No, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack did NOT say global warming would be good for rural communities.

What he said was that taking action on global warming would be good for rural communities, as the rest of The Journal Record’s article makes clear:

He also called climate change an opportunity, because the first country to develop technologies to deal with widespread changes in the environment and move those innovations into the market will be recognized as a worldwide winner.

Vilsack knows that the climate change from unrestricted greenhouse gases emissions would be a disaster for farmers (see “A Stormy Forecast for U.S. Agriculture“).  Oklahoma would do worse than most, probably becoming a permanent dust bowl in the second half of the century.  Vilsack has testified that the economic benefits of climate bill for farmers ‘easily trump’ the costs.

The story isn’t bad, but the headline is dreadful — and that’s a problem because many people don’t ever get past the headline.  The headline could have been “Vilsack: Action on climate change could help rural economies” or “Vilsack:  Fighting climate change could help rural economies.”

The paper’s “About Us” section asserts:

Our mission: To be Oklahoma’s foremost influential and trusted information service.

Our commitment: To serve our audiences with quality products and timely, accurate information that helps them gain success.

Not quite there, folks.

Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) has taken over as chair of the Senate Agriculture committee from Tom Harkin (D-IA).  The NY Times (via Climate Wire) reports, “the new chairwoman said she does not expect her panel to hold a markup on any contributions to the climate bill.”

Nonetheless, since Obama is on a seeming down swing, the media herd have been stampeding to write the obituary for the clean air, clean water, clean energy jobs bill. Hence the excitement over any potential bad news, as in the Politico’s “Lincoln casts doubts on climate bill” or Newsweek’s, “Musical Chairs in the Senate Present Worries for Enviros“:

…. it will be in her political interest to hold up climate-change legislation until after the election. Environmentalists hoping the Senate will strengthen the House’s Waxman-Markey bill should start readjusting their expectations.

The latter comes from the too aptly named blog of Newsweek’s political reporters blog, “The Gaggle,” which they define as “a flock of reporters pecking at a politician.”

Note to Newsweek:

1. Why must you insist on framing this issue of paramount importance to all Americans, all humans in fact, as something only enviros care about?
2. I don’t think any enviros were hoping the Senate will strengthen the bill significantly (certain not ones likely to read The Gaggle).
3. Small point, but it looks like you got the entire story wrong.

The NYT via CW has a much more detailed and savvier analysis of Lincoln’s stance, which I’ll excerpt, since she is a major swing vote:

(more…)

How does the other side get their warped views?  Consider a Friday story from FoxNews titled, “Don’t Exhale: EPA Expected to Declare Carbon Dioxide a Dangerous Pollutant.  Here’s the opening:

Don’t exhale.

That advice may need heeding if the Environmental Protection Agency declares carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases dangerous pollutants, a move — expected in the next couple weeks — that would require the federal government to impose new rules limiting emissions.

But some skeptics say regulating carbon dioxide, a byproduct of burning fossil fuels, may be a difficult task, especially since people emit carbon dioxide with every breath.

And, no, sadly, this isn’t intended to be humorous story.  It’s just run-of-the-mill disinformation disguised as a “straight news” story.

Interestingly — or perhaps I should say typically — FoxNews doesn’t actually offer any “skeptics” who say regulating CO2 may be difficult because people exhale CO2.  It was apparently just the reporter’s own inane idea.

And speaking of inane, if you want to be simultaneously depressed and amused, read the comments on the article here.  The first one starts:

Really? I didn’t know that… What drivel. They talk to us like we are stupid.

And no, the “they” isn’t FoxNews.  Then there’s:

(more…)

I was quoted on the front page of the Washington Post today in a very questionable story, “Environmentalists Slow to Adjust in Climate Debate:  Opponents Seize Initiative as Senate Bill Nears,” by staff writer, “David A. Fahrenthold”:

“Progressives and clean-energy types . . . made a mistake and slacked off” after the House of Representatives passed its version of a climate-change bill in June, said Joseph Romm, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress who blogs on climate issues. “And the other side really kept making its case.”

