mainstream media

Most economists agree on the economics of climate change mitigation

If you read only one article this week -- nay, this month -- make it this one from the increasingly indispensable Eric Pooley: "Surprise -- Economists Agree! A consensus is emerging about the costs of containing climate change. So why is no one writing that?"

The point is that despite what you read in the media, there is in fact a fairly broad consensus among economists about the costs of climate change mitigation. Namely:

1. The costs of inaction are far higher than the costs of action, and
2. the costs of action are fairly modest -- between 0.5 and 1 percent of GDP by 2030, a far, far smaller impact than the current economic crisis is having.

This is why, in the words of economist Robert Stavins, "There is general consensus among economists and policy analysts that a market-based policy instrument targeting CO2 emissions ... should be a central element of any domestic climate policy."

Why is the media so bad at conveying this consensus? That's what Pooley investigated in more detail in his discussion paper [PDF], which Joe Romm covered here and which is also an absolute must-read. The reasons are basically twofold:

Poll: How likely is it that global warming will destroy human civilization within the next century?

I'd be interested in hearing your answer to this question in the comments.

How desperate is the conservative pollster Rasmussen to glom onto the climate issue and both trivialize and confuse the debate with hyperbole, unscientific polls, and inane, vaguely worded questions? Pretty damn desperate, to judge by their headline poll last Thursday:

23% Fear Global Warming Will End World -- Soon

Nearly one-out-of-four voters (23%) say it is at least somewhat likely that global warming will destroy human civilization within the next century. Five percent (5%) say it's very likely.

Uhh, what does this polling question mean anyway:

The NYT magazine doesn't understand renewables, efficiency, energy prices, or green jobs

Reporting on the economics of climate change in this country is terrible, as made clear in the searing new report by leading journalist Eric Pooley.

The NYT economics reporter, David Leonhardt, made a big splash last week with his big piece on the stimulus, "The Big Fix." But like many economics reporters, he is both poorly informed and thoroughly confused about clean energy -- and most every other aspect of energy, as his extended discussion of green jobs makes clear:

Sometimes a project can give an economy a lift and also lead to transformation, but sometimes the goals are at odds, at least in the short term. Nothing demonstrates this quandary quite so well as green jobs, which are often cited as the single best hope for driving the post-bubble economy. Obama himself makes this case. Consumer spending has been the economic engine of the past two decades, he has said. Alternative energy will supposedly be the engine of the future -- a way to save the planet, reduce the amount of money flowing to hostile oil-producing countries and revive the American economy, all at once. Put in these terms, green jobs sounds like a free lunch.

Green jobs can certainly provide stimulus. Obama's proposal includes subsidies for companies that make wind turbines, solar power and other alternative energy sources, and these subsidies will create some jobs. But the subsidies will not be nearly enough to eliminate the gap between the cost of dirty, carbon-based energy and clean energy. Dirty-energy sources -- oil, gas and coal -- are cheap. That's why we have become so dependent on them.

The only way to create huge numbers of clean-energy jobs would be to raise the cost of dirty-energy sources, as Obama's proposed cap-and-trade carbon-reduction program would do, to make them more expensive than clean energy. This is where the green-jobs dream gets complicated.

No, no, and no. Leonhardt would seem to be completely unaware of the fact that in 2008 U.S. wind energy grew by record 8,300 MW. It was responsible for 42 percent of all new U.S. electricity generation installed last year. In fact, two weeks ago, Fortune reported:

Getting the story straight in Chicago

In the last 20 minutes, I've read the following reports on the Caterpillar oil spill in Chicago:

"U.S. Coast Guard Petty Officer William Mitchell ... says it poses no risk to human health but endangers animals." (Detroit Free Press)

"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials say it appears no fish or animals were harmed by the spill. Officials say the oil could harm humans." (All Headline News)

"The EPA says there is no evidence the oil has harmed fish or birds and there is no danger for people." (Associated Press)

Well alright then.

Decent media is possible

Witness as AlJazeera English does a segment on carbon cap-and-trade that is about 4,587,209 times more intelligent and informative than anything you will ever see on a U.S. cable network:

Whose idiocy is worse?

Here's an exchange from Obama's interview on CBS the other night:

Couric: Sen. Mitch McConnell said over the weekend that surely you're privately embarrassed by some of the product that came out of the house version and let me just mention some of the spending in this package: $6.2 billion for home weatherization, $100 million for children to learn green construction, $50 million for port modernization water and wastewater infrastructure needs in Guam, $50 million for the NEA, the National Endowment for the Arts. Even if some of these are a legitimate use of taxpayer dollars, Mr. President, why are they included in this bill designed to jumpstart the economy and create jobs right now?

Obama: Lets take that example. I'm stunned that Mitch McConnell use this as an example.

Couric: We actually got these examples, so you can't necessarily blame him

Question: Which would be worse, that Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell thought those were hi-larious examples of non-job-creating uses of public money ... or that a major news organization like CBS thought so?

Discuss.

Obama's answer beneath the fold:

'Clean coal' non-debate produces fake rift among lefties!

Wow, this is one craptastic piece of journalism. It's about "the clean coal debate," but you can get all the way through it without stumbling across a single fact about the purported subject. Al Gore and environmentalists "portray" "clean coal" as a mirage. Is it? Are there clean coal power plants somewhere? The reader never knows.

Dumber than that is the whole frame of the article, which pits Al Gore against Barack Obama, despite the fact that they recommend identical approaches to "clean coal" -- research it, but don't rely on it, and don't build dirty coal plants while waiting for it.

The fact is, the average citizen trying to find out more about "clean coal" by consuming U.S. media is likely to emerge from that effort knowing and understanding less. Nice job, media.

Major media outlet officially over eco-trend

CNN -- or some overworked and over-it headline writer at CNN -- calls it: "Cisco Goes -- What Else? -- Green." Seriously, Cisco -- that's so 2008.

Are the Big Three just ghostwriting WaPo editorials now?

The Washington Post editorial board, drifting ever farther right, covers its Auto Alliance position on CAFE with a shiny, self-righteous veneer of Krauthammerian posturing on gas taxes.