Jon Coifman's Blog: The Media and the Environment

He Never Promised Us a Rose Garden

2008-04-17T01:38:25Z

President Bush delivered a much-hyped speech on the administration's supposedly new global warming policy agenda today in the White House Rose Garden.

Here are my initial reactions:

The plan, if you can call it that, lags far behind the political curve in either political party. Once again, the President seems to be trying to turn back the hands of time on this issue.

Today’s proposal is much weaker than what all three presidential candidates, dozens of members of Congress and many state governors are talking about today. It’s weaker than the proposals backed by many leading companies whose business would be covered by a global warming policy.

The President’s plan wouldn’t even stop the *growth* in global warming emissions until 2025.

By contrast, Senate legislation offered by Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and John Warner (R-VA) – neither one of them exactly Mr. Woodsy Owl – would stop the emissions increase by 2012, and require actual pollution reductions of 25 percent or more by 2025.

The real story right now is how quickly congress can agree on a concrete limit on global warming pollution backed by an effective market-based system that rewards smart companies for quick action and makes the overall cost of this transition away from old, polluting energy technologies as low as possible.

The White House likes to talk about technology. But businesses and investors need to know that there will be a market for it before that innovation is unleashed on a large scale. That’s why we need to set the rules of the road now.

Frankly it’s hard to see how the White House proposal makes any serious contribution to that conversation, or does anything to move our nation forward. It will, however, probably add ammunition to those who would try to sink real solutions.

Business is saying it’s time to act. Scientists are saying it’s time to act. Now finally politicians are saying it’s time to act.

“Green Collar” Jobs -- A Political Misnomer

2008-02-14T20:58:52Z

Presidential candidates have been out and about this week talking about their respective plans to create thousands of new “green collar” jobs.

It’s the right idea, but the wrong way to talk about it.

Building the clean, sustainable, energy efficiency economy we need to meet the both environmental and energy resource challenges of the coming decades is indeed a giant opportunity – and also the best economic stimulus idea out there.

In fact, we can’t afford NOT to make these investments.

And we’re talking about much more than wind farms and solar panels. Some of the biggest and most important opportunities today involve big changes in the way we use energy in buildings and homes and factories.

But “Green collar” is not an aspirational term. Who raises their kids to think of their future in terms of collars? The language sounds too much like make-work to my ear, at best a sort of niche endeavor. It doesn’t begin to capture what is at stake.

It is going to take a tremendous amount of cement and glass and steel to save the natural habitats that ultimately sustain our lives (and our economy) on this planet.

That means we’re talking about all kinds of jobs -- Architects and engineers; drywall contractors and air conditioning guys. Software designers and lighting installers. Plumbers and loan officers. The lawncare crew that mows your green roof.

In other words, white collar, blue collar, and no collar.

We’re talking about the whole economic pie.

Much of this work is in the very sectors that are in the worst shape today. And these are jobs that can’t easily be shipped overseas.

Maybe pollsters and focus groups have tested this out. But they’ve been known to get it wrong before.

There’s a bigger vision here. It would be great to hear about it from every candidate in both political parties.

GM's Lutz is in a Ditch. Again.

2008-02-13T21:28:25Z

In a closed door session recently, General Motors product development chief and granddaddy of Detroit automotive management Bob Lutz announced to a group of reporters in Dallas that global warming is “a crock of sh*t”.

Yes, this is the very same Bob Lutz who spent the last year or so pitching GM’s deathbed conversion to environmentalism, promoting an assortment of mild hybrid products and touting the Volt, a spectral concept electric car that might or might not appear on American roads somewhere in our future.

(Those who recall the massive hype around GM’s hydrogen-powered Hywire concept car back in 2002 will be familiar with the foaming coverage devoted to these just-out-of-reach by the automotive press. They will also be forgiven for their cynicism.)

Now comes the news this week that GM has officially posted the largest annual loss in American corporate history, a stunning $38.7 ~~million~~ billion in 2007. That comes atop several years of cash hemorrhage already.

General Motors and other leaders in Detroit management bet the farm on a gas guzzler-based business model, and went so far as to double down with a new crop of full sized trucks and SUVs in 2005 and 2006 at the very time pump prices were exploding.

Now tens of thousands of white- and blue collar workers and the communities where they live have paid for their bosses’ gross misjudgment with their jobs, and one of America’s last bastions of manufacturing might – an industry that for all its faults has considerable high-tech prowess – is on the ropes.

So much for seeing the light.

