Should be. Invited David and me. U need a grammar checker

Expand full comment

Emily, great job on CNN piece. You can be proud of your performance and how you came across. I love Fish. Is he available?

Expand full comment

Thanks for being in our corner, Emily.

Expand full comment

I have a criticism of climate journalism that it seems to me applies across the board. There are too many scenarios discussed in terms of how many degrees the earth will warm if certain goals aren't met, if fossil fuels aren't phased out quickly enough, etc. and the result is a general impression that there is some kind of upper limit to global warming. I wish more journalists would explain that there isn't. When you read that the temp hit 116 somewhere it sounds pretty awful, but survivable. It won't be too long, however, until temperatures are so high that human beings can't survive outside of cooling shelters, and crops can't survive at all. That point ought to be made more often.

Expand full comment

You were excellent on that segment, and agree with all your points on what climate writers should be doing, but I would add one. Climate writers should also be constantly talking about the solutions to the climate problem to push back on doomerism.

Because going through Twitter, or wherever else you just have a constant feed of fossil fuel companies helped create this catastrophe that is worsening extreme weather events and there are fires in the ocean, etc.

Emphasizing the solutions wherever possible in climate change discussion would be a good thing in my opinion. However that also requires a change from practically every climate journalist or writer, such as yourself, that I have come across. Emphasizing the solutions means it is time to honestly cover nuclear power, which just has not been done by climate writers.

It is 2021. We are in the climate crisis right now and environmental groups are still celebrating the closure of clean energy being replaced by fossil fuels all because of decades long misinformation about nuclear power, like what was just done with Indian Point’s closure.


Why hasn’t a single climate writer, again like yourself, who knows what climate change is doing to the planet and communities TODAY, and will do in the future, written anything pushing back on the morally catastrophic, anti-nuclear position taken by the NRDC or other environmental groups?

And why hasn’t a single climate writer pushed back on any one who brings up what is scientifically necessary or what the IPCC says, while also not supporting nuclear power, which the IPCC has said is required? It is a myth that there is ambiguity or a diverging of views on the solutions by the scientific authorities. There isn’t, they are clear about it. Nuclear power is required, as much as 500% more in one pathway.


Whether the hesitance to be honest about nuclear is because of friendships or ideological sympathies or whatever else, it doesn’t matter. Because there is no time left.


Expand full comment

"... continue to allow fossil fuel companies to spread unchecked lies about their climate commitments ..."

CNN is in the business of increasing shareholder value. If they can do that by "selling" news stories, fine. If not, then oh well. As long as those stock prices continue to increase.

Maybe PBS will give you a call one day.

Expand full comment

your tiktoks are delightful!!!

Expand full comment

You and your team (Fish) are great, thanks for making a difference. I have my own idea of big points to make, orthogonal to yours: (1) Govt should immediately decide a cost effective buried transmission line design, and put them along every freeway median. The fastest cheapest way to get vast mid-continent clean energy to markets that need it. (2) Govt should immediately decide a generation-1 clean liquid fuel e.g. ammonia. They should buy high and sell low, this will build energy storage, energy transport, and power ships and jet planes. If generation-2 is better, the same pipes and tanks should work. (3) All govts should collaborate on a solution for the Global South (e.g. Java), because regions without clean resources could bulk up on coal plants, undoing all US progress. Loans/grants for international and mid-ocean transmission is one obvious step. Mid-ocean harvesting is another. (4) As well as onshore wind and solar, a third civilization scale resource is offshore wind (if it can be made scalable and cheap and locally fabricated). Emily if you wanted to make these points I would be thrilled. Or if you could advise me how to get them heard I could try to act on that. Lastly if you are frustrated by my butt-in, I apologize. Jim Papadopoulos

Expand full comment

Totally unrelated, but Fish always reminds me of Coltrane on the TV series Bosch.

Expand full comment