One hope, with Barack Obama taking the Oath of Office: that the traditional media would return to a tradition of actually seeking to weigh truth and seek some form of actual honesty in reporting.
Sigh …
Despite being in a minority, newspapers and television talk shows seem more ready to have Republicans (whether currently in office or out of office) dominating the discussion, no matter the disconnection of their comments from actual facts or sensibility. While its seen in many arenas (financial markets, budget discussions, auto industry, health care), the extreme might come in the interacting (intertwined, inseparable) domains of economy, energy, and environment.
Now that there is mounting seriousness in discussion of Energy/Global Warming legislation, from the White House to the House, the whining choruses of truthiness and deception are mounting in volume.
“Tax” is a discordant and dishonest verse that Republicans are singing in every venue they can … and, sadly, they are being given the venues even though their statements are not just deceptive but outright dishonest.
The latest fad, it seems, amid the denier/skeptic/delayer community is to be emphasizing that Co2 is plant life. This has been seen in the past weeks from witnesses in Senate testimony, from Republican Congressmen in hearings, in blog posts galore, and in conservative columns and editorial pages.
For example, this was core to The Washington Times reality-denying editorial this past Sunday.
But if there wasn’t carbon dioxide around, there would be no plants.
Ever so true of the deniers / skeptics / delayers: state things that are true but which are absolutely not truthful in the context of the discussion of climate change and what humanity should do to shift its reckless course toward catastrophic climate change.
This analogy is always useful for this discussion:
You will die if you don’t have liquid (water). (Get your eight glasses yesterday?) If a half-gallon/day is good for you, then a gallon must be better. And, well, of course, why not try drinking 50 gallons per day.
What do they take us (the US) for: idiots?
The sad thing is that, for at least a few people, they must be right. Yesterday, was in an elevator with three people who were commenting about this very issue. And, the joke from one of them: “Well, Joe, guess you’re contributing to Global Warming by exhaling right now.” [Note: Cultural norms are difficult to deal with but they weren’t happily surprised when facts and real information disrupted their elevator shenanigans.] Yes, while they are taking Americans for idiots with this line of debate, there are sadly at least some percentage who are ready to fall for it.
Well, sometimes reacting to breaking RUMINT (rumors intelligence) can put one out on a limb … and sometimes the limb breaks. Thus, my reporting that Dan Kammen would be one of three appointees into the Department of Energy was wrong. Have to wonder when and where Dan will end up in the Administration (perhaps advisory boards), but he won’t be the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) in the Department of Energy.
This might be the single most important Assistant Secretary position in the entire Obama Administration. And, consider its import and the need to have someone who can truly hit the ground running, President Obama and Secretary Chu went with someone even stronger for the position (at this time) than Dan: Cathy Zoi.
Coming from heading the Alliance for Climate Protection, Cathy comes to the table with a long record of experience in both the workings of government and in the realms of environmental and energy policy. Thus, like David Sandalow, she enters the Department in a very strong position to be able to hit the ground running in bureaucratic and substantive terms. Thus, she will be able to “work” the (complicated, messy, and difficult) system.
In addition, Cathy is like many others entering the Obama Administration. Like a Sandalow … Van Jones … and others, Cathy is articulate, has substantive knowledge and experience, and speaks with passion. She will be able to manage and lead EERE — and speak powerfully to audiences, whether internal DOE staff, other agencies, state & local governments, businesses, community groups, the general public, …
Thus, mea culpa to Dan, Cathy, and readers for getting this wrong.
But, it is reasonably nice to get something wrong and still be able to report good news while admitting the error.
you’ll have to look very hard to find a single story in the mainstream media that even mentions climate change — even though the record “once-in-a-hundred-year flooding” the Midwest now seems to be getting every few years or so is precisely what scientists have been expecting from the warming
“I actually think the science around climate change is real. It is potentially devastating,” Obama told reporters Monday. “If you look at the flooding that’s going on right now in North Dakota and you say to yourself, ‘If you see an increase of two degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there?’ That indicates the degree to which we have to take this seriously.“
In the last twenty years, Red River floods expected to occur at Fargo only once every ten years have happened every two to three years. 2009 is the third year in a row with at least a “ten-year flood.” In the 90 years before 1990, there were only eight ten-year floods.
While it might be inappropriate to state that X weather event occurred simply because of global warming or that climate change is the sole cause behind some form of extreme weather situation causing disaster, note the caveats there: “simply” … “sole cause”. It is long past time to recognize that it is inappropriate to ignore (steadfastly) climate change in the discussion of changing weather and climatic conditions: including increasingly frequent extreme weather events.
The simply reality: we live in a world that is increasingly shaped by human-driven activities, human-driven global warming.
McKibben was fundamentally right 20 years ago and is clearly right today: we have passed The End of Nature in terms of atmospheric conditions. We now live in the Anthopocene Era. Co2 levels, globally, are 50% higher than would be the case today without human fossil fuel burning since the 19th century. Ocean pH level balance is different because of human fossil-fuel burning. We have changed the planetary conditions in which human civilization developed. Interacting with nature: The climate is now manmade. Weather events are now manmade. Weather disasters are now manmade.
In 2008, Kathleen Sebelius undertook a courageous battle against coal industry interests attempting to buy their way into perpetuating highly polluting coal-fired electricity plants. She stood up against fossil-foolish distortions. She stood up against industry lobby money. She stood up in a tough fight against Republican legislators who were active collaborators with the polluters. She stood up in defense of Kansans — today’s and tomorrow’s — and kept the coal industry from buying the political and energy direction of her state.
