Is the New York Times enabling a debate that most rational people think is long over? The latest conservative pundit to be hired by the New York Times has progressives and environmentalists concerned. Bret Stephens, a Pulitzer Prize winning “opinion journalist” from the Wall Street Journal made his first splash onto the op-ed page of the Times recently with a controversial piece entitled Climate of Complete Certainty. In this editorial he asserts that climate science should continue to be debated, despite a preponderance of credible evidence sounding the alarm for immediate action. This week on Sea Change Radio, we speak with two PhDs with differing responses to Mr. Stephens’s perspective and place at the Grey Lady. First, we’re joined by Joe Romm, the founding editor of Climate Progress, who is critical of the new hire. Then, we hear from psychologist Pamela Paresky who thinks that his hiring by the NY Times could actually be a catalyst for productive dialogue that might ultimately bring conservatives over to recognizing the threat of climate change.
For the better part of the past decade, The New York Times and The Environmental Protection Agency have been frequent punching bags of the right wing. Conservatives allege that The Grey Lady has an open liberal bias and that the EPA is run by tree huggers who care more about owls than jobs. But this week on Sea Change Radio, we speak to Joe Romm of Climate Progress, who is angered by what he believes is a front page hit piece on the EPA by that bastion of liberal journalism, The New York Times. We delve into the details of the piece itself and explore the history of the conservative war against the EPA.
If you watched last weekend’s 60 Minutes piece on the so called “Cleantech Crash,” you might have taken a moment to check the channel and make sure you weren’t watching Fox News. The story focuses almost exclusively on failed companies that have received government support with no coverage of clean technology successes, no information on the success/failure ratio of other venture capital investments, and no mention of all the taxpayer money that goes to support traditional, polluting energy technology. Instead the venture is depicted as an unmitigated fiasco and an embarrassing folly on the part of President Obama.
This most recent episode of the popular CBS news show has been widely criticized as having a Fox News-y flavor. It’s not entirely surprising when you consider that the current president of CBS News, David Rhodes, spent about 15 years at Fox News. Host Alex Wise‘s guests today on Sea Change Radio are Joe Romm of Climate Progress and formerly of the US Dept. of Energy, and Katie Fehrenbacher a senior writer at GigaOM. Each of them wrote a response to the 60 Minutes show, and today they offer their takes on how the news giant got it wrong, from interviewing the wrong people, to providing no actual data, to pulling out that old, rusty lightning-rod, Solyndra.
How will our current climate policies and actions be viewed by future generations? Our first guest this week on Sea Change Radio is pretty sure our descendants will be, “stunned by our obliviousness.”
Host Alex Wise talks with Joe Romm, whose influential blog, Climate Progress, has been instrumental in shaping the climate debate in this country. After that, we hear from someone who’s working to leave less for future generations to lament. Wendell Simonson is the Marketing Director for Eco-Products, a relatively small manufacturer of compostable and biodegradable products that’s beginning to make a significant dent in a rapidly growing industry.
The Waxman-Markey Climate Bill is making its way through Congress, and stirring up controversy within the environmental movement between those who support it as a necessary first step, and those who think it’s fatally flawed. Sea Change Radio talks with both sides. Joe Romm, editor of the ClimateProgress.org blog and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, favors passing the Bill. Carroll Muffett of Greenpeace says the bill fails to address key issues in solving the climate crisis.
[amazon-product align=”right”]1877762067[/amazon-product]Today, Dada Maheshvarananda meditates on the alternative economic model of Progressive Utilization Theory, or PROUT. Joe Romm of Climate Progress analyzes the climate resolve of the Obama Administration. Lisa Woll of the Social Investment Forum proposes an Office for Innovation in Corporate Social Responsibility to the Obama Administration. And auto and environment expert Jim Motavalli comments on the significance of President Obama’s executive order directing the EPA to reconsider its refusal to grant California a waiver allowing it to regulate greenhouse gases from autos.
[amazon-product align=”right”]006117212X[/amazon-product]In his first week in office, President Obama seemed to hit the ground running on climate change policy and support for a greener economy. But some say that while his efforts are a good first step, they’ll have to be followed up with much stronger measures to really do the job. We caught up with Joe Romm of the blog Climate Progress for some perspective on Obama’s first week. In addition to giving an overview, Romm also talked about an important–and frightening–new study from the NOAA that underscores the urgency of Obama’s moves.
Joe Romm worked on environmental policy under the Clinton Administration and is the author of [amazon-product text=”HELL AND HIGH WATER: Global Warming, the Solution and the Politics” type=”text”]006117212X[/amazon-product]. His blog Climate Progess is a project of the Center for American Progress.