SolveClimate is looking for writers, please click here to learn more.
WTF? NYTimes Mum on Energy & Climate in Campaign Picks
by David Sassoon - Jan 25th, 2008
in
Today the New York Times published its picks for the presidential primaries (Clinton & McCain) in two lengthy pieces that filled its editorial columns.
In the 1147 words devoted to discussing Hillary's merits and positions on the issues, the words "energy", "global warming" and "climate" did not appear in a single instance.
In the 737 words devoted to discussing McCain's merits and positions on the issues, "global warming" was mentioned twice -- both times in the context of discussing McCain's ability to take a stand in the face of his party's orthodoxy. The word "energy" did not appear in a single instance.
We -- and many others --have noted before how the media has egregiously ignored the issue of global warming in campaign coverage; and how pollsters similarly ignore the issue.
And now the New York Times, the newspaper of record, has committed the same inexcusable error of omission. Here's further evidence, from its commentary on Clinton and Obama:
On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two. They promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove.
It's at times like these that the abbreviated exclamations of the blogosphere -- WTF, OMFG, etc. -- are so useful and appropriate.
Just to be sure my eyes were not deceiving me, I pasted the text of the NYT editorials into Word documents and asked the software to search for the terms. Aside from the two exceptions noted above, Word repeatedly confirmed the bad news:
Word has finished searching the document. The search item was not found.
The nation deserves a pretty darn good explanation, as well as a corrective. I can't help being reminded at this moment of the newspaper's not insignificant role in abetting the administration's rush to a false war. Here again, the paper has betrayed the public trust by turning a blind eye to a matter of paramount global importance.
I would think that we should be evaluating the next president for his or her positions on energy and climate issues, which present unprecedented challenges to governance -- both domestically and internationally. These issues cannot be legislated away through the Warner-Lieberman bill or its successor incarnation alone. They will require a re-imagining of the silos of thinking that have trapped us into the global warming crisis in the first place.
The four corners of climate bill will prove too narrow to contain the issue. Consider that its primary provision relies on sending an economy-wide signal by putting a price on carbon -- during an imminent recession. How likely is it that this silver bullet will pass, or be sufficiently stringent, or work its magic unaided by other supportive policies?
Has it not become sufficiently obvious that climate and energy cut across and through just about every issue requiring legislative and executive attention? For example, the farm bill, the transportation bill, jobs programs, omnibus spending measures, economic stimulus packages, EPA waivers, etc?
As for the endorsements themselves, I applaud the paper most for the following assessment of candidate Giuliani:
The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man....Mr. Giuliani's arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking.
But that's like shooting fish in bathtub, playing the fiddle while the empire burns.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Post new comment