreme weather event as an isolated “freak event” or “act of God” without exploring underlying trends.
Focus only on doom without any discussion of agency, choices or pathways for change.
Use overly vague phrases (“climate issue,” “green agenda”) where more precise language is possible (e.g. “phasing out fossil fuels,” “insulating homes”).
Describe climate-driven extreme weather events as “natural disasters” without explaining the role of climate change. Where evidence exists, clarify how human-driven climate change is increasing their likelihood or severity
Romanticise extreme weather or seasonal anomalies (e.g. focusing on the beauty of heavy snow or the enjoyment of heatwaves) rather than their impacts.
3. Core Principles
Accuracy: Reflect the scientific consensus clearly. Avoid false equivalence between overwhelming evidence and unsupported claims.
Context: Connect extreme weather, biodiversity loss, pollution and other impacts to the broader climate and ecological crisis, and to policy, economic and justice dimensions.
Accountability: Interrogate responsibility – from governments and corporations to financial institutions – rather than treating impacts as “natural” or inevitable.
Justice: Highlight how impacts and responsibilities are distributed unequally, and include voices from communities most affected, in the UK and globally.
Constructiveness (without cheerleading): Explore responses and adaptation efforts with journalistic rigour – what works, what doesn’t, who benefits, who pays.
4. Detailed Guidance
Language
Use accurate terms such as “climate emergency,” “global heating,” “climate breakdown,” “biodiversity/nature loss,” “ecological crisis,” and “fossil fuels” where appropriate.
Avoid language that misrepresents the level of scientific consensus; e.g. ‘some scientists say…’ when there is strong agreement.
Be cautious with metaphors that trivialise or oversimplify (e.g. “Earth’s fever” is acceptable in some explanatory contexts; avoid framing that suggests the situation is either hopeless or trivial).
Distinguish between mitigation (reducing emissions), adaptation (adjusting to impacts), and loss and damage (the impacts of climate change that have already occurred or cannot be prevented, such as destruction caused by climate disasters). These terms are widely used in climate policy but can be technical. Journalists should consider using real-world examples and human stories to help audiences understand what they mean in practice.
Avoid framing people displaced by climate and environmental impacts as a threat or security risk. Climate-related displacement is a serious humanitarian and systemic impact. Where relevant, report displacement using accurate, non-dehumanising language and include context on responses to climate-related risks.
Framing
Situate stories within long-term trends and scientific evidence (e.g. rising average temperatures, changing rainfall patterns, species decline).
Where reporting on extreme weather, explain:
What is known about the role of climate change in increasing frequency or intensity.
How vulnerability and exposure are shaped by planning, policy, inequality, and historic decisions.
Do not frame climate action as solely the responsibility of individuals; include structural drivers and levers, and the role of systems such as energy, transport, agriculture, land use, finance, regulation and media.
Highlight co-benefits where relevant (e.g. cleaner air, warmer homes, improved health), while being honest about trade-offs and conflicts.
Include voices from communities on the frontlines of climate and ecological impacts, avoiding extractive or stereotype-reinforcing coverage.
Where relevant, explain when extreme weather events are climate-related disasters, and provide scientific context about how climate change is influencing their frequency or intensity.
Sources & Experts
Prioritise independent scientific bodies, universities and research institutes for factual information and context.
Be transparent about potential conflicts of interest (e.g. sources funded by fossil fuel interests or lobby groups).
When reporting claims from political or commercial actors, scrutinise them against independent evidence (e.g. emissions reductions, net zero claims, offsets).
Use trusted intermediaries (e.g. specialist climate journalism outlets, explainer sites) as starting points, but always check primary sources where possible.
Avoid relying on a narrow range of voices; seek diverse expertise, including from affected communities where appropriate.
Images / Visuals
Use images that accurately represent impacts and responses (e.g. communities adapting, renewable energy, nature restoration) rather than relying solely on polar bears or smokestacks.
Avoid disaster imagery without context, which can overwhelm audiences and contribute to fatalism if not accompanied by explanation and agency.
Ensure consent and dignity when depicting affected people, especially in the global South, and avoid reinforcing stereotypes of helplessness.
Case Study
Poor practice: “Freak storms batter region as climate row rages on” – treats events as freakish, implies an ongoing “row” rather than a robust body of evidence, and includes political point-scoring without context.
Good practice: “Heatwave five times more likely due to climate change, scientists say – calls for better housing and worker protections” – explains the link between event and climate change, references scientific analysis, and connects to policy and justice issues.
5. Legal & Regulatory Considerations
Accuracy and impartiality: Best practice regulators demand news to be accurate and impartial, but this does not require giving equal weight to unsupported claims; impartiality can be achieved by reflecting the weight of evidence.
Misleading content: Be cautious about graphics, headlines or framing that might misrepresent risks, timelines or the scale of impacts.
Commercial content: Clearly distinguish journalism from advertising, sponsored content, or opinion pieces. Especially where fossil fuel or high-emissions industries sponsor “green” messaging.
Hate speech and discrimination: Avoid material that blames or targets particular communities (e.g. migrants, specific countries) in ways that are xenophobic or racist rather than evidence-based.
Refer to the relevant Editors’ Codes, the NUJ’s code, broadcasting codes, and advertising standards for specific obligations.
6. Resources & Support
NUJ members can call the NUJ ethics hotline: 0845 450 0864 or emailethics@nuj.org.uk
Covering Climate Now – coveringclimatenow.org A global journalism collaboration that supports newsrooms in improving climate reporting and provides guidance, research and editorial resources.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) –https://www.ipcc.ch The world’s leading authority on climate science, producing comprehensive assessments used by governments and journalists worldwide.
Met Office Climate Science –https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate UK-based climate science research, including analysis of extreme weather and climate attribution.
Carbon Brief –https://www.carbonbrief.org Specialist climate journalism organisation providing in-depth reporting, data analysis and explainers on climate science and policy.
Climate Central –https://www.climatecentral.org Independent science and communication organisation producing accessible climate data, graphics and attribution analysis for journalists.
World Meteorological Organization (WMO) –https://public.wmo.int International authority on weather, climate and water, providing scientific data and global climate reporting.
UN Environment Programme (UNEP) –https://www.unep.org Provides research, assessments and policy analysis on global environmental issues including climate change and biodiversity.
Journalists are encouraged to rely on peer-reviewed science and recognised scientific bodies when reporting on climate and environmental issues, and to clearly distinguish evidence-based information from opinion or advocacy.
7. Consultation & Acknowledgements
Developed with input from journalists, climate and environmental experts, civil society organisations, and communities affected by the climate and ecological crisis.
8. About These Guidelines
Produced by The Press Justice Project in consultation with civil society, journalism educators, and practitioners. These guidelines are intended as practical support and do not replace existing regulatory codes.
We welcome input and feedback — please email info@pressjusticeproject.org
9. With Thanks To…
Produced by The Press Justice Project in consultation with civil society, journalism educators, and practitioners.
