by Moisha Blechman
On November 17, I had an epiphany: there’s little interest in the major media to solve global warming. On that day, The New York Times published a dedicated section, ENERGY, culminating a year without hard-hitting news on global warming.
Half the front page featured a photograph of oil rig laborers looking heroic as they work to extract oil. Behind the oil rig was a forested wilderness. Under the photo was a headline in bold red type: “There Will Be Fuel. “ The subhead read: “New Oil and Gas Sources Abound, but They Come with Costs.”
The “costs” were a mere listing. Once mentioned, they cleared the way for the good news: “The outlook …now appears to promise large supplies of oil and gas from multiple new sources for decades to come.”
The triumphant joy was palpable as the article went on to say: “Energy experts expect there will be plenty, perhaps even an abundance of oil and gas.” A rise in liquid fuel consumption was expected to increase from 92.6 million to 112 million barrels a day by 2030. There was no calculation of how much CO2 would be added to the atmosphere and the oceans, and there was no mention of the consequences.
Confidence in coal
Other headlines in the section included, “In the Heartland, Still Investing in Coal” and “Without a Clear National Policy on Emissions, New Plants Spring Up.” Judging by the photographs, those plants are huge. Clearly, investors have reason to believe that there is no chance they will shut down soon.
Another headline in the same section declared, “Some Exceptions to the Rule, but Pipelines Are Safer.”
Finally, on the last page, were two articles on solar installations, but in both cases the main thrust of the articles was about the environmental downsides of industrial-size solar installations.
We can imagine what a section on “Energy” could have been like. It could have been very informative on the many, many new technologies, about which the public knows little, for tapping the sun’s energy, for geothermal and for wave energy, and for innovative technologies reducing all kinds of energy waste. It could have explored the difference between corporate green-energy creation and smaller, individual energy solutions. It could have analyzed the financial and environmental implications of each to the consumer.
What upset me was that our national newspaper of record, The New York Times, had so dramatically turned its back on fossil fuel emissions reduction. In fact, the newspaper was saying, in effect: No need to worry—use all the fuel you want. There was no mention of the devastating consequences of oil and gas extraction to the environment. There was no mention of the precipice on which civilization is now poised due to the 40 percent increase of CO2 already in both the atmosphere and the oceans, and no mention of the utter folly of burning more.
Although there were two full-page ads, one from Exxon Mobil and one from Shell, it was not an advertising supplement. These were New York Times news stories.
Compounding this was a front-page article the very same day by David Leonhardt, “One Way toTrim the Deficit: Cultivate Growth.” Unfortunately, most “growth” is defined as the ability to buy more manufactured goods, all of which are created by the mining of natural resources. Growth today is fueled by burning gas, oil and coal and is responsible for every single item we buy. “Growth” does not imply either sustainability or economic equity.
It is shocking that the proposed economic solution, given front page prominence, was yet again a formula from the past which ignores the imperative of the present.
Pushing for growth
Since then, the magazine section of the Times has had a featured article on the Chinese as consumers by the same writer, Leonhardt. He exhorts the Chinese to become a consumer society like us. In the subhead, he says, “The stability and health of the world economy depends on it.” Apparently, he has not figured out that the economic system is manmade and can be changed by man. But the laws of nature are absolute and cannot be changed by man. Any thinker will quickly see that the two are in conflict. The Times knows better, but has chosen to push “growth.” Effectively, the Times is promoting the demise of life. This attitude is not unique to the Times. It is reflected in all the major media.
This is not only the policy of the media. President Obama said there will not be any climate change legislation this year, next year or the year after. He has failed to use his position to educate the public and to push Congress on either climate or clean energy action. Having made a decision not to lead the world at the climate summit in Copenhagen last year, Obama signaled that there will be nothing forthcoming from him nor the U.S. in the foreseeable future at any of the annual meetings of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In effect, the U.S. has succeeded in diluting the enthusiasm for creating protocols for CO2 emissions reductions at UN conferences to the point where nothing meaningful happened at Cancun this year, nor will happen next year at Durban, South Africa.
Silence on consequences
In fact, there is a silence on the consequences of consumption and “growth” by all the major media. For the last few years, I have noticed that the Science Times section has a virtual blackout on climate-related news. There is no ongoing explanation of global warming chemistry or the many ways in which the changing chemistry and habitat destruction are reflected in plant and animal behavior, even though fascinating evidence is reported every week in the science journals.
What we need to do, and do immediately, is obvious. The lack of intelligent climate policy cannot be due to either ignorance or stupidity. The New York Times has all the information on the consequences of past, present and future burning of fossil fuels. The same is true of the major news sources and the U.S. government. They know the climate crisis this planet is facing.
Yet, with no informed public discussion on alternatives, the U.S., with few limitations, is moving ahead with all possible fossil fuel extraction— whatever the ecological devastation. National policy appears to be assuring the public that there will be all the energy it wants in spite of the certainty of climate change and ocean acidification.
Profits drive policy
This could be a problem of corporate structure. Corporate profit is the driver of governmental policy, not ecosystem health. That fact is reflected in every aspect of energy exploration and production. One should not confuse corporate profits with economic health. Ecosystem decline is devastating to economies and will shut many of them down.
There is one bright spot, and curiously it comes from one of the most successful capitalists in the world, Bill Gates. It has been known for years that the world needs a zero carbon emissions target and that planetary catastrophe is inevitable without a zero carbon emergency response. Bill Gates gave a lecture during which he said that zero carbon emissions should be our only goal. At www.OnlyZeroCarbon.org you can hear Gates giving that speech and find excellent information to go with it.
This is a hopeful break in the dam of denial. Our own response should be to breach the dam in ourselves. We must push for a zero emissions target now.
Moisha Blechman, a member of the New York City Group, is chair of the Chapter’s Publications Committee.