Latest Articles

Media's 'decision to play the stenographer role helped opponents of climate action stifle progress'

One of the country's leading journalists has written a searing critique of the media's coverage of global warming, especially climate economics.

How Much Would You Pay to Save the Planet? The American Press and the Economics of Climate Change [PDF] is by Eric Pooley for Harvard's prestigious Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. Pooley has been managing editor of Fortune, national editor of Time, Time's chief political correspondent, and Time's White House correspondent, where he won the Gerald Ford Prize for Excellence in Reporting. Before that, he was a senior editor of New York magazine.

In short, Pooley has earned the right to be heard. Journalists and senior editors need to pay heed to Pooley's three tough conclusions abut how "damaging" the recent media of the climate debate has been:

1. The press misrepresented the economic debate over cap and trade. It failed to recognize the emerging consensus ... that cap and trade would have a marginal effect on economic growth and gave doomsday forecasts coequal status with nonpartisan ones ... The press allowed opponents of climate action to replicate the false debate over climate science in the realm of climate economics.
2. The press failed to perform the basic service of making climate policy and its economic impact understandable to the reader and allowed opponents of climate action to set the terms of the cost debate. The argument centered on the short-term costs of taking action -- i.e., higher electricity and gasoline prices -- and sometimes assumed that doing nothing about climate change carried no cost.
3. Editors failed to devote sufficient resources to the climate story. In general, global warming is still being shoved into the "environment" pigeonhole, along with the spotted owls and delta smelt, when it is clearly to society's detriment to think about the subject that way. It is time for editors to treat climate policy as a permanent, important beat: tracking a mobilization for the moral equivalent of war.

Precisely.

Pooley is one of the few major journalists in the country who understands that global warming is the story of the century -- if we don't reverse our emissions path soon, it will tragically be the story of the millennium, with irreversible impacts lasting for many, many centuries (see here).

In a conversation Saturday, Pooley told me, "I think this is the only story going forward." That's why, although he remains a contributor to Time magazine, he is devoting most of his time now to researching and writing a book on the politics and economics of climate change.

The first step for Pooley was an analysis of media coverage over the past 15 months. In a long introduction to the different roles reporters can play, Pooley notes:

More on Illinois' Clean Coal Portfolio Standard

Now that I've had time to review the legislation [PDF] that begat Illinois' Clean Coal Portfolio Standard, I offer a few tidbits.

Short version: We're not even going to pretend that coal is clean or cheap anymore. The bill actually defines "clean coal" as high-sulfur coal, and defines "cheap" as being that which doesn't raise electricity rates too fast.

Specifics:

A letter to Science ponders what $700 billion could do for the natural world

A letter to the editor from Jaboury Ghazoul, in the Jan. 23 issue of Science, tries to put into perspective the $700 billion bailout:

An estimated 10 million species populate the earth. To ward against extinction, we could equitably award $70,000 to each and every one of these 10 million species from our $700 billion cash injection. The intertidal bryozoans of Scotland's West Coast would alone receive more than $3 million. In Borneo, the 350 or so species of dipterocarp trees could form a union to demand existence rights, using their $25 million to lobby for viable landscape mosaics in which they could persist alongside competing land uses ...

Legislative proposals must be judged not only as policy, but also as politics

Consider the following two undertakings:

1. Policy analysis, of the sort think tankers, bloggers, and occasionally journalists do.
2. Passing legislation through Congress, the kind of thing lawmakers, Congressional staffers, lobby groups, and occasionally the public do.

The first is about policy abstracted from politics. The second is about policy immersed in politics. The first makes use of scientific findings, economic models, and conceptual analysis. The second, by and large, does not. Congresscritters are rarely persuaded to vote for (or against) particular bills on the basis of white papers. They are persuaded by retail politics -- arguments about how constituents/contributors in their states/districts will benefit/not from legislation. That's how they keep their skins. So it ever has been; so it ever shall be. Democracy is the worst system of government except the alternatives, etc.

This is not to say that No. 1 is useless, or irrelevant to No. 2. (God forbid, it's what I do with half my waking hours!) Good analysis can serve as a kind of guidepost or compass to show how close lawmakers are coming to the ideals of efficacy, fairness, etc. It can clarify choices.

Nonetheless, the two are often confused. Policy submits to policy analysis; people -- people developing, endorsing, lobbying for, and passing legislation -- submit to political analysis. Criticism of legislative proposals must perforce have two parts: how they fall short as policy, and how they fall short as politics, i.e., how stronger legislation is politically possible.

Making the latter case requires a decent sense of the political players involved. It has to show how lawmakers could be persuaded that their constituents' interests, and/or their own political careers, are at stake. It requires a decent sense of the political dynamic: competing priorities, competing lobbies, and the tools available to those pushing to strengthen bills.

Poll shows more Americans do not believe global warming is result of man-made activity

Amidst the chaos of the Inauguration events and Obama administration's transition, Rasmussen Reports conducted a global warming poll late last week. As I perused through the poll questions and responses I could barely believe what was reported: An increasing number of people do not think global warming is caused by human activity.

