When I come across a terrible editorial like this (the one in WaPo, not your post!), I can't help but speculate how it came to be. Is Hiatt friends with this executive? Did the executive approach Hiatt for an interview, and Hiatt thought that was basis enough to trash Sanders on climate? Did they meet at some conference or gathering and hit it off because of their mutual hatred of meaningful climate policy? I can't think of any explanation that isn't extremely unsavory.
Excellent response. The saddest part of this to me is the "technology does not exist today" point of view. I never thought I'd see so many Americans ready to throw in the towel. We put people on the moon with stuff you can buy at a garage sale now, and all these people are like, "nope, sorry". Honestly, where's our fighting spirit!?!?!
The battery storage technology does exist today, it's just a matter of driving the cost down via economies of scale and incremental improvements, building the supporting supply chain infrastructure and having the will to implement it. Companies like Tesla have the will....
Your preaching to the choir. I work in building performance and my reasonably informed opinion is that the necessary technology does exist, we just need the will to connect the dots and make the investment. Thus, my disappointment.
Right! And removing fossil fuel subsidies would be an important first step in correcting the relative cost of those batteries. Isn’t it beyond believable that we’re still subsidizing the most dangerous industry ever to operate in human history?
Nobel Prize winner Svante Arrhenius predicted 124 years ago (pdf) that carbon dioxide would cause global warming. As part of the scientific race to explain the ice ages, the Swedish chemist’s unconventional thinking (he barely passed his PhD training) led him to conclude that doubling atmospheric CO2 levels would raise the Earth’s temperature by 5 to 6°C. He wasn’t far off. Today’s models suggest 2 to 3°C. But the discovery, greeted skeptically, at the time, touched off a serious inquiry into what effects humans might be having on the atmosphere.
I know, it's the most heavily subsidized industry on earth and has been going on since the early 1900's.... change is hard but geez, how stupid are these people. I've been saying for years climate deniers are too stupid to debate, too stupid to vote and too stupid to be free. Starting in 2020 I've added a forth... they're too stupid to be alive !
If you’re interested in the seeing blueprints for the renewable energy transition, check out Mark Jacobson’s plans at The Solutions Project dot org. Click on the “clean energy” tab and search U.S. cities and stares as well as over 140 countries! These blueprints reflect the *potential* for each region to produce 100% of electricity demand with wind, water, solar and geothermal power by 2050.
Another nail in the coffin for WP. Before I cancel my subscription (as I did my NYT subscription over Bret Stephens), how do you recommend I communicate my displeasure directly to them? I can of course tweet about it, but what is the best way to tell them my subscription is seriously at risk while I still have that leverage? E.g. which email address or phone number should I use? We need a resistbot for media outlets!!!!
This is tough, because I value the reporting the Post does. It's just this commentary page that pisses me off.
I would say, instead of abandoning the Post, which is overall a valuable thing, I'd try to use your membership and investment in it to push it to change. Send an email. Ask questions. Demand answers. Say you really want to keep your subscription because you value it so much, but this particular thing sucks. If they don't answer, send it again. Try another email.
And if they say something ridiculous as an excuse, send it to me. Honestly, I'd love to know how the Post and other big news outlets respond to readers who complain about this stuff. That's something I would write about for sure. Help me help you!
Oh, I'm not going to unsubscribe unless they make me! I will send the editor a letter and share their response with you. I encourage others to do this as well.
Well, that was part of my question, what is the best way to do this. There's an option to submit a letter to the editor (https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/opinions/letter-to-the-editor/). There's also a "reader representative" address, readers@washpost.com. And on the "contact us" page you can specify a "journalism" issue, and send feedback on a particular editorial. It doesn't include Hiatt specifically but you can just select general opinions section feedback. That's where I'll start.
My only concern is that you were too easy on him. <smiley>
I think you are absolutely right to call him (and other "moderates") out for enabling greenwashing: "geez, there seems to be some sort of problem with global warming" and then pearl-clutching when any halfway-serious proposal is in play.
This is what I wish I could do for every terrible op-ed that preaches a "sensible" (ie, ineffective) approach to climate change. Thank you!