In 2009, another female Governor, Michigan’s Jennifer Granholm, is standing up for her citizens against these fossil foolish interests who are seeking to perpetuate a 19th century, polluting energy system rather than embracing her vision for a 21st Century Energy System that will reduce the state’s pollution, improve the citizens’ health, and improve the economy. And, Governor Granholm is facing a battle with legislators choosing to ignore pollution, ignore tomorrow’s costs, ignore the larger implications as they accept fossil foolish campaign contributions, ignore the Potemkin Village nature of claims of economic benefits of pursuing polluting energy paths as they petition Governor Granholm to ignore the real interests of Michigan residents and to end her requirement for actually understanding Michigan’s energy requirements and options before going forward with four new coal-fired electricity plants.
One of the aside comments written by many amid The Will Affair is that perhaps George would better serve his readership by spending his time writing about baseball, his true love. Now, I don’t know the real quality of George’s writing and understanding of the sport, but we have to imagine that he does a better job discussing batting averages than he does in (deceptive) discussion of temperature, ice coverage, and other elements of climate change data and science.
This is an odd issue. It is hard to imagine any traditional media outlet allowing the sort of deceptive, error-filled reporting on the Super Bowl or Wimbledon as occurred in Will’s outright dishonesty on climate science. And, it is even harder to imagine that editors would rise to the defense of published stories on baseball for which readers and baseball experts have provided, with substantive documentation, multiple examples of how a reporter simply got the facts wrong (let alone purposefully distorted them).
Why the sports analogy? Because, the past several days have seen another two cases where sports-focused authors have reported on energy and climate science … and simply blew the story, catastrophically.
As discussed in these pages yesterday, The New Yorker‘s Talk of the Town published “Economy vs The Environment“, a false talking point after false talking point travesty of shallow and incorrect discussion of the interaction of climate and economic issues. The author, David Owen, a golf journalist and contributing editor to Golf Digest.
To be clear, the issue is not that sports writers are now writing on the interplay of economic, energy, and environmental issues. Actually, that trend is somewhat welcome. While there is a feared decline in science reporting, most reporters are ‘generalists’ and it is a good sign that the ‘journalistic generalists’ see a need (a value?) to focus reporting on these domains. What is distressing is the utter failure of these sports writers to do decent reporting. And, the utter failure of the editors to hold them to any reasonable standard of journalistic ‘excellence’ (actually, of even journalistic mediocrity).
Let’s try to flip the situation. Imagine a climate scientist writing an article for the New York Times Magazine on Hank Aaron, who confused home runs with touchdowns and quotes Aaron critiquing, as some form of specialist, Joe Namath’s qualities and decision-making as a quarterback. Would this get published? Of course not.
Evidently, the standards for journalistic excellence are higher for the sports pages than they are for the most critical issue of the 21st century: the interplay of economic, energy, and environmental (climate) issues.
The New Yorker has been a bright spot, in many ways, in the media disaster that has been global warming reporting. Elizabeth Kolbert is not just a beautiful writer, a pleasure to read, but insightful and thoughtful about the climate crisis and energy issues. (See, for example, her wonderful The Island in the Wind.) The latest New Yorker has an article that is a travesty, caught in old speak, old thinking, that clearly suggests that the author (David Owen) and The New Yorker‘s editors haven’t been paying any attention to (if they’ve even been reading) Kolbert.
Earth to New Yorker and Owen: It is not, by any means, Economy vs Environment, it is Economy and Environment if we have any hope of creating prosperity not just for future generations, but for ourselves in coming years. From the E2 Solution,
To be honest, one of the things that most frustrates me about Global Warming Skeptics, like those currently occupying the Oval Office and the Office of the Vice President, is their constant misleading of people on issues that are, quite literally, issues of life or death.
Well, it is here in the arena of win or lose that we see their misleading. When it comes to the interaction of economy, energy and environment, without batting an eyelid, they will look you in the face and tell you that you have a choice between these: the Environment with clean energy or the Economy powered by dirty energy. And, they will argue that somehow, Environment vs Economy are actually separable and in opposition to each other. That you can either have lights on at night and warm homes or a clean environment. That you can either have good jobs or polar bears far away from you in the Arctic. That you can either have a functioning economy or a functioning environment.
Let me tell you in no uncertain terms. It is not an “or” situation. It is “and”. We must have both the environment and the economy. There is no economy to care about without an environment that can sustain us and our children. And, there is no economy worth having if it devastates the world we live in and that might destroy the world of our children.
E2 … Environment and Economy. Economy and Environment.
The New Yorker‘s title and David Owen’s piece states an opposition that is a falsehood, perpetuated by too many for too long, that there is somehow a choice. They are wrong.
This Friday evening, the Aspen Institute and National Geographic are banding together to give out six awards as part of the Aspen Environment Forum.
A ceremony to recognize and reward excellence for those making a real and concrete contribution to innovation, implementation, and communication of energy and environmental solutions.
Amid the awardees are some heroes, but some are far from heroes. The “government” award: The Province of Alberta, Canada.
David Sandalow: Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs
Dan Kammen: Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (or, sign, maybe not … [UPDATE: Cathy Zoi appointed. A Mea Culpa and congrats.
Steven Koonin: Undersecretary for Science
Holdren … Chu … Lubchenco … Sandalow … Kammen (? … hopefully …) … Koonin … We’re talking a truly world-class team, which is not just a stark contrast to the previous eight years, but a team that might just be up to the challenges before us.
Thinking about the people moving into slots within the Administration for dealing with energy and climate issues is something to boost the optimist side of my optimistic-pessimist nature. [Read more →]
America’s traditional media outlets seem almost inherently incapable of connecting the dots between changing weather patterns, increasing common ‘extreme’ weather events, and Global Warming. Fires … droughts … floods …