Austin Bowden-Kerby, a pioneer in coral reef conservation, spends many of his days gardening corals for reefs around Fiji and the Pacific. He grows corals in ocean nurseries. Once they’re healthy enough, he moves them to outer ocean areas with the hope they will replicate and grow.

“We’re looking at what Mother Nature would do on her own if she had 1,000 years to adapt,” said Bowden-Kerby, who founded the UNESCO-endorsed Reefs of Hope strategy. “We would have these kinds of things happening.”

Bowden-Kerby is one of several scientists trying to conserve, replicate and reproduce heat-resistant corals before climate change wipes them out.

The United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has said the world is experiencing a fourth global coral bleaching event. They’ve found that bleaching-level heat stress affected almost 85 per cent of the world’s coral reef area between 2023 and 2025.

Bleaching causes corals to lose their food source and, with it, their colour. Most corals survive in temperatures between 20 and 29 C. But as ocean temperatures rise, it’s difficult for many to thrive.

But naturally occurring, heat-resistant corals can survive in waters up to 36 C and potentially higher. They are usually found in warmer waters, like parts of the Pacific Ocean and the Persian Gulf. These corals are increasingly important as sea temperatures rise. So scientists are turning to them to help save declining reefs.

Heat-resistant corals

Corals reefs are extremely diverse places, with around 6,000 coral species worldwide. Reefs are home to more than 4,000 species and 25 per cent of global marine life. When healthy, corals nurture fish that feed communities, protect shores from floods and storms and boost economies through tourism.

However, heatwaves have led to widespread coral bleaching and loss. When waters become too warm, corals expel the algae in their tissues that give them their colour. That causes corals to turn completely white.

Coral reefs and their ecosystems are also threatened by pollution, ocean acidification, coastal development and overfishing.

Read more: Will 2026 be the year when coral reefs pass their tipping point?

Christopher Cornwall, a lecturer in marine biology at Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand, co-authored a recent review that found some reefs can survive if corals become more heat-tolerant.

He told me there are multiple things to consider when conserving and replicating corals: restoring heat-resistant corals where it’s feasible, doing so at a large enough scale and maintaining coral diversity. Restored corals also must be able to survive, he added.

“We can’t just do coral restoration without thermally tolerant corals, because they’re just going to die the next time it gets too hot,” Cornwall said.

Assisted evolution

“A lot of the research now is about, can you scale up restoration and how do you do it more effectively?” said Peter Mumby, a professor of coral reef ecology at the University of Queensland in Australia. “One of the key concerns is to make sure those corals are as tolerant of high temperature as possible.”

Breeding heat-tolerant corals is a form of assisted evolution. Humans intervene to speed up natural processes to help corals more quickly respond to and recover from their stressors, like heatwaves from climate change.

One recent study examining the possible success of assisted evolution interventions like breeding and selecting traits found these interventions can help corals become more tolerant to heatwaves, but they need “extremely strong selection.”

Liam Lachs co-authored that study. Lachs is a former postdoctoral research associate in the CORALASSIST lab, a team of scientists led by James Guest at Newcastle University in the United Kingdom. Lachs specializes in coral reef ecosystems and researches coral in Palau, a Pacific island country where corals are surviving in warmer waters.

He told me variability within and among reefs and coral species must be considered when creating more heat-resistant coral, which makes replication complex. “Even within a single reef, there’s a range of tolerance levels,” he said.

Read more: How accelerating evolution could help corals survive future heatwaves – new study

Algae and bacteria

Researchers at the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) have found that some algae (Durusdinium), which symbiotically live in corals and provide them with food in exchange for housing and protection, can boost corals’ heat tolerance.

Madeleine van Oppen is a senior principal research scientist at AIMS. She co-authored a recent review about potentially introducing beneficial bacteria into corals to improve their heat tolerance.

Scientists are also exploring whether heat-tolerant corals should be planted across oceans — from the Indo-Pacific region to the Caribbean — and not just in nearby waters.

