A Question, But Not “The” Question
March 10th, 2008 by Peter SudermanOne of the biggest problems with the controversy over climate change is that so much of the journalism covering it does a pretty terrible job of explaining what’s actually going on. Over at The American Scene (where I’m also a contributor), Jim Manzi explains how the Post botched it today:
The premise of the story by Juliet Eilperin is well-expressed by its headline: “Carbon Output Must Near Zero To Avert Danger, New Studies Say”. Eilperin prominently quotes Carnegie Institution senior scientist Ken Caldeira, co-author of one of the studies promoted by the article, who says: “The question is, what if we don’t want the Earth to warm anymore?” Well, that’s a question, but it’s certainly not the question, and is not even a very good question. I think a much better question might be something like “What are the costs versus benefits of reducing emissions to avoid warming?”
The article never addresses this question, and instead elides between a battery of technical experts asserting that carbon emissions create problems, and interested political actors saying “common sense is that we would not let the planet be destroyed”.
What’s so funny is that Eilperin never seems to be willing do the work to pick up the trail of breadcrumbs that all her interviewees leave behind them.
Read the whole thing here.
March 10th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
“What are the costs versus benefits of reducing emissions to avoid warming?”
Well, I’m no global warming fan at all, but assuming that the “warming” is a huge problem, why would the cost to fix it be the highest question on the list of priorities on what to do about? I think you’re just trying to get in the back door here by saying that it’s going to cost too much to fix a “problem” that you don’t think exists in the first place. Whether global warming is real or not, it’s not good public policy to allow pollution from CO, CO2, Methane, etc. to continue…you wouldn’t want to breathe that stuff.