One thing to add from a Canadian perspective. The Liberal Trudeau government went all in on the carbon tax plan, in part because of its previous cross-party support. Now, practically every conservative-led province in the country (including Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan) is fighting the plan in court on the basis that it will raise the cost of fossil fuels (well, duh). If the federal conservatives win the next election the carbon tax is dead as a dodo.
So, for the people like "good boy Fred" who think that the Republicans will play nice if only the Democrats compromise, just take a look at what is happening north of the border. There is no compromising with a party and ideology that essentially rejects science and facts.
Great article. That WaPo article made me want to cancel my subscription to them. I believe in supporting journalism, but certainly not if they're going to report on climate so irresponsibly. ..The Guardian instead, maybe? They did recently refuse all fossil fuel ads.
This is only tangentially related, but lately I'm feeling a lot of frustration with so much misinformation and climate-related idiocy floating around. The world is waking up, but now everyone has some (usually dumb) opinion on how to solve it. Everyone agrees that something must be done, but if things go the wrong way, those solutions will come from silicon valley technocrats, or billionaires, or Republicans, instead of the people. It's like "thanks for joining the party, but you're really late, and also still under-informed."
About a year+ ago, I made it my goal to educate myself about the climate crisis as much as possible- I read books, I listened to podcasts, I joined Sunrise Movement, I (obviously) read your newsletter. Without sounding arrogant, I feel more informed on it now than the average bear.
I'm sure if this frustrates me, it's 100x for you since you've covered climate so long.
Do you have any advice on how to deal with this?
It's so hard to be patient when people start talking about stuff like cap and trade/carbon taxes, or JUST planting trees, or re-joining the Paris Agreement (I mean.. that's kinda the bare minimum), that don't meet the scale of the problem.
Hey Kate! I would honestly take what you're feeling as a positive sign. Because even though it feels like there is more climate misinformation and idiocy going on now than ever before, that's not what happening. What's happening is that people are noticing climate misinformation and idiocy more, and calling it out more, and are getting really pissed off about it more. That's why it floods your timeline so much now and that's why it feels like it's taking over.
Of course I get frustrated that not everyone seems to "get it" yet. That's why you see newsletters like these, which really come from a place of pure rage. But I'm not frustrated that *everyone* doesn't "get it." I'm frustrated that *very intelligent people with a lot of power over discourse* don't get it, because they are the ones who influence other people. Honestly, I'm not frustrated with the average person for not understanding the complexities of climate change, because they've been fed a lot of bullshit. So I try to be patient with them, and save my rage (albeit tempered rage--you should see the first draft of this, lol) for the elite intelligentsia.
The reason they say ignorance is bliss is because knowledge can be painful. So take your frustration as a positive sign. What you're feeling just means you understand. Try to channel that feeling into a desire to spread more information. The more people learn; the more they get frustrated; the more they won't accept bullshit anymore; the less alone you'll feel. This community is proof of that.
Really good. I definitely agree if you are able to make this one public, this is so good. I also think the CLC should be held a bit more accountable to the fact that they don't actually have a bill, but just a few paragraphs of concept language.
As someone that volunteers for Citizens' Climate Lobby, where we do have a carbon fee and dividend bill in the house, with 80 co-sponsors on it, it's often a little frustrating that they are getting the megaphone. I would also agree that at this late hour, this by itself is not enough. But it would go a huge way, could go into effect very quickly after passage (not have to deal with years of rulemaking and litigation from oil state AGs) and help accelerate every other action we need to do to address the crisis.
Ok y’all, I took the paywall down if you’d like to share the piece!
Hope that turns out to be a good PR move too! We need more people thinking about what you said! Good on you!
This article is the strongest case yet for independent climate journalism. Thanks for holding the Post accountable.
Very kind to say. Thank you.
I love your rapid response - you are right on target with what I want to read, when I want to read it.
When I come across a terrible editorial like this (the one in WaPo, not your post!), I can't help but speculate how it came to be. Is Hiatt friends with this executive? Did the executive approach Hiatt for an interview, and Hiatt thought that was basis enough to trash Sanders on climate? Did they meet at some conference or gathering and hit it off because of their mutual hatred of meaningful climate policy? I can't think of any explanation that isn't extremely unsavory.
