Where else but the Washington Post editorial page — that bastion of un-fact-checked disinformation – would you find a misleading and misguided piece attacking federal efficiency standards written by a guy who “teaches environmental ethics”?!  Or is that “!?”

Now I can see a libertarian writing a misleading op-ed in defense of inefficient incandescent light bulbs — heck, they don’t much like government mandates for air bags.  But a true environmental ethicist would be shouting from the mountaintop — or at least from his blog — that we have grievously violated every principle of intergenerational ethics in creating this global Ponzi scheme, whereby current generations have figured out how to live off the wealth of future generations.  We have been stealing from our children and grandchildren an ever greater fraction of nonrenewable energy resources (especially hydrocarbons) and natural capital (fresh water, arable land, forests, fisheries), and, the most important nonrenewable natural capital of all — a livable climate.

But David Henderson (pictured above), who “teaches environmental ethics in the philosophy and religion department at Western Carolina University,” says government has no business creating environmental or efficiency standards for lightbulbs.  His muddled piece, “Let There Be (Incandescent) Light,” perpetuates one enormous myth — that somehow clean energy generation alone without energy efficiency can solve our energy and environmental problems — and a bunch of smaller ones.

On the one hand, Henderson acknowledges that the 2007 federal “minimum efficiency requirements for lighting” do not actually ban any technology (as the EU standards do) and that “there may very well be some improved incandescents on the market that will” meet the standard.  On the other hand, he keeps calling the minimum standard a “similar ban” to the EU asserting “this ban is still a bad idea.”

It’s not a ban.  As the NYT reported in a major article back in July, “Incandescent Bulbs Return to the Cutting Edge”:

(more…)

IT IS refreshing to see three energy companies — the nuclear power operator Exelon; Pacific Gas and Electric; and New Mexico’s largest electricity provider, PNM — quitting the US Chamber of Commerce over that organization’s increasingly shrill, doom-saying opposition to climate change legislation in Washington. The chamber claims that limits on greenhouse gas emissions by Congress or the Environmental Protection Agency would be “a job killer,’’ would “completely shut the country down,’’ or, even worse, “virtually destroy the United States.’’

So begins a great Boston Globe editorial, “Chamber of overstated horrors.”  These resignations really brought home the message of the Chamber’s extremism to the broader media in a tangible way (see Chamber of Horrors: The incredible, shrinking industry group falsely claims “We’ve never questioned the science behind global warming”).

The rest of editorial makes clear just how much the Chamber brought this on themselves with its Luddite call for “the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century” on global warming:

(more…)

The reason why big league journalists have to try much harder than they have been to get the climate story right is that when they get it wrong, it opens the door for the deniers to quote them and glom on to their (supposed) higher credibility, dragging the journalists down to their level in the process.

The latest media version of the children’s game Telephone is uber-denier George Will quoting Andy Revkin.  I and others thoroughly debunked the latest piece of misanalysis from the one-time paper of record — NYT’s Revkin pushes global cooling myth (again!) and repeats outright misinformation.  In particular, I showed that Revkin’s primary source, the UK’s Met Office found “the past 10 years has seen only a 0.07°C increase in global average temperature” — a 0.13°F increase — more than 10 times the rate of warming Revkin asserted in the original version of his piece and around which he based almost his entire argument that temperatures had plateaued.

In fact, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which I have argued is a better temperature record, finds a 0.19°C (0.34°F) warming over the past decade (see Deep Climate for details).  Indeed, the GISS data shows that the 2000s, easily the hottest decade in recorded history by far, warmed much faster than the 1990s (which had been the hottest decade in recorded history).

That is not a plateau — and it certainly isn’t cooling.  Temperatures are, if anything, accelerating — but not in a monotonic fashion.  The facts, however, have never gotten in the way of George Will and the fact-checkers fib-approvers of the Washington Post (see “Memo to Post: If George Will quotes a lie, it’s still a lie” and “The Post, abandoning any journalistic standards, lets George Will publish a third time global warming lies debunked on its own pages“), who published yet another mistake-riddled, disinformation-pushing piece, “Cooling Down the Cassandras,” which opens by quoting the erroneous NYT headline and lede:

(more…)

Questions of the Day:  Is this just a desperate attempt by The Washington Post to drive traffic to its website, by publishing outrageous crap designed to stir controversy?  Is it just a coincidence that Marcus Brauchli, the Post’s new executive editor (as of September 2008), had been the WSJ’s editor, and that Raju Narisetti, who was named a managing editor at the Post in January, had been a deputy managing editor at the WSJ?  You can ask the Post Ombudsman, Andy Alexander, for his answer by e-mail at ombudsman@washpost.com or by phone at 202-334-7582.

Fred Hiatt keeps delivering self-inflicted body blows to the dwindling reputation of the Washington Post editorial page — see Editorial page editor Hiatt just recycled a right-wing WSJ op-ed by Reagan’s chief economist Martin Feldstein. It’s déjà vu all over again today, but now with a Lomborg op-ed as the piece of recycled garbage.

Just last month, the right-wing Wall Street Journal editorial page ran a disinformation-filled piece from Lomborg (debunked here, “The Bjorn Irrelevancy: Duke dean disses Danish delayer“).  It had  lines like:

… agreements to reduce carbon emissions are costly, politically arduous and ultimately ineffective….

But his research demonstrates the futility of trying to use carbon cuts to keep temperature increases under 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit)….

Hiatt, who  is as zealously anti-environmental as he is pro-recycling, apparently feels that Lomborg’s lies aren’t getting a fair enough hearing in the media, so he runs a piece titled, “Costly Carbon Cuts” with lines like:

… many politicians are vowing to make carbon cuts designed to keep expected temperature rises under 3.6 degrees (2.0 Celsius). Yet it is nearly impossible for these promises to be fulfilled.

Now you’re probably saying to yourself, wait a minute, Joe, Hiatt’s version of Lomborg’s piece is completely different than the WSJ’s because he forced Lomborg to put temperature in Fahrenheit with Celsius in parentheses like a real American editor, not the reverse, like those world-government, Europhile types at the WSJ ed board.  But I digress.

Lomborg has done the denier two-step with Hiatt — going straight from denying the problem to saying it’s hopeless to even try to solve.  And I’m sure future generations, if no one else, will note that if we don’t keep total warming below 3.6 F or 2 C, it will be because of people like Lomborg and Hiatt who are devoting all of their efforts to convincing opinionmakers that it can’t and shouldn’t be done!!

(more…)

I have to admit — sometimes Joe Romm ruins my mornings. As the author of Climate Progress, one of the most influential global-warming blogs on the Internet, few debates on energy or the environment get past his ravenous attention, and he takes particular pleasure in targeting mainstream journalists who’ve written something he deems stupid. That’s been me occasionally — like the time Romm took me to task for referencing an analysis on energy research and development he found wanting. At least I’m in good company: writers from the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal have all been the subject of Romm posts.

I don’t know what’s more suprising.  That Time named me one of its “Heroes of the Environment 2009” — I certainly don’t see myself as a hero.  Or that they gave the assignment to Bryan Walsh, given my earlier critique of one of his pieces — and he still wrote such a generous profile, which continues:

(more…)

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…)