Now, my poor choice of words “slacked off” aside — many of my friends have never worked harder in their lives — this story and Fahrenthold’s use of my quote is seriously flawed:

1. On the specific issue of the effort of “progressives and clean-energy types,” I was quite clear to Fahrenthold that I was talking about the period immediately after the House vote.  I explained that by the end of July, progressives and clean-energy types, had gotten their organizational act together (and that the other side is pushing disinformation).  Now this in retrospect turned out not to be the narrative Fahrenthold wanted to push.  But I think it is wrong for a reporter to interview a subject and then use one quote from the person that fits the reporter’s narrative when the reporter knows that the interviewee disagrees with that narrative.
2. The fact that Fahrenthold’s narrative and conclusion is, ultimately, wrong comes from his paper’s own polling — see Yet another major poll [by WashPost] finds “broad support” for clean energy and climate bill: “Support for the plan among independents has increased slightly.” It’s downright absurd for the Washington Post to argue in a piece today, Monday, that industry groups are winning the messaging war when on Friday they published the results of a survey that demonstrates the opposite.  Heck, that piece’s headline was “On Energy, Obama Finds Broad Support.”
3. When the political reporters treat this as just another political horse-race story, treating the industry falsehoods as equivalent to the accurate statements of climate action advocates, they play into the hands of the right-wing disinformers (see How the press bungles its coverage of climate economics — “The media’s decision to play the stenographer role helped opponents of climate action stifle progress”).  You’d never know from this story that the Post has actually done some very good reporting on the dire nature of the climate problem (see, for instance, this 2006 Juliet Eilperin story, “Debate on Climate Shifts to Issue of Irreparable Change:  Some Experts on Global Warming Foresee ‘Tipping Point’ When It Is Too Late to Act” or this 2008 story on the dangers to this country of our current do-nothing path).

Let me elaborate on the second point before coming back to the larger question of how the climate action advocates are doing.  Fahrenthold himself is forced to concede:
(more…)

What a pleasure it is to see a first-rate story on one of the major impacts of human-caused climate change in recent years, “Beetles, wildfire: Double threat in warming world.”  Even the photo caption is spot on:

As far as the eye can see, it’s all infested,” forester Rob Legare said, looking out over the thick woods of the Alsek River valley. The spruce bark beetle, 6 millimeters (.25 inch) long, has devastated the forests of southwest Yukon, aided by warmer summers that speed up its reproductive process and warmer winters that don’t kill off beetle larvae as in the past. Scientists warn that global warming will spur insect infestations and wildfires in the world’s northern forests.

We’ve had a number of bad national stories (from the supposedly liberal media!):

• NBC News ignores climate change, blows the bark beetle story
• Signs of global warming are everywhere, but if the New York Times can’t tell the story (twice!), how will the public hear it?

Whereas the local, conservative media got the story right:

• Conservative San Diego Union knows climate change is killing Western forests
• Oldest Utah newspaper: Bark-beetle driven wildfires are a vicious climate cycle.

Of course, the journal Nature understands the science, as a 2008 article made clear: “Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change.” So does the Canadian media: “Climate-Driven Pest Devours Canada’s Forests.”

Here’s what the AP reports:

(more…)

Environmentalists assert that the reports by the panel are watered down by a requirement that sponsoring governments approve its summaries line by line.

Some experts fret that the organization, charged with assessing fast-evolving science, has failed to keep pace with an explosion of climate research.

At the same time, scientists who question the likelihood of a calamitous disruption of the Earth’s climate accuse the panel of cherry-picking studies and playing down levels of uncertainty about the severity of global warming.

“It just feels like the I.P.C.C. has gone from being a broker of science to a gatekeeper,” said John R. Christy, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and a former panel author.

Ah, journalistic “balance,” how scientifically — and morally — inappropriate you have become.  And quoting Long Wrong Christy?  Say it ain’t so.

The above excerpt comes from the front page of today’s NYT’s “Science Times” section in a piece titled, “Nobel Halo Fades Fast for Climate Change Panel,” by our old friend Andy Revkin.  Now one can objectively accuse the IPCC of many things, but overestimating or overselling the threat of global warming is just not one of them.  Quite the reverse.

The world’s emission path this decade quickly soared higher than their worst case-scenario (see U.S. media largely ignores latest warning from climate scientists: “Recent observations confirm … the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised” — 1000 ppm).

The IPCC has focused on a wide range of emissions scenarios without clearly explaining to the public the unmitigated catastrophe that faces us on the business as usual path:

• M.I.T. joins climate realists, doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C
• Hadley Center: “Catastrophic” 5-7°C warming by 2100 on current emissions path

As Dr. Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice for the Met Office’s Hadley Centre explains on their website (here):

Contrast that with a world where no action is taken to curb global warming. Then, temperatures are likely to rise by 5.5 °C and could rise as high as 7 °C above pre-industrial values by the end of the century.

