We spend a lot of time out here in the Blog-O-Sphere© bagging on the MSM©, so it's worth pointing out when they get something right. And you can't say enough good things about The New York Times' energy and environment coverage. Its Energy Challenge series is the best thing going on our energy conundrum, and a series of articles tagged "The Basics" allows reporters to do something rare in the MSM world: step back and simply describe a situation, with no need for a sexy news "hook."
The latest such piece is by Andy Revkin, and it gets to the heart of the global warming problem: it happens very slowly.
"Does it take a crisis to get people to go along a new path or can they respond to a series of rational, incremental gains in knowledge?" asked Ralph J. Cicerone, the president of the National Academy of Sciences, on Friday. "That's the question."
Yup, that's the question.
Comments
View as Flat
jjwfmme Posted 4:25 am
05 Feb 2007
This is not some rainbow coalition. This is not even Al Gore. Grantham is the chairman of Boston-based fund management company Grantham, Mayo, Van Otterloo....
[H]e calls corn-based ethanol "more or less a hoax" when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. "U.S. corn-based ethanol, as opposed to efficient, Brazilian sugar-based ethanol, is merely another U.S. farmer-protection program, made very expensive both directly and indirectly by inflating real agricultural prices."
Tell that to the presidential candidates currently stumping the Iowa caucus.
http://www.thestreet.com/funds/fundmorning/10336832.html
Permalink
jjwfmme Posted 4:27 am
05 Feb 2007
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:32 am
05 Feb 2007
www.grist.org
Permalink
jjwfmme Posted 4:49 am
05 Feb 2007
Hey, can I suggest a post headline: "Dick Cheney's Fund Manager Goes Dirty Hippie" ?
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 4:50 am
05 Feb 2007
For example, the media did a good job with Pres. Bush's biofuels proposal -- much more informed and balanced. They are running articles about the drawbacks of biofuels, instead of the gee-whiz reporting that was common earlier.
The mainstream media still has a ways to go, though.
Some local and regional newspapers are far ahead of the big dailies.
For example, the Daily Astorian and its sister newspapers in Oregon have given climate change a local slant in their magnificent series.
The Chicago Tribune did a wonderful set of stories on our addiction to oil. A documentary associated with the articles is online.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer ran an extensive series on energy and peak oil, which got recognition from the Columbia School of Journalism: Crude Awakening.
Probably the most shameful lapse by the big dailies has been the lack of coverage of peak oil. The NY Times, LA Times, and Washington Post, for example, have printed almost nothing about it. It doesn't matter whether one "believes" it or not - it is one of the most significant stories in our lifetime, and deserves analysis, coverage and debate.
One honorable exception is Warren Brown, automotive columnist for the Washington Post, who has been leading a one-man crusade in the MSM to get us to think about oil realistically.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Rob Smith Posted 11:24 am
27 Feb 2007
Public agrees global warming exists but also divided over severity of problem
Here's a link to the whole story:
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/february21/gwa ...
So-- it seems that urgency should be communicated wherever possible. One key site to do that is the Union of Concerned Scientists, who have an animation showing temperature changes based on current climate models. View how your state will change: http://www.ucsusa.org/greatlakes/glimpactmigrating.html
The United States is predicted to lose up to 35% of soil moisture with a doubling of carbon dioxide-- at the current rate of pollution this will happen by 2057. That translates into crop failures, dust storms-- similar to the weather in Australia today.
source: An Inconvenient Truth, by Al Gore, page 121
Permalink