I've never seen the entire debate around the issue summarized so succinctly. Incredible.
Folks, do respond to Fred Hiatt's Tweet about his article: https://twitter.com/hiattf/status/1231915759166795777
Or, what the heck, write and tell him what you think of it: fred.hiatt@washingtonpost.com.
Excellent response. The saddest part of this to me is the "technology does not exist today" point of view. I never thought I'd see so many Americans ready to throw in the towel. We put people on the moon with stuff you can buy at a garage sale now, and all these people are like, "nope, sorry". Honestly, where's our fighting spirit!?!?!
The battery storage technology does exist today, it's just a matter of driving the cost down via economies of scale and incremental improvements, building the supporting supply chain infrastructure and having the will to implement it. Companies like Tesla have the will....
https://www.tesla.com/blog/introducing-megapack-utility-scale-energy-storage
Your preaching to the choir. I work in building performance and my reasonably informed opinion is that the necessary technology does exist, we just need the will to connect the dots and make the investment. Thus, my disappointment.
Right! And removing fossil fuel subsidies would be an important first step in correcting the relative cost of those batteries. Isn’t it beyond believable that we’re still subsidizing the most dangerous industry ever to operate in human history?
And the alarm was being sounded then too...
Nobel Prize winner Svante Arrhenius predicted 124 years ago (pdf) that carbon dioxide would cause global warming. As part of the scientific race to explain the ice ages, the Swedish chemist’s unconventional thinking (he barely passed his PhD training) led him to conclude that doubling atmospheric CO2 levels would raise the Earth’s temperature by 5 to 6°C. He wasn’t far off. Today’s models suggest 2 to 3°C. But the discovery, greeted skeptically, at the time, touched off a serious inquiry into what effects humans might be having on the atmosphere.
https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Screenshot-2020-02-23-22.05.35.png?w=1280
I know, it's the most heavily subsidized industry on earth and has been going on since the early 1900's.... change is hard but geez, how stupid are these people. I've been saying for years climate deniers are too stupid to debate, too stupid to vote and too stupid to be free. Starting in 2020 I've added a forth... they're too stupid to be alive !
Hi ANDY -
If you’re interested in the seeing blueprints for the renewable energy transition, check out Mark Jacobson’s plans at The Solutions Project dot org. Click on the “clean energy” tab and search U.S. cities and stares as well as over 140 countries! These blueprints reflect the *potential* for each region to produce 100% of electricity demand with wind, water, solar and geothermal power by 2050.
Got it , thanks Stacy...
https://thesolutionsproject.org/why-clean-energy/
Emily: Today’s column is too good and too important not to be set free into the world.
To paraphrase Sting: If you love somebody, set it free.
I took the paywall down if you’d like to share it!
yeah I was thinking the same thing, this was one to unpaywall
Another nail in the coffin for WP. Before I cancel my subscription (as I did my NYT subscription over Bret Stephens), how do you recommend I communicate my displeasure directly to them? I can of course tweet about it, but what is the best way to tell them my subscription is seriously at risk while I still have that leverage? E.g. which email address or phone number should I use? We need a resistbot for media outlets!!!!
This is tough, because I value the reporting the Post does. It's just this commentary page that pisses me off.
I would say, instead of abandoning the Post, which is overall a valuable thing, I'd try to use your membership and investment in it to push it to change. Send an email. Ask questions. Demand answers. Say you really want to keep your subscription because you value it so much, but this particular thing sucks. If they don't answer, send it again. Try another email.
And if they say something ridiculous as an excuse, send it to me. Honestly, I'd love to know how the Post and other big news outlets respond to readers who complain about this stuff. That's something I would write about for sure. Help me help you!
Oh, I'm not going to unsubscribe unless they make me! I will send the editor a letter and share their response with you. I encourage others to do this as well.
Do you have the editor's email, by chance? I'm going to send a complaint as well.
Well, that was part of my question, what is the best way to do this. There's an option to submit a letter to the editor (https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/opinions/letter-to-the-editor/). There's also a "reader representative" address, readers@washpost.com. And on the "contact us" page you can specify a "journalism" issue, and send feedback on a particular editorial. It doesn't include Hiatt specifically but you can just select general opinions section feedback. That's where I'll start.