Instead of such clarity, the IPCC provides this sort of gobbledygook to the public and policymakers in its 2007 Fourth Assessment:

(more…)

We’ve heard plenty about the mainstream media’s complete inadequacy when it comes to covering climate change (see links here).

At least one organization, the Earth Journalism Network (EJN) — whose mission is to “establish networks of environmental journalists in countries where they don’t exist, and build their capacity where they do” — is doing its part to support a better-covered future through the Earth Journalism Awards.  This video above illustrates how serious EJN is.

With the EJN’s broad goal of translating “complex issues for local audiences,” budding and established environmental journalists aged 18-to-28 have until midday, Paris time on September 7^th to submit their best climate piece. Aimed at empowering young people across the world to make up for the world media’s many gaps and failings, the awards actively push for a stronger focus on climate issues in regions both devoid and oversaturated with media coverage.

(more…)

I was going to blog on this umpteenth attack on strong progressive women, but Matt Yglesias beat me to the punch here, so to speak.  The illustration actually comes from the Politico.  I’ll add my thoughts to Matt’s comments at the end:

I used to think that US Senate Barbara Boxer was an experienced legislator with a solid progressive record on the issues. But then I read this Politico article in which various anonymous people criticize her “abrasive personal style” and “outspoken partisan liberal” demeanor. Big trouble! And then I got to thinking, I recall having read similar critiques of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. And Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate and now as Secretary of State has been subjected to similar criticism. Nancy Pelosi, too.

You’ve really got to wonder what the deal is with the Democratic Party that every woman who comes forward into a position of power and influence is a shrill, castrating harridan. I mean, what are Democrats thinking? What poor judgment! Doesn’t everyone know that politics is a business in which the only people who get ahead are soft-spoken sweethearts like Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer? Somehow male politicians have managed to figure this out. What’s stopping the women?

Two excerpts from the Politico piece are particularly egregioius:

(more…)

The death of Walter Cronkite has inspired me to do a follow-up to “The clean energy revolution will not be televised as big media beat it and even Farrah’s death gets bigger play.”

I wonder how Cronkite would have covered the death of Michael Jackson.  Somehow I suspect he wouldn’t have waited until the end of the CBS Evening News to say, as Katie Couric did:

Michael Jackson’s sudden death and the mystery surrounding it captivated the world, or much of it, eclipsing other news. Jeff Glor now tells us some of the stories that happened in the last two weeks that are definitely worth noting.

That clip was actually used as an opening segment for an examination of the media’s coverage of Jackson’s death by PBS’s Newshour (video and transcript here).  This PBS story is noteworthy because of the remarks by Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center.

Jamieson launched into an extended critique of the media’s non-coverage of the climate bill, which is all the more remarkable because it reveals that, unlike the overwhelming majority of media pundits, she follows the issue closely — no doubt because she recognizes its seminal importance to the American public:

(more…)

UPDATE:   A must-read Salon piece:  “Celebrating Cronkite while ignoring what he did.”

I’d love to hear your remembrances of this great man.  Here is mine.

MSM:  RIP.

The last of the great journalists has died.  Walter Cronkite never let his popularity lead him to believe that he was bigger than the story or that he didn’t have to do the hard work of serious reporting.  A young Cronkite probably couldn’t even get a job with a major news network today.

But the purpose of this post is not to critique the MSM, but remember the man.  I met him once, a decade ago.   He was keynoting a conference I was speaking at.  I managed to introduce myself and shake his hand.  He is as classy, humble, and generous in person as he seems on TV.

Cronkite said that he had read the pre-conference material and very much liked something I had written.  I was too awestruck to respond intelligently, but it dawned on me a few minutes later that perhaps he would consider writing a jacket quote from my forthcoming book (see “Cool Companies, Part 1: How the best businesses boost profits and productivity by reducing greenhouse gas emissions” and “The United States of Waste“).

(more…)

[You can offer your thoughts on the debate between the Chamber of Commerce and Ceres here.  Yes, you would have to give them a lot of personal information -- one more benefit of CP!]

