9 Responses to “Snarky Info Deficit Watch”

1. Ken Green says:

   August 15, 2011 at 10:59 pm

   Keith – I think we’re starting to see the main stream media turn away from climate change coverage, as the left-leaning political world has largely walked away from the same language. They’re not talking about climate change any more, they’re talking about clean energy, clean development, etc.

   This is something I am thinking of blogging about, but haven’t figured out the right place to do it where it would lead to a decent discussion.

   I think that in placing their faith in the United Nations, the environmental movement gave itself what might have been a lethal blow. By tying concern for the environment to the same old UN agenda of wealth redistribution, and the UN’s historically corrupt culture, the tarnishing of climate change as well as other environmental issues was made inevitable. One can care about the environmentalist without being a socialist. One can care about it without buying into the idea that a one-world organization of rank corruption and petty tyranny is the logical agency to run the entire world’s energy economy.

   But the mainstream environmental movement let itself be hijacked by a hard left political movement with core values that really trumped the environmental. We see that reality time after time when an environmental program turns out to be only about creating a new revenue stream for activists, even if it actually harms the environment (See also, ethanol!)

   Anyway, I guess I’ve blogged about it now. 🙂

   Ken

    

2. Gaythia says:

   August 16, 2011 at 8:29 am

   I think that you need to define what you mean by the “media” and what you mean by coverage.
   I think that here, for policy and public education purposes, the focus needs to be on what the public is likely to see, possibly read and absorb, and what understanding they are like to gain from that.
   So in recent weeks,   in for example the Denver Post not all of the articles in your Knight Science Journalism tracker list are included.  So,  it is nice that the Sunday Morning Herald down in Australia ran a lengthy article headlined: Humans to blame for half of Arctic sea ice.  But hardly relevant here.
   Searching on “climate change” in the Denver Post only brings up one article, headlined: ” NCAR: Polar Ice Could Stabilize”.  While it is clear from the article that the scientists involved do support climate change, the focus on the article is on how “surprised” they are.  There is plenty here that a denier could cherry pick.  And also false impressions that a  newspaper skimmer could absorb.  And not much education about climate change going on.  Since the scientists see that as a given, it is asserted rather than explained.

3. Marlowe Johnson says:

   August 16, 2011 at 10:14 am

   Well Ken if blanket condemnations of the media are Keith’s bete noir, then this idea that environmentalists are to blame for ethanol are mine. As I’ve said before, the ‘blame’ for ethanol lies with the founding fathers, Cargill, ADM, and the inventors of aspartame and oxygen sensors.  Klepto-marxist greenies are pretty far down the list…

   “I think that in placing their faith in the United Nations, the environmental movement gave itself what might have been a lethal blow. By tying concern for the environment to the same old UN agenda of wealth redistribution, and the UN’s historically corrupt culture, the tarnishing of climate change as well as other environmental issues was made inevitable. ”

   Maybe they should have put their faith in those intellectually honest, virtuous right-wing think tanks eh?

    

4. grypo says:

   August 16, 2011 at 11:48 am

   “By tying concern for the environment to the same old UN agenda of wealth redistribution, and the UN’s historically corrupt culture, the tarnishing of climate change as well as other environmental issues was made inevitable.”

   Do you mean high carbon countries paying back the low carbon countries for the climate problem they didn’t cause but now have to deal with?  Yeah, it’s all about the narrative.  The thing is that those 40-50 poor countries are now tight and I doubt they’ll play the victim anymore.  They know they are owed and they know they have the ethics and the science behind them.   Give the political talking points a rest.  We can see through that here.

5. Ken Green says:

   August 16, 2011 at 6:28 pm

   Marlowe – Not all the blame for fuel-ethanol goes to the environmentalists, but I think they get a major share: it was environmental agencies that first pushed for fuel oxygenates, and set the standards so tightly that the only two market-ready additives were MTBE and ethanol. When MTBE was shown to be such a horrid choice, the ethanol lobby pushed in, and took over the niche. From there, they’ve expanded into the ethanol-fuel market steadily. And in the earlier days, environmentalists went along with the corn-lobby propaganda that corn-ethanol was a carbon-neutral fuel that was superior to a fossil fuel. They were also happy to parrot claims that cellulosic ethanol was right around the corner, and to crow that even venture capitalists like Vinod Khosla was investing in it. Environmentalists have backed away from fuel-ethanol, but it was many days late, and many dollars short.

   Grypo – As I’ve written elsewhere, the whole “who went first” argument on carbon emissions is utterly lame. Yes, the developed countries went first, but did it with a smaller population, and free-market economies that were highly efficient. The developing countries retained government forms that led to rampant population growth, and are only now taking them through development. Looked at over 300 years, the contribution of the developed world to global GHG levels will be considerably less than that of the developing.

   Oh, and while we were using “more than our fair share” of fossil fuels, we were also forestalling global fascism, and developing “more than our fair share” of the technologies that is enabling the developing world to avoid massive amounts of environmental despoilation, disease, and death. Would your “tight poor countries” give us back all of our patented technologies, medicines, and other inventions of the last 70 years if we retracted our GHG emissions, and undid our efforts in WWII? I rather doubt it.
    

6. grypo says:

   August 16, 2011 at 7:08 pm

   Ken Green

   I don’t think anything you are saying is accurate.  What 300 years?  And are you telling me that coal burning in England and the US was ever efficient for CO2, and that this had something to do with free markets?  Should we begin to examine per capita carbon contribution to the present accumulation of carbon by country?  We can start with UK v Maldives.

   And the 40-50 developing countries that are getting “redistribution of wealth” are NOT China and India. So I really don’t know what you are describing.  Is it not a free market solution to repay countries that have to deal with climate change when they have not contributed to it?  Is justice no longer part of the free market now? 

7. grypo says:

   August 16, 2011 at 7:22 pm

   “forestalling global fascism, and developing “more than our fair share” of the technologies that is enabling the developing world to avoid massive amounts of environmental despoilation, disease, and death. ”

   Hoo rah.  So ‘global fascists’ didn’t get results from CO2 burning too?  Germany did their fair share of burning.  But you know this, so I can only assume you are attempting to make this a ‘horay-for-america-and-free-markets’.  While that’s a perfectly fine stance to take, it has nothing to do with CO2 budgets, or why non-emitting countries are due repayment for harm by others.  That’s the issue that YOU brought up by making the UN’s stance of “wealth distribution” a negative.  But you can keep that stance too, and we can take our cases to the public.  I have no problem there.  Let’s just be honest.

8. Tom Fuller says:

   August 16, 2011 at 7:30 pm

   Why don’t we just say it is both in our interests and part of our ethical responsibilities as humans on a small planet to offer any help we can to developing countries–that way we can let future historians assign blame and credit to their hearts’ delight.

9. Marlowe Johnson says:

   August 17, 2011 at 9:38 am

   Ken a couple questions.  First, can you clarify who these ‘environmentalists’ are that do all these things?  I seem to recall that you consider yourself an ‘environmentalist’. I’m hoping that Keith will chime in here and condemn your broadbrush characterizations as he is wont to do on other issues…

   Second what would the ‘right’ level have been for a federal oxygenate requirement?  I think this is an area where you and I probably agree but I’m wondering what you think the ‘right’ policy would look like (e.g. restrict it to CO non-attainment areas, phaseout based on oxy-sensor penetration rates).