Complaint
A listener challenged remarks made by a spokesman for the RSPB, Jeff Knott, on climate change and nuclear power. He disputed a reference to the presence of bee-eaters breeding in North Norfolk being a sign of the effect of climate change, arguing the assertion that they were 鈥渘esting more regularly鈥 should not have gone unchallenged. He also referred to Mr Knott鈥檚 comments about Sizewell C claiming they were an attack on Government policy to build nuclear power stations. The ECU considered whether the interview met the 91福利社 standards for due accuracy and due impartiality.
Outcome
On the first point, the ECU thought listeners would have understood it was Mr Knott鈥檚 expert opinion that the presence of bee-eaters nesting and breeding in Norfolk was a clear sign climate change was affecting UK wildlife. This is because the birds usually nest in warmer regions such as north Africa and southern Europe. The RSPB says the birds have been spotted in this country six times since 2001 whereas the previous sighting was 1955. No bee-eaters, insofar as the ECU was aware, are recorded as trying to nest here between 1956 and 2001, as evidenced by Rare Bird Alert and Bird Guides. Listeners would have understood this was the RSPB鈥檚 view and the evidence which had led it to reach such a conclusion.
On the second point, Mr Knott said the country was facing 鈥渁 nature and a climate emergency鈥 and urged the Government to take action to tackle climate change 鈥渂ut importantly not at the expense of nature鈥. He referred specifically to the Government鈥檚 decision to give development consent to the Sizewell C nuclear power station. In the ECU鈥檚 view, rather than attacking Government policy in relation to nuclear power, Mr Knott was raising a specific concern about the effect of the Sizewell C development on wildlife in the area (in keeping with the RSPB鈥檚 public opposition to the Sizewell C plan on the grounds that it 鈥渃ould have detrimental impacts on internationally and nationally important landscapes, habitats and species of the Suffolk coast and at RSPB Minsmere nature reserve鈥). The ECU did not agree therefore that his contribution led to a breach of the 91福利社鈥檚 standards for due impartiality.
Not Upheld