While other media outlets give short shrift to the transformational climate and energy bill, the same can’t be said of the Politico.  They have a whole special section today on “Energy Test: Cap and Trade” as well as a debate on Waxman-Markey in their Arena section.

Now I don’t agree with all of the Politico’s analysis.  The story “The energy bill’s ticking timebomb” fails to mention the real ticking timebomb of doing nothing — catastrophic climate impacts aka “ Hell and High Water.“  Also, this assertion is somewhere between misleading and false:

The acid rain program worked, in part, because the solutions were obvious: Use coal with less sulfur or install scrubbers in plants. After the law passed, a flurry of new scrubbing technology soon hit the market.

In fact, just like today, the utility industry back then said there were no obvious solutions and that the cost of addressing pollution would be exorbitant.  Like today, the industry underestimated the possibility of fuel switching — back then, from high-sulfur coal to low-sulfur coal, today from coal to natural gas and biomass (see “Game changer, Part 2: Why unconventional natural gas makes the 2020 Waxman-Markey target so damn easy and cheap to meet“).  And who can doubt that if Waxman-Markey passes, a flurry of new technology will hit the market (and a flurry of underutilized existing technology will accelerate into the market)?

The NY Times takes cash from ExxonMobil to publish its lies on the front page.  The Washington Post was on the verge of offering lobbyists off-the-record access to the “powerful few” for $250,000 (!) — until the Politico (and others) called them out.  But there still are a few media outlets that won’t sell their integrity for a few pieces of silver, as this Think Progress post explains.

Yesterday afternoon, Roanoke television station WDBJ-TV, announced they will be refusing to air a National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) ad attacking freshman Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA), citing factual inaccuracies. The NRCC had been planning to run television ads against Democratic members of Congress, like Perriello, who voted for the Waxman-Markey clean energy economy legislation that passed last week. After receiving information about the factual inaccuracies in the ad, the station pulled it from rotation.

For any objective observer, the the ad is pulled out of thin air. The ads erroneously state that the bill will “destroy jobs” and “cost middle-class families $1,800 a year.” According to a study by the Center for American Progress, clean energy economy legislation will create 1.7 million American jobs while simultaneously addressing climate change by capping carbon dioxide emissions. The $1,800 figure used by NRCC is also made of whole cloth. The Congressional Budget Office has scored the bill and found that by 2020, the annual cost would be about $175 per household — about a postage stamp a day. An EPA estimate of the bill found similar results, projecting the cost to be about $80 to $111 per a year.

Still refusing to accept reality, the Republican leadership is instructing its members to lie about the clean energy economy bill:

(more…)

The signs of global warming are everywhere.  Coming back from my Vail conference to Denver, the driver pointed out to me the shocking devastation the state is now experiencing from the pine beetle, devastation anyone who lives in the West can see.

The so-called paper of record ran its second major story in less than a year on the country’s most infamous climate-driven pest, “Beetles Add New Dynamic to Forest Fire Control Efforts” by Kirk Johnson.  And like the early piece, “Bark Beetles Kill Millions of Acres of Trees in West,” by Jim Robbins, it’s a great story, other than neglecting to mention climate change. It’d be like an article on an outbreak of avian flu that left out any discussion of birds.

So we have the national “liberal” media, like the NYT and NBC, blowing this story, while the local, conservative media get it right, see “Conservative San Diego Union knows climate change is killing Western forests” and “Oldest Utah newspaper: Bark-beetle driven wildfires are a vicious climate cycle.”

Of course, the journal Nature understands the science, as an April 2008 article made clear: “Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change.” So does the Canadian media: “Climate-Driven Pest Devours Canada’s Forests.”

No wonder the public is not terribly concerned about global warming and fails to understand that humans are changing the climate now. The only surprising thing is that the NYT itself is surprised that the public is underinformed (see “NYT’s Revkin seems shocked by media’s own failure to explain climate threat“).

This new piece made the crucial connection between the beetles and the record-breaking forest fires that the West have been experiencing — but missed the equally crucial connection to global warming.  On the one hand, that also isn’t surprising since three years ago, the NY Times blew the Wildfire Story.  On the other hand, had reporter Kirk Johnson bothered to spend even one minute on Google he would have uncovered the tragic feedback that would have made his story complete — global warming leads to more bark beetles, which kills more trees, which leads to more fires, which emit large amounts of carbon dioxide, which leads to more global warming!

The NYT did get the grim, superficial facts of the story right:

(more…)