The thing that's particularly galling is the implicit bias in framing the conversation about Willow in terms of "Biden vs. the activists." Owing to an assault on leftist activism from right-wing circles and moderate Democrats alike, news consumers are primed to thinking activism is code for being a whiny wet blanket who refuses to compromise.
I'm tired of being forced to feel like a downer when we all know the abyss is there. Whether we want to acknowledge it or not.
On point as always- so vital to consider the framing of big climate stories, especially when it passes most of us average readers by. (also big fan of Bunaka look at him go)
The thing is, I have no doubt that the main motivation of the Biden Administration in approving the project is to try to forestall Republican attacks during the next election cycle that the Administration is "anti-jobs" and "pro high gas prices". Of course, the approval of this project will not affect gas prices in the least, especially for the next election cycle, but try to telling that to politicians who care only about getting re-elected.........
I honestly don't know what it will take to break out of this type of framing from mainstream media, on what seems to be every issue. I will admit when I can't sleep, which is often, I do think how much different things would be if the media properly conveyed the actual events occurring and the stakes and harm of letting those events continue.
How would climate stories in mainstream media look if every time a project like this was approved or being considered, it displayed its projected emissions while also explicitly mentioning the carbon budget number we have to stay under 1.5C and the dangers if we don't stay under it. And how a particular project goes against that number, clearly showing how much little time we have left and CO2 emissions to spare.
Or something like the child poverty rate in the US. Highlighting that number in the first paragraph of an article, and thoroughly questioning why that number isn't 0.
Just always framing these issues as putting the problem first, showing what is being done or not being done to solve it, and putting it to politicians or others in power in what they are doing to solve it.
Sincerely asking this, is that something that you are taught in journalism school? To not put the problem first and then illustrate the ways in which people in power are failing to solve that problem, but instead basically treat an issue like child poverty as if there were both sides to it? As if there are both pros and cons to having child poverty?
Hope what I said made sense, and I'm explaining what I mean clearly.
Great spreadsheet too, succinctly shows the problem. Thank you for the article and your work in holding other media outlets to account.
This is my optimistic hope: People don't want to invest in Oil and Gas -- it will soon be stranded funds. When (not if, but when) there is a disaster in Alaska, and ConocoPhillips has to pay for the clean up, the balance sheet will change and they will pull out. We will have to wait for then, but the tide of public and elected and financial opinion will evolve.
Yeah, once the political reporters get on these stories, they become political stories. Usual DC horserace or inside baseball kinda stuff.
Did any story report that Willow's average annual annual energy production, converted to electricity, could be offset by 1000 typical 3 MW wind turbines in a good location (40% capacity factor)? This is similar to the Western Spirit project collection of four wind farms sharing land with NM state grazing land? Which will be repowered when they break and sustainably produce power forever and ever, not just the 30 years discussed for Willow and then it's depleted. Or a million home PV systems.
Let's see if BLM approves Lava Ridge wind in Idaho despite the whipped up local opposition.
can anyone comment on the legal authority under which the administration could have chosen not to approve? this quote is from NYT article and i don't understand the legalities at play...."According to the two people familiar with the deliberations, the administration concluded that it doesn’t have the legal authority to deny permits to ConocoPhillips, which has long held leases on the land in the petroleum reserve."
The thing that's particularly galling is the implicit bias in framing the conversation about Willow in terms of "Biden vs. the activists." Owing to an assault on leftist activism from right-wing circles and moderate Democrats alike, news consumers are primed to thinking activism is code for being a whiny wet blanket who refuses to compromise.
I'm tired of being forced to feel like a downer when we all know the abyss is there. Whether we want to acknowledge it or not.
On point as always- so vital to consider the framing of big climate stories, especially when it passes most of us average readers by. (also big fan of Bunaka look at him go)
The thing is, I have no doubt that the main motivation of the Biden Administration in approving the project is to try to forestall Republican attacks during the next election cycle that the Administration is "anti-jobs" and "pro high gas prices". Of course, the approval of this project will not affect gas prices in the least, especially for the next election cycle, but try to telling that to politicians who care only about getting re-elected.........
Great reporting. Spreadsheet nice touch
I honestly don't know what it will take to break out of this type of framing from mainstream media, on what seems to be every issue. I will admit when I can't sleep, which is often, I do think how much different things would be if the media properly conveyed the actual events occurring and the stakes and harm of letting those events continue.
How would climate stories in mainstream media look if every time a project like this was approved or being considered, it displayed its projected emissions while also explicitly mentioning the carbon budget number we have to stay under 1.5C and the dangers if we don't stay under it. And how a particular project goes against that number, clearly showing how much little time we have left and CO2 emissions to spare.
Or something like the child poverty rate in the US. Highlighting that number in the first paragraph of an article, and thoroughly questioning why that number isn't 0.
Just always framing these issues as putting the problem first, showing what is being done or not being done to solve it, and putting it to politicians or others in power in what they are doing to solve it.
Sincerely asking this, is that something that you are taught in journalism school? To not put the problem first and then illustrate the ways in which people in power are failing to solve that problem, but instead basically treat an issue like child poverty as if there were both sides to it? As if there are both pros and cons to having child poverty?
Hope what I said made sense, and I'm explaining what I mean clearly.
Great spreadsheet too, succinctly shows the problem. Thank you for the article and your work in holding other media outlets to account.
This is my optimistic hope: People don't want to invest in Oil and Gas -- it will soon be stranded funds. When (not if, but when) there is a disaster in Alaska, and ConocoPhillips has to pay for the clean up, the balance sheet will change and they will pull out. We will have to wait for then, but the tide of public and elected and financial opinion will evolve.
I would like to know who is the Swiss billionaire funder. (And does s/he want to send me any $$?) No, really for full disclosure.
Yeah, once the political reporters get on these stories, they become political stories. Usual DC horserace or inside baseball kinda stuff.
Did any story report that Willow's average annual annual energy production, converted to electricity, could be offset by 1000 typical 3 MW wind turbines in a good location (40% capacity factor)? This is similar to the Western Spirit project collection of four wind farms sharing land with NM state grazing land? Which will be repowered when they break and sustainably produce power forever and ever, not just the 30 years discussed for Willow and then it's depleted. Or a million home PV systems.
Let's see if BLM approves Lava Ridge wind in Idaho despite the whipped up local opposition.
can anyone comment on the legal authority under which the administration could have chosen not to approve? this quote is from NYT article and i don't understand the legalities at play...."According to the two people familiar with the deliberations, the administration concluded that it doesn’t have the legal authority to deny permits to ConocoPhillips, which has long held leases on the land in the petroleum reserve."