On pizza, anger, and that Washington Post article
People who care about climate change have good reason to be angry with the media. But the Post's article on heat adaptation is not a good reason.
There was a public hearing for it last week—and guess what? Only nine New Yorkers spoke. Three represented environmental and public health organizations; two worked at pizzerias; one was a woman with lung cancer; and two were conservative reporters who did not appear to understand the purpose of public hearings. Nobody who supported the rule talked about fighting climate change (probably because it is not, in fact, a climate change rule). And nobody who opposed the rule talked about the quality or quantity of pizza being threatened.
Aside from the weird reporter interjections (more on that later), the hearing was a typical regulatory debate. The non-profit folks said the rule would improve air quality and public health while the industry folks said it was a costly mandate. The whole thing lasted forty-five minutes, which in public hearing time is essentially the speed of light.