Oregonians, represented by some of the better politicians when it comes to energy and climate issues, were served up a rather distasteful stew of “Fair and Balanced” reporting by Scott Learn of The Oregonian the other day. In Dueling global warming studies heat up Oregon’s debate, Learn makes Faux News proud by presented a University of Oregon study and a fossil-fuel industry front-piece press release in a he-said, she-said type format. Note that title: “Dueling global warming studies …”
Take a look at definition of duel:
- A prearranged, formal combat between two persons, usually fought to settle a point of honor.
- A struggle for domination between two contending persons, groups, or ideas.
Well, as to honor, as discussed in Ah, the smell of western astroturf …, about the Western Business Roundtable is a fossil-fuel shill organization, staffed by people with long-running interesting connections. Jim Sims, the director, handled public relations for Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force and had ‘leadership’ roles with other astroturfing deception organizations (such as the Partnership For the West).
Thus, this must be more a question as to “domination” in either helping inform or deceive Oregonians as to the options heading into the future.
Before further discussion, something is worth noting. What is frustrating is that, if they approached the discussion honestly, the participants of the Western Business Roundtable have actual expertise and knowledge worth bringing to the table. And, their report does have thoughts and elements worth thinking about … but, it is difficult (on multiple levels) to mire one’s way through deceitful truthiness paths of discussion to try to find those nuggest of value.
The WBR report is filled with traditional ‘let’s confuse the discussion’ elements. Let’s take the first “major finding”.
The WCI plan could impose significant new costs on consumers and retard job creation in the Western U.S. over the coming decade while delivering no scientifically measurable benefit in terms of reduced global climate temperatures as far out as the year 2100.
“Could” … sure it could, but perhaps (oops, more likely, it won’t) …
“Significant new costs on consumers …” Yes, it could lead to increase unit prices for dirty energy, but investments in energy efficiency would likely lead to lower total bills through cutting back on use even more. And, well, there are benefits such as reduced particulates and other pollutants helping improve human health.
“While delivering no scientifically measurable benefit in terms of reduced global climate temperatures as far out as the year 2100 …” Putting aside the quite serious question as to whether that analysis was done correctly, let’s lay out several restrictions placed on this analysis / discussion: (1) This is an assumption that the members of the Western Climate Inititative are the only ones that are acting, that no other region/country takes action, that their actions can (and should) be measured in isolation from the rest of humanity. This is a quite typical ‘delayer’ argument, saying “The UK can’t solve this” or “Well, even if the US acts, what about the Chinese.” This is a throw up the hands and say we’re powerless and doing anything is futile argument that deniers turn to when their denial of global warming impact is no longer being listened to. (2) This also assumes that the rather minimal WCI targets, of reducing emissions to 85% of 2005 levels by 2020, are frozen at that level. That would still leave the WCI members above 1990 levels, when the IPCC has called for a global reduction to 50+ percent below 1990 emissions levels.
Sigh, the WBR propaganda sheets merit serious caution in reading, as virtually every sentence has a hidden agenda. To the uninitiated, the discussion can seem ever so reasonable. From the press release page
The key to creating new jobs while reducing emissions is not to throttle back our economic engine, but to turbo-charge it with new technologies that allow it to run faster, cleaner and more efficiently,” said Jim Sims, President and CEO of the Western Business Roundtable
No, we should not invest in energy efficiency which can cut energy usage less expensively than it takes to create a new kilowatt. No, we should not take reasoned steps today to reduce our collective impact. No, we should burn carbon faster in the race for new technologies ever faster.
Sigh …
Of course, the Oregonian gave this astroturf equal billing with a university study.
If you’re a follower of the global warming debate in Oregon, it’s been a real head-spinning day:
This morning, the University of Oregon’s climate leadership initiative unveiled an ECONorthwest study predicting that doing nothing about global warming would cost Oregonians $1,930 per household come 2020.
This afternoon, the Western Business Roundtable unveiled a Management Information Services study predicting that the main proposal in the West to do something about global warming — a regional effort to limit carbon dioxide emissions — would cost Oregonians $1,935 per household come 2020.
Shockingly close figures, with the WBR placing the costs of action $5 higher than the University’s estimations of the cost of inaction. Guess inaction is better, no?
In other words, the University of Oregon predicts economic trauma if we don’t do something, while the Colorado-based business roundtable predicts virtually equal economic trauma if we do.
Damned if we do, damned if we don’t?
The Oregonian then continues its balancing act.
Here’s a brief handicapper’s guide to the two studies, likely to run neck-and-neck in the Oregon Legislature’s debate over implementing a “cap-and-trade” program, which would gradually limit carbon emissions from industry, utilities and cars
In seeming fairness, the Oregonian lays out “key claims”, what “critics say”, and gives a “comeback” on both sides. Boy, ever so “fair and balanced”, isn’t it? After all, the issue is to present both sides, not to actually get to truth, right?
Sigh …