Oct 26, 2022Liked by Emily Atkin

I AM RIGHT THERE WITH YOU!! Your righteous anger is so appreciated. I can't even imagine what is like to be you...toiling away in this work, encountering all the double speak, stonewalling, greed, lack of compassion, condescension, arrogance and all the rest...as the clock on our chance to address the most pressing issue humanity has faced ticks away.

I honor you deeply.


Expand full comment
Oct 26, 2022Liked by Emily Atkin

This got me to immediately rejoin as a paid subscriber so nice work on that being effective, Emily!

That said, this seems like a prime example of climate disinformation with no accountability that I'm going to bring to the Terra.do community - this is absolutely horrific in a non-ending line of more and more horrific activity and news.

Let's get to tipping points with actual solutions...

Expand full comment

OMG. Not only is it Chevron, but they are trumpeting getting methane from cows as an "unexpected place?" Pretending they cleverly stumbled on to something new and different in their ardent search for answers to the problem they've created? ? This has been around for decades and California has been funding these projects at large scale since at least 2015 through its Dairy Digester Research and Development Program (DDRDP) https://www.dairycares.com/_files/ugd/e8c369_b9a501c4209046f98cdc169a96e6b2b0.pdf

Expand full comment

Hi Emily - I live 45 minutes from White Sands. Wish I knew you were visiting - I would have run over with a picnic lunch, invited you to sit atop a sand dune, and engaged you in a discussion of why some (oil) folks just can't/won't recognize the destruction they are causing. I did read a couple days ago about a major oil company (Chevron?) working with a wind turbine company to construct floating platforms 20 miles out in the Pacific Ocean. That's the first real positive (and large investment) role I've heard about that oil companies could switch to. Maybe if we all came up with renewable strategies oil and gas could sink their teeth into, we could get them to budge. Am I wrong, but isn't that what Blackrock is doing? Enjoyed the White Sands photo. Wendy (an ardent supporter)

Expand full comment

They could have just adopted "Fair And Balanced" and have done with it, but copyright issues would likely have intruded. Another wet "journalistic" skyrocket.

Expand full comment

Good work. Journalism 101: don’t take money from the people you allegedly ‘cover’. If you do?You are paid public relations for that company, or a paid publicist.

Expand full comment

You should be pissed. In my mind, the real question is not "Why are you so angry?" but "Why aren't more people as fed up?" To that effect, I wonder how bad things have to get for more comprehensive action to be taken to address the climate crisis.

Expand full comment

Thank you for covering this Semafor-Chervon sponsorship, it's another example of my confusion, bleeding into hatred, of mainstream journalism. I don’t understand why these outlets don’t get why the fossil fuel sponsorships are unconscionable, regardless of a lack of intrusion on journalists or editorial integrity, if that’s even true. Like you mentioned, that is completely beside the point, there is only one reason a company decides to advertise, and that is to spread a favorable, and at least in the case of fossil fuels, false narrative for the company’s reputation or product.

And with fossil fuel companies at the exact, if not well past, moment they need to be widely seen as the worldwide climate villains they are, news outlets keep positively enabling them instead, lying to themselves it is alright because their newsrooms are separate from the ad department. On every god damn issue, I just don’t understand why news and journalistic outlets don’t get how they are part of the problem, with inventing a trans “debate” where there isn’t one, like I said in a previous comment, or their garbage coverage of elections and doing their jobs of actually informing people.

And with Semafor in particular I read the about section on their website.

“In our increasingly interconnected world, journalism needs to deliver common facts to divergent audiences. Our biggest stories, and greatest crises, are global: from climate change to pandemics, rising inequality to supply chain disruption, political instability to the influence of social media. In response to those challenges, we’re building a new kind of trusted news source for this interconnected world, based on journalistic transparency and a platform that delivers shared facts while giving voice to a range of informed, competing views.”

This is just meaningless nonsense! And it doesn’t matter anyways because like you said, the actual result is nothing new. They are still accepting fossil fuel ads with their content.

Compared to your about page:

“It is not your fault that the planet is burning. Your air conditioner, your hamburger, your gas-powered car—these aren’t the reasons we only have about a decade to prevent irreversible climate catastrophe.

No; the majority of the blame for the climate emergency lies at the foot of the greedy; the cowardly; the power-hungry; the apathetic. And that’s why I created this newsletter: to expose and explain the forces behind past and present inaction on the most existential threat of our time.”

Which is frankly fucking awesome.

And to your last paragraph:

“But if you’re someone who works at Semafor or any of these outlets that runs misleading fossil fuel ads, I am begging you: stop getting mad at this newsletter for asking questions, and start getting mad at your newsroom leaders for not giving answers. I am not undermining trust in your news outlet by pointing out they are hiding from accountability. Your newsroom leaders are doing that on their own.”

Apologies if I’m misreading, but to me that is saying you are getting pushback from even the lower level people working at these places for asking totally reasonable questions? To me that is a larger problem than just the heads of the outlets, who might just be clueless, and implies a completely depressing state of journalism today.

I don’t know if it is something you would be interested in writing, but I would be curious to hear your perspective on why you are one of the relatively few journalists who truly gets it. I don’t know if it is something you have thought about before, based on your personal experiences, but there has to be a reason why your journalism is so great compared to practically everything else.

I just don’t get it. Other than that you deserve 10 billion dollars, so you can have your own massive outlet that continues to do the right thing and save the world.

Also, you mention “biomethane”, but I’m curious about your views on bioenergy, particularly biomass, which the IPCC has said should be a substantial part of the climate solution while giving some concerns about it. I’m personally conflicted about it.

And I didn’t mention in your last article, but the pictures of your trip back to D.C. are absolutely beautiful, and I would enjoy seeing more.

Expand full comment