I usually like the stories of the Washington Post’s climate reporter Juliet Eilperin — but why isn’t her article today titled “Climate Is a Risky Issue for Both Parties”? — or even “Climate Is a Risky Issue for Republicans.” So much for the so-called liberal bias of the Post.
She focuses at length on the cost of the climate plans of Clinton, Obama and the other Dems, but hardly talks about the benefits at all — and never mentions the costs of inaction: catastrophic global warming.
She does quote Former House speaker Newt Gingrich who
said either party could face serious consequences if they mishandle the question of climate change. A Democrat running on “litigation and regulation” could alienate voters, he said in an interview. “You can just calculate the costs,” Gingrich said.
“Then, Republican candidates are on the opposite extreme,” he added. “A candidate who’s anti-environment and denies global warming gets killed in the suburbs.”
And she also writes:
“It’s a huge issue. I’ve been stunned by this,” said Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, who found in a May poll that energy independence and global warming were cited as America’s most important domestic challenge by 29 percent of respondents, second only to health care. “I think this is a top-tier voting issue that has crossover appeal,” Greenberg said.
So the piece has the wrong headline and the wrong emphasis and an incomplete argument, leaving readers with the idea that this is a politically riskier area than it in fact is.
I am not saying this is a can’t-lose issue from a political perspective, especially if handled wrong, but it definitely isn’t can’t-win, especially if handled right — as most of the Dems seem to be doing.
The Washington Post needs to do a better and fairer job covering the politics of this top-tier issue.
RSS
Subscribe by Email
Follow Climate Progress on Twitter
I had many of the same thoughts this morning while reading the article. Any comment on the study quoted about costs? Does it attempt to quantify the costs of inaction as well, like Stern?
The article says reducing greenhouse gases by 80% by 2050 is “favored” by scientists. Like its a flavor they prefer, not what the best analyses show is needed to have a chance of avoiding the worst effects.
They could also have included a note on the validity of Thompson’s quote (that is, the lack thereof), rather than letting it stand alone.
Thank you for responding to this article that seems to favor reporting on the Post’s reluctance to act on climate change over reporting on the democrat’s positions.
It is a risky issue because not everybody is convinced, including many scientists. And when people begin to see the price tag on the proposed solutions they are going to start screaming.
This article was very disquieting. The title outrageous and too much of the article truthiness. Now, the question I am wondering about is how much was the “author” and how much the editors?
Key to the problem is the truthiness that this is the Economy vs the Environment rather than the Economy AND the Environment.
For my take on this, see: Framing Climate Change politics — Truthiness reigns at the Post
Good post in ‘Framing Climate Change politics.’ The important part of any debate is to frame the question to your advantage.
Just like I am for taxing Carbon and it’s important to say, it is tax trade, increase carbon taxes, but decrease property, sales, income and social security taxes. I realize carbon taxing doesn’t have much traction, but that’s not because it’s not a good idea, but it doesn’t give much to people’s imagination to the good and mostly gives ideas to people’s bad imagination.
Albert, you asked about the study cited in the WP piece. I am not certain I have found the referenced report but the following link will take you to an excellent MIT study and that might be the one you are looking for.
http://web.mit.edu/ globalchange/ www/ MITJPSPGC_Rpt146.pdf
Assessment of U.S. Cap-and-Trade Proposals
Sergey Paltsev, John M. Reilly, Henry D. Jacoby, Angelo C. Gurgel,
Gilbert E. Metcalf, Andrei P. Sokolov and Jennifer F. Holak