According to the poll, 44 percent of all people polled thought long-term planetary trends were the primary cause of global warming as opposed to the 41 percent of people who blamed human activity. In 2006, only 35 percent of people believed that global warming was caused by planetary trends. Overall, 41 percent of people polled stated global warming was a very serious problem, and 23 percent of people polled thought that it was a somewhat serious problem. Interesting though, according to Rasmussen Reports, 64 percent of Democrats think global warming is a serious problem while only 18 percent of Republicans believe the same.

Affiliations aside, this news is not only disheartening, but it is also downright disturbing.

Video of Obama's press conference on environmental directives

Here's the video of today's Obama press conference on energy and environmental executive orders:

Obama issues a flurry of environment-related orders

President Obama today signaled a stark departure from Bush-era environmental policies with the signing of executive orders aimed at kick-starting the manufacture of more efficient automobiles.

Obama ordered the EPA to reevaluate a request from California and 13 other states to set automobile emissions standards that are tougher than federal standards. He also directed the Department of Transportation to act swiftly to establish higher fuel-economy standards, starting with model year 2011.

The president called for significant investment in energy and efficiency measures in the economic stimulus package, and affirmed his desire for the United States to take charge on an international climate change treaty. He also pledged to require U.S. automakers to meet a 35-miles-per-gallon fuel-economy standard by 2020, as called for in the 2007 energy bill.

Today's executive orders are the "first steps on our journey toward energy independence," Obama said, and would reduce dependence on foreign oil by 2 million barrels a day. Dependence on foreign oil "bankrolls dictators, pays for nuclear proliferation, and fuels both sides of the war on terror," he said. This is "compounded by the long-term effects of climate change," he continued, which could result in violence, shrinking coast lines, and environmental catastrophes. "There is nothing new about these warnings. Presidents have been sounding these alarms for decades. Year after year, decade after decade, we've chosen delay over decisive action."

With regard to California's emissions policy, Obama said the EPA will "determine the best way forward," taking into account the challenges to the auto industry. The Bush administration and other opponents of California's request have argued that granting the waiver would create a patchwork of laws across the country that would make rules difficult to enforce. Though he voiced sympathy to that concern, Obama added that "we must help [the auto industry] thrive by building the efficient cars of tomorrow."

Underwriters Laboratories launches eco-branch

You've seen it on your toaster, probably, and on your hair dryer too: The little circle with "UL" inside. That means the good folks at Underwriters Laboratories have certified that the product meets health and safety regulations. And now UL is launching an arm called UL Environment that will verify green claims. This is the equivalent of, say, Julia Child offering to taste test your meatloaf: good news. Well, better news if she were still alive. But you see what I'm getting at.

On 'mitigating' coal damage

This NYT editorial on the mythiness of "clean coal" is most welcome, but the conclusion rubs me the wrong way:

But coal remains an inherently dirty fuel, and a huge contributor to not only ground-level pollution -- including acid rain and smog -- but also global warming. The sooner the country understands that, the closer it will be to mitigating the damage.

If coal is inherently dirty, why should we confine our ambitions to "mitigating the damage"? Why not try to stop using it?

You never see this when people talk about oil. When people rehearse the damage oil is doing to our atmosphere, our land, and our geopolitical posture, they do not finish by meekly calling on Americans to clean up the messes. They say we should reduce and eventually eliminate our use of oil.

Why is coal different?

I know, I know, it's domestic, but domestic poison still kills. It's got to be more than that, no?

Move would allow California and 13 other states to set tougher tailpipe standards

President Barack Obama on Monday will direct federal regulators to move quickly on a waiver request from California and 13 other states that want to set higher fuel-economy standards for vehicles, according to a New York Times report citing two administration sources.

The Bush administration denied California's request for a waiver in December 2007, despite evidence that the majority of the Environmental Protection Agency's scientists supported the petition. Bush's EPA head argued that it would result in an unenforceable patchwork of laws around the country.

Obama had promised to reverse the Bush decision during last year's campaign, and on Jan. 21, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols sent letters to the new administration asking them to follow through. In her confirmation hearing, new EPA administrator Lisa Jackson indicated that she would reconsider their request.

The New York Times also reports that Obama will direct the Department of Transportation to begin drafting new national automobile fuel-economy regulations in compliance with the December 2007 energy bill. He is also planning to call on federal agencies to begin making government buildings more energy efficient, according to the Times.

The Washington Post also has the story, reporting that White House officials "privately trumpeted [the emissions move] to supporters as 'the first environment and energy actions taken by the President, helping our country move toward greater energy independence.'"

While the Times says Obama's decision will result in quick approval for California emissions waiver, the Post's story has a more conditional tone, saying only that the president has ordered the EPA "to reexamine two policies that could force automakers to produce more fuel-efficient cars which yield fewer greenhouse gas emissions."

UPDATE: Senate Environment and Public Works Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) issued this statement Sunday night praising the move: "As Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I will be working with the new EPA Administrator to ensure that the California waiver moves forward as fast as possible. When the waiver is signed, it will be a signal to Detroit that a huge market awaits them if they do the right thing and produce the cleanest, most efficient vehicles possible."

UPDATE: And this from Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope: "This action deserves the loudest applause. President Obama is making good on campaign promises and sending yet another clear signal that global warming and a clean energy economy are top priorities for his administration. By beginning this process and directing EPA to review the Bush administration's lack of action, President Obama is turning the Federal Government into a force for positive change instead of a roadblock."