Van Oppen said new ventures ultimately need more research, and the real test of success is if something done in a lab works in the wild. “Field testing, I’d say, is the next big thing,” she said. “Finding out whether these interventions can enhance tolerance at ecologically relevant scales. Is it stable over time?”

AIMS researchers also found that heat tolerance could be passed down by interbreeding wild colonies of the same coral species. Heat-resistant coral species include some pocillopora and acropora.

If left unchecked, the sustained global temperature is on target to rise more than 1.5 C. Some evidence has shown that 70 to 90 per cent of tropical coral reefs could go extinct even if global warming is limited to 1.5 C.

Prior to the fourth event, the Earth already experienced three mass coral bleaching events over the last few decades. An El Niño is expected this year, bringing with it hotter sea surface temperatures, much like in 2024.

For all the efforts by scientists to save coral reefs and ensure heat resilience, nothing will keep corals healthy more than lowering the global temperature. “The lower we can get our greenhouse gas emissions, the more chance there will be that reefs will exist in the future,” said Cornwall.

Whitney Isenhower has an account with Democrats Abroad but is not an active member.

Voters in Wales will soon go to the polls to elect members of an expanded Senedd (Welsh parliament) under a new proportional voting system. As the campaign has developed, public service broadcasters have sought not only to report events but to educate, inform and engage audiences with an unfamiliar electoral process.

Our analysis suggests they are increasingly doing so through digital platforms. We analysed all election news content produced online and on social media by major broadcasters between April 8 and April 24, including BBC Wales, ITV Wales, S4C, Channel 4 and Sky News.

The findings point to a move towards formats designed for audiences who are more likely to encounter news online than through traditional television.

This matters because people increasingly come across political content passively, through algorithmically curated feeds rather than actively seeking it out. In that environment, the type of content produced – and how it’s presented – can play a decisive role in shaping public understanding of the election.

One prominent feature of digital coverage has been the use of explainers. These aim to demystify the election by breaking down how the Senedd works, how the voting system has changed and which policy areas are devolved to Wales or reserved to Westminster.

Many of these explainers adopt a more informal and accessible tone than their broadcast equivalents. They’re designed to cut through in fast-moving social media feeds where political information competes for attention.

A significant proportion focus on policy. Of the 19 explainers identified in our analysis, seven centred on specific issues, most commonly immigration. This reflects persistent public confusion about where responsibility lies.

Read more: Voters in Wales face Senedd election amid confusion over who holds power over what

Our recent survey found that nearly a third of people in Wales did not know immigration is controlled by the UK government. Against that backdrop, broadcasters have often made this distinction explicit. In 82% of online and social media items mentioning immigration, journalists clearly stated that responsibility lies with Westminster.

Broadcasters have also used explainers to clarify changes to the electoral system. This includes the move to a closed-list proportional system. Public awareness of this change remains low, however. Only 7% of respondents in our survey correctly identified the system, while 58% said they did not know.

Meet the leaders

Alongside explainers, broadcasters have used digital formats to introduce audiences to the leaders of Wales’s six main political parties. This has reinforced the campaign’s increasingly presidential tone, with party leaders dominating media appearances.

In a devolved context, this is not always straightforward, given the presence of both UK-wide and Welsh political figures. But digital formats have provided new ways to foreground Welsh leaders.

Short, one-to-one interviews have become an important feature. Formats such as the BBC’s Quickfire Questions and ITV’s Chippy Chats mix light-touch prompts – like “What song have you got on repeat?” – with more substantive questions about policy priorities.

These formats inject personality into political coverage. Leaders are presented not only as decision-makers but as people with interests and personalities. This is particularly significant given relatively low public awareness of Welsh political figures.

Our recent survey found that fewer than half of respondents could identify the leader of Plaid Cymru, Rhun ap Iorwerth, despite the fact he could become the next first minister.

At the same time, the informal tone has not entirely displaced scrutiny. In ITV’s Chippy Chats for example, the Welsh Liberal Democrat leader Jane Dodds was challenged on her voting record in the Senedd. It’s a reminder that accountability can still be built into more conversational formats.

