Comments on: Reactions speak louder than Bush climate speech

By: Ken Levenson

Ken Levenson — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:08:43 +0000

Given my harshness toward The Times and the fact that they have an A1 article today, may I preemptively say: Yes, I’m very glad to see A1 coverage of climate change - obviously Earth Day can even shake the nonchalant editors to attention. No I don’t think we need to see it on A1 everyday. What kind of coverage from the NY Times would make even me happy?

Simple:

1. They should shift “the frame” of coverage from a crisis for the environment to a crisis for global humanity.
2. The Times should bring a sense of purpose similar to what the paper did post 9/11. After all, we are at war with nature now. Our civilization’s future is threatened now.
3. There should be several pages everyday, highlighted like “The War on Terror” or the “Iraq War” pages - in the International Section, called “Earth Climate Crisis” or some such thing.
4. There should be articles covering the science, the business, the politics, the personalities and on and on - everyday. There is more than enough happening to fill the pages - (but you wouldn’t know it unless it happens to be Earth Day).

To me, that would be a public service worthy of “The Trust”.

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:35:08 +0000

I have this line of thought I just can’t shake.
George W and his oil buddies are well aware of the validity of AGW, but actually think it is a good thing. Of course they can’t admit this to the public.
AGW will effectively remove all that pesky ice in the Arctic Ocean that currently hampers the drilling for oil and gas.
All that hidden oil wealth in the Arctic will solve all the economic problems of the US for years to come. Oil solves all problems don’t ya know…
All that other ice in Greenland and the Anarctic will take at least 100 years to show any “real” signs of melting and by that time “new tech” will replace oil and if all the refineries on the coasts are flooded, so what…
All the other problems associated with AGW are merely minor problems easily solved…”Adaptabilty” being the key.
Corporate mindset…..the end justifies the means.

By: Earl Killian

Earl Killian — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:13:46 +0000

Ken, I for one would not want the NYT to lower its journalistic standards to the level “similar to what the paper did post 9/11″ (e.g. its horrible WMD find of the week to justify the attack upon Iraq). The truth in the current climate crisis is bad enough; we don’t need to go inventing hobgoblins to make things appear even worse than they are.

By: Ken Levenson

Ken Levenson — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:35:32 +0000

Earl,

I agree whole heartedly regarding Iraq and that whole dynamic - luckily Judith Miller no longer works at The Times.

I don’t think they should lower standards - maybe raise them though. Sometimes it seems to me, they confuse indifference and objectivity.

(I think Jim Hansen has proven, thus far, that the line can be walked.)

By: John Liungman

John Liungman — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:43:02 +0000

Tom, I´m curious, has anyone seriously suggested a drilling ban in the arctic? Or even more radical: some kind of global reduction in oil and coal production? Do all solutions need to depend on reduced DEMAND? Would not regulating PRODUCTION automatically cap emissions? Just a thought at the end of a Swedish day.

By: Earl Killian

Earl Killian — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:41:09 +0000

John Liungman, Ken Levenson did an excellent post a short time back proposing a Coal Non-Proliferation Treaty. Give it a read.

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:32:58 +0000

John Liungman, I have suggested your approach repeatedly on this blog. I have also been ignored repeatedly. I just don’t think Joe et al get it. A couple of months ago there was a very good piece on The Oil Drum suggesting that the only real way to limit CO2 emissions was for the major coal producing countries to agree to limit and then progressively reduce production, coal being a far bigger potential problem than all the oil and gas combined.

The human race is doing what any species does when it can - increasing its draw on resources and growing its population within the limits of a temporarily inflated carrying capacity. If all we do is live more efficiently then our drive to increase carrying capacity (by mining fossil fuels at ever greater rates) will continue regardless. Not only will climate change continue to worsen but the hangover when fossil fuels inevitably deplete will be horrendous. Hard as it sounds, the world needs to take active steps to reduce the artificial and temporary increases in carrying capacity accruing from burning fossil fuel.

By: ronald

ronald — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:20:34 +0000

There is maybe something from this speech. does it have any influence at all from the denier crowd. anything?

By: John Liungman

John Liungman — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:54:21 +0000

Thanks, Earl! I´m obviously not keeping up to date with the vigorous rate of writing going on in this blog… A good piece though! Like others, I´m awaiting Joe´s response.

By: Jay Alt

Jay Alt — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:17:56 +0000

This editorial by Gail Collins in the NYTs provides clues to the president’s proposals -

The Fat Bush Theory -

http://www.climateark.org/ shared/ reader/ welcome.aspx?linkid=97320

By: Ken Levenson

Ken Levenson — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:33:00 +0000

Interesting little article just out, that I dare say, may confirm my suspicions over China’s reaction:

http://www.forbes.com/ afxnewslimited/ feeds/ afx/ 2008/ 04/ 24/ afx4927182.html

Not a major breakthrough but they seem ready to play ball. We can use all the little nudges we can get right now to just get the fight off the ground.