Political side note by way of our friends at GRIST:

Barack Obama delivered a speech today at GM truck plant in Janesville, Wisconsin. Hillary was at a GM plant in Baltimore on Monday, singing the praises of hybrids. http://www.grist.org/news/2008/02/13/election/index.html

By the Numbers: McKinsey Tallys Up Climate Solutions

2007-11-30T00:53:58Z

Today McKinsey & Company, one of the world's leading management consulting firms released a sweeping new assessment of the more than 250 measures that together would get us into the ballpark of the global warming emission cuts now on the table in Congress.

The analysis is deep, detailed and dense.

The bottom line, as we have detailed elsewhere, is that we can still achieve the results we need in the necessary time frame at something close to zero net cost to the US economy -- but only if lawmakers get it in gear soon.

Several reporters asked us today why this study matters.

The answer lies much more in the context than actual pages of the report.

This year is a major turning point in the global warming debate. The logjam is cracking. It’s clear to anyone paying attention that some sort of global warming solution is coming soon to the US.

That means that business and political leaders are suddenly rushing back to the table, and taking a whole new look at their strategy. The horses are back at the starting gate, and there is jockeying afoot.

At that happens, a new dividing line is emerging that will shape the entire conversation for the next year or two at least.

On one side is a group that acknowledges - if grudgingly - that global warming might indeed be a real problem, but says we should bank on a technological miracle but oppose policies that would actually drive that market.

That’s effectively the Administration line today. That’s Newt Gingrich in his new book. That's where the "Skeptic Environmentalist" Bjorn Lomborg comes down. That’s talk-jock Glenn Beck, too. And that’s where we find many of the Republican political candidates.

(Whether any of them really believe it or it’s just pollster-driven cover for inaction, who knows.)

Then you have folks like NRDC, US CAP and a growing list of leaders in both parties who recognize deliberate steps are needed to get the solutions we HAVE NOW off the shelf, out of the lab, and into the economy.

THAT is what the whole battle is going to be about next year. THAT is why this report is so important.

Wishes alone won’t make it come true. A whole lot of furniture needs to be rearranged.

Companies making hundreds of billions of dollars in capital investment in the next few years need a clear, concrete signal about where the market for energy and emissions is heading.

According to McKinsey (and NRDC), the key variable in determining whether or not we beat the global warming challenge is not some far-fetched miracle technology, but rather whether there is a clear policy signal to business that the marketplace is ready to start deploying solutions already at hand.

That’s why we need policy, and that's why this is all very relevant to the very core of the climate story for the next year or so.

Chicago Newsman Shills for Climate Skeptic Group

2007-11-20T18:01:43Z

Out in Chicago, beyond the radar of coastal elite media watchers, a serious journalism ethics scandal is unfolding.

Some have framed it as free speech and open debate, but that is manifestly not the issue.

The real question is whether a newspaper editor should be lobbing other journalists on direct behalf of a special interest group that holds a very distinct position on a major, politically charged issue -- one that falls squarely in his own beat.

The story involves Chicago Sun-Times Business Editor Dan Miller, who lent his name (or rented it…nobody seems to have asked whether money changed hands) and the name of his paper to the conservative/free market Heartland Institute to pitch a skeptical global warming documentary to journalists in Chicago and elsewhere, urging them to “keep an open mind” about global warming.

("Open mind" meaning open to the idea that more than a decade of global scientific consensus is wrong, apparently. But that's really beside the point.)

Heartland is the group that for months has been running ads in the New York Times and elsewhere challenging the view that global warming is a serious threat to the economy and our environment. They do not disclose their funding sources, but have strong, well-documented ties to far-right foundations as well as big tobacco. If the scope of their ad buys are any indication, they are not hurting for resources. Accounts have put the spend at at least $1.2 million.

The cover letter on the press kit carried the specific heading “From the Desk of Dan Miller, Business Editor, Chicago Sun Times.”

Miller himself has so far not commented.

But the public affairs talker at Heartland gave this surprisingly honest explanation for the pitch, telling the Chicago Tribune that “If it came from just ourselves, it would look like an advertisement and just get lost."

Still not convinced that this is a deep breach of journalistic ethics?

Try replaying the same scenario, but substitute “Hillary Clinton” or “Rudy Giuliani” for “global warming.” If the business editor for a leading metropolitan daily had sent a letter nakedly encouraging fellow reporters to take a second look at one of the presidential candidates, he would fast be looking for a new job.

Here, he has done essentially the same thing by throwing himself into one of the most important political debates today.

(For comparison's sake, note that *former* ABC News correspondent Carole Simpson yesterday had to offer up her resignation from the journalism program at Emerson College for publicly endorsing Hilary Clinton for President.)