And Fred Hiatt's email address is fred.hiatt@washingtonpost.com
Gurrrrrlllll, I hope you put your glasses on cause the library was open! Fred, you done been read.
Lmao
My only concern is that you were too easy on him. <smiley>
I think you are absolutely right to call him (and other "moderates") out for enabling greenwashing: "geez, there seems to be some sort of problem with global warming" and then pearl-clutching when any halfway-serious proposal is in play.
Go team.
This is what I wish I could do for every terrible op-ed that preaches a "sensible" (ie, ineffective) approach to climate change. Thank you!
One thing to add from a Canadian perspective. The Liberal Trudeau government went all in on the carbon tax plan, in part because of its previous cross-party support. Now, practically every conservative-led province in the country (including Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan) is fighting the plan in court on the basis that it will raise the cost of fossil fuels (well, duh). If the federal conservatives win the next election the carbon tax is dead as a dodo.
So, for the people like "good boy Fred" who think that the Republicans will play nice if only the Democrats compromise, just take a look at what is happening north of the border. There is no compromising with a party and ideology that essentially rejects science and facts.
Great article. That WaPo article made me want to cancel my subscription to them. I believe in supporting journalism, but certainly not if they're going to report on climate so irresponsibly. ..The Guardian instead, maybe? They did recently refuse all fossil fuel ads.
This is only tangentially related, but lately I'm feeling a lot of frustration with so much misinformation and climate-related idiocy floating around. The world is waking up, but now everyone has some (usually dumb) opinion on how to solve it. Everyone agrees that something must be done, but if things go the wrong way, those solutions will come from silicon valley technocrats, or billionaires, or Republicans, instead of the people. It's like "thanks for joining the party, but you're really late, and also still under-informed."
About a year+ ago, I made it my goal to educate myself about the climate crisis as much as possible- I read books, I listened to podcasts, I joined Sunrise Movement, I (obviously) read your newsletter. Without sounding arrogant, I feel more informed on it now than the average bear.
I'm sure if this frustrates me, it's 100x for you since you've covered climate so long.
Do you have any advice on how to deal with this?
It's so hard to be patient when people start talking about stuff like cap and trade/carbon taxes, or JUST planting trees, or re-joining the Paris Agreement (I mean.. that's kinda the bare minimum), that don't meet the scale of the problem.
Hey Kate! I would honestly take what you're feeling as a positive sign. Because even though it feels like there is more climate misinformation and idiocy going on now than ever before, that's not what happening. What's happening is that people are noticing climate misinformation and idiocy more, and calling it out more, and are getting really pissed off about it more. That's why it floods your timeline so much now and that's why it feels like it's taking over.
Of course I get frustrated that not everyone seems to "get it" yet. That's why you see newsletters like these, which really come from a place of pure rage. But I'm not frustrated that *everyone* doesn't "get it." I'm frustrated that *very intelligent people with a lot of power over discourse* don't get it, because they are the ones who influence other people. Honestly, I'm not frustrated with the average person for not understanding the complexities of climate change, because they've been fed a lot of bullshit. So I try to be patient with them, and save my rage (albeit tempered rage--you should see the first draft of this, lol) for the elite intelligentsia.
The reason they say ignorance is bliss is because knowledge can be painful. So take your frustration as a positive sign. What you're feeling just means you understand. Try to channel that feeling into a desire to spread more information. The more people learn; the more they get frustrated; the more they won't accept bullshit anymore; the less alone you'll feel. This community is proof of that.
Just shared this as a reply to Fred’s tweet
This is a fantastic post. Thanks for taking the paywall down, I’m going to share it now!
Really good. I definitely agree if you are able to make this one public, this is so good. I also think the CLC should be held a bit more accountable to the fact that they don't actually have a bill, but just a few paragraphs of concept language.
As someone that volunteers for Citizens' Climate Lobby, where we do have a carbon fee and dividend bill in the house, with 80 co-sponsors on it, it's often a little frustrating that they are getting the megaphone. I would also agree that at this late hour, this by itself is not enough. But it would go a huge way, could go into effect very quickly after passage (not have to deal with years of rulemaking and litigation from oil state AGs) and help accelerate every other action we need to do to address the crisis.