Informing voters in a digital campaign

Taken together, these approaches suggest broadcasters are using digital platforms in distinct and complementary ways. Explainers aim to address gaps in public knowledge. One-to-one interviews make political leaders more visible and relatable.

This reflects a broader transformation in how election coverage is produced and consumed. As more people encounter political information online, public service broadcasters play an increasingly important role in countering misinformation and improving understanding of politics and public affairs.

The challenge is now to strike the right balance. Broadcasters must produce content that engages audiences. But they shouldn’t lose sight of the need to inform them and to scrutinise the claims made by political parties.

Keighley Perkins receives funding from AHRC for research into broadcasters' impartiality.

Maxwell Modell receives funding from the AHRC for research into broadcasters' impartiality.

Stephen Cushion has received funding from the BBC Trust, Ofcom, AHRC, BA, ESRC and Welsh Government.

A glance at recent front pages of many British newspapers leaves no doubt about the stridency of their views on net zero.

On January 13, for instance, the Express said the government must “Tell truth on ‘fantasy’ cost of net zero”, while the Mail’s headline on the same day used the same idea of “fantasy figures”. A few weeks later, a Telegraph headline claimed “Labour’s net zero extremism is ripping the heart out of Britain”.

But how representative are these headlines of wider coverage? To find out, colleagues and I analysed nearly 500 articles published over four months in 2023 across nine UK newspapers (both right- and left-leaning), looking at pieces where net zero appeared in the headline.

We focused on the presence of statements which were factually inaccurate, or misleading (defined as the omission of a credible counter-argument).

Outright inaccuracies were relatively rare. We found 22 examples, partly because we used a narrow definition. But misleading claims were very common.

This was especially true in opinion and editorial pieces. In four right-wing outlets – the Telegraph, Mail, Express and Sun – more than 70% of such articles contained at least one misleading statement.

Because a single misleading statement may not be representative of an overall article – perhaps appearing in a quote – we then looked at those articles where there was a pattern, containing at least three misleading statements.

We found 50 such articles, of which 92% were published in the right-wing press, and the vast majority in editorials and opinion pieces. Of the editorials and opinion pieces we flagged at the Telegraph, Mail, Express and Sun, between 39% and 60% included at least three misleading statements.

Articles which contain at least three misleading statements:

The most common misleading statements concerned the potentially high cost of net zero, the various ways the policy was being implemented, and claims about the unfair distribution of costs. These claims were often presented without acknowledging opposing evidence or arguments – for example, that the costs of inaction were also high or possibly higher, or that experts dispute the figures presented in the article.

By contrast, left-wing publications were more likely to mention the high costs of inaction and the potential co-benefits of net zero such as improved health or better air quality.

In this context, remember that in July 2025 the UK government’s Office for Budget Responsibility found that the cost of bringing emissions down to net zero is significantly lower than the economic damages of failing to act. It also found those net zero costs will be much lower than previously expected.

Scrutiny – but fairer and better-informed

This isn’t a call for newspapers and journalists to avoid scrutinising net zero. It’s a policy that will be funded in part by British taxpayers, and may impose significant and uneven costs on different sectors of the population.

But coverage that focuses only on these costs in isolation, or that cherry picks data to support a single view, risks giving readers an incomplete picture. Fairer and better-informed coverage would mention on a regular basis the in-depth findings of a range of experts on the costs of inaction and the co-benefits of action.

The Times, for example, shows that it is possible to quote experts from two sides. In our 2023 sample we found several articles, including some in right-leaning newspapers, where the high cost of net zero is mentioned alongside the benefits of taking action, or that also added the qualification that many climate experts dispute the high costs.

A final thought: in its March 2026 report, the UK’s official advisory Climate Change Committee said that the “cost” of cutting UK emissions to net zero could be less than the cost of a single fossil-fuel price shock, while a net-zero economy would be almost completely protected from future spikes.

I looked in vain for a front-page headline in the Sun, Express or Mail screaming that reaching net zero would be cheaper for the UK than a fossil fuel crisis, such as the one triggered by the war on Iran.

James Painter receives funding from the Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment, London School of Economics.