To be clear: It would have been perfectly legitimate for Miller to raise this sort of question in a column, under the cold hard light of day. Or to assign a reporter to a news story examining the issue.

But it is *not* OK for him to be using his name and that of the paper as part of a one-sided, behind-the-scenes sales pitch from an organization with an expressly unbalanced view of a critical public issue. (It wouldn’t be any more appropriate for him to stick his name on something from us, for the same reason.)

Miller would have a hard time claiming he was taken in by the interest group, since he used to work there himself.

All this is particularly significant given where we are now in the global warming conversation. The Supreme Court ruled this spring that EPA can no longer ignore the problem. Last week, the 9th Circuit Court threw out the administration’s proposed fuel economy rules for light trucks because they did not take into account global warming impacts. At least a dozen states are beginning to regulate CO2 emissions. There are several bipartisan bills now moving through Congress to do the same thing at the federal level, and a growing list of major companies are now calling on Washington to get moving on the question.

In other words, this is no backwater that Miller waded into. In doing so, he not only crossed the line…he seems to have ignored it entirely.

At minimum, his bosses at the paper have some serious ‘splainin to do.

Phil Rosenthal at the Chicago Trib has a good write up here, but misses the full gravity of the story.

The journalism mavens at PoynterOnline mentioned it yesterday, as well.

It appears that a science writer at the Houston Chronicle also got the package.

UPDATE: The St. Pete Times has weighed in as well: http://blogs.tampabay.com/energy/2007/11/using-smoke-mir.html

The folks at ExxonSecrets.org have a nice writeup on Heartland: www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41

Here’s what sourcewatch has to say on the group: www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

Hummers vs. Hummus

2007-08-30T01:07:30Z

Don't be alarmed on your way to work if the Hummer in the next lane is being driven by a chicken. Two animal rights groups have launched high-visibility campaigns arguing that eating meat causes more global warming pollution than your friendly neighborhood SUV.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) will put a person in a pullet outfit behind the wheel of one of the famous guzzlers and send it on the road to the White House, among other places, for a global warming conference later next month. The Humane Society of the United States, PETA and other groups are also making the case in a series of ads.

In addition, PETA is threatening to take the caravan to the doorsteps of major environmental groups that don't get with the program (thought what precisely they want green groups to do isn't clear).

It is a very clever campaign that is going to get a lot of ink. The story was the most e-mailed story on the New York Times website today. But it might be a little too clever for its own good.

The question shouldn't be hybrids versus hummus. They're both important parts of the puzzle. But setting up a false choice may very well undermine progress on both fronts.

There's no question that our dietary choices have major environmental implications — from overfishing tuna to overgrazing the West to the rivers of chemicals that keep much of modern agriculture afloat. Runoff from appalling factory animal farms is an ongoing ecological disaster in communities all around the country.

And don't forget the heat-trapping carbon dioxide released clearing forest for pasture, or the supercharged greenhouse chemical methyl bromide, which is used to wipe out naturally occurring microbes in the soil so that we can grow eerily huge strawberries and tomatoes.

The problem with putting gas on par with geese is that it creates even more confusion about global warming at precisely the time when so many business and political leaders are turning the corner in response to growing public pressure.

And just as they're running out of excuses, the campaigns give polluters, cynics and ideologues a brand new pretext to keep right on guzzling gas and pumping out emissions. You can hear it now: "It's not my fault; blame old Wilbur here."

Rush Limbaugh, eat your heart out. And enjoy that steak while you're at it.

No doubt the campaign will succeed in moving a few green-spirits the next step into the vegetarian column. And that's a fine thing. Meanwhile, millions of others will take away a message that insulating their home or buying a cleaner, more efficient vehicle is a waste of time so long as Ronald McDonald, Colonel Sanders or Mister Greenjeans are still in business.

This matters.

It matters because for many perfectly decent people, good environmental stewardship is still a lot like eating right or getting enough exercise. We all know it's the right thing to do. But it doesn't take much of an excuse before the right thing goes right out the window in favor of that second helping.

If there are two gaping holes in the roof, it would be pretty foolish to waste time during the rainstorm arguing about which leak is more important. Fix them both, and do it together. Instead of moving forward based on ostensibly common objectives, these inflamatory new media campaigns force potential allies into shortsighted polemic. That is an unfortunate choice.

We should all be on the same side of the global warming challenge, not taking the wind out of each other's sails.

Minneapolis

2007-08-02T23:30:53Z

Minneapolis is where I grew up. Depending on which way mom, dad or the bus was going, I went over, under or around the I-35W bridge on my way to school everyday for about 10 years. I also (mis)spent a good deal of time roaming those river bottoms on the Mississippi.

No doubt millions of digital photos have recorded the disaster that happened there yesterday. The two best - indeed remarkable - sets that I have seen are here and here.

The first gives a better impression than anything so far in the media of the damage on the roadway. The second is from a guy who lives in a warehouse 50 feet from the bridge, who was pulling people off the pile.

I am struck in looking at all of these images by the concentrated urban history that converges on this spot.

The train under the bridge was on a siding for the old Pillsbury A Mill, whose founding was at the falls just above the collapse (the largest natural waterfall in US west of Niagra) was a milestone in the growth of the city that sprang up here to process grain from across the northern plains.

Next to the bridge is a lock and dam built by the Army Corps of Engineers in the early 1960s, in a long-forgotten boondoggle that bypassed the falls for barge traffic that was and is minimal. You can go through them in your canoe, too, however, which is very cool.

Drought in the region means that the river is running at only about 15 percent of normal levels. And thanks to the dam, the Army Corps will be able to drop the water level down stream by about two feet so that crews can get into the wreckage.

And of course there is the interstate highway system itself, which as you can see in the first photo carved a massive swath to make way through the city. Two main interstates cut through the Twin Cities - I-94 from east to west, and I-35 north to south. Provisions were made so that they intersect in both Minneapolis and St. Paul on rights of way bigger than any I have seen elsewhere.

In fact I would venture that on a percentage basis the Twin Cities have more close-in urban land given over to highways than almost anywhere else including Los Angeles. Quite a lot of old city neighborhoods disappeared in order to make this so. But it is incredibly quick to get around town.

And so it goes.

Watch for a lot of very interesting, very partisan infighting to errupt over who is to blame for this. There have been bitter fights in Minnesota over highway budgets; there is a hot Senate race shaping up; and the Chair of the Transportation Committee in the House of Representatives is from the northern part of the state.

Read the latest in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, which has been scrambling hard to cover the story.

Get Smart

2007-06-28T06:55:37Z

Back to the Wall Street Journal today, where we learn that racecar-driver-turned-truck-rental-and-car-dealer-mogul Roger Penske has signed on to bring the long awaited two-seat Smart car to America.

If you've been to Europe in the last five years, chances are you've seen one of these parked in an impossibly tight space - maybe backed in perpendicular to a line of regular-sized cars parked parallel to the curb.

Conventional wisdom has long held that small cars simply won't sell in America. But while full-sized SUV sales fell off a cliff over the last two years, the two most successful brand launches in the industry have been BMW's Mini and and Toyota's Scion...both of which are flying off the lots without any of the expensive rebates that have drained the coffers in Detroit.

What's interesting is the company's marketing scheme, which is aimed at young buyers and other trendsetters, and relies almost entirely on the web.

"They like to be communicated with by email, period," Penske says.

So far, 10,000 people have turned out to drive the car during the company's 50-city tour, and a remarkable 20,000 have plopped down a very affordable $99 deposit to reserve a car that has yet to actually hit U.S. streets.

Not coincidently, the company is a sponsor f Al Gore's Live Earth concert series coming up next month.

All of which says something about the youth demo in this country. For more on that we turn to the front page of today's New York Times, and the headline: "Young Americans Are Leaning Left, New Poll Finds."

From a strictly political standpoint, that indeed is what the poll says. Taken from a cultural perspective, however, and it looks more like a level-headed generation that is worried about its future, looking for solutions, and not that moved by the hotbutton polemics served up by the status quo.

Environment, which did not make the reporters' cut in the story, pops out in the very first question of the poll itself, where respondents aged 17 to 29 say it is the number two issue facing their generation today, ahead of jobs, healthcare and the economy -- even gas prices.

Ninety percent said it is important to have government policies that reduce consumption of oil and gas, and 59 percent say candidates for president aren't making the issue enough of a priority.

A full 89 percent say global warming is a serious problem, with more than half saying it should be "one of the highest priorities for government leaders."

Seventy four percent of this group is registered to vote.

Detroit and Washington: Meet your new bosses.

Meanwhile, Out in America

2007-06-21T03:47:06Z

Stepping into our Washington office during the energy bill fight now under way in both houses of congress is a bit like walking onto the bridge of a battleship during heavy maneuvers (except the offices are messier). All hands on deck for a process that is at once rapid fire and slow motion. For an excellent take on events, check out Legislative Director Karen Wayland's excellent turn on this morning's Diane Rehm show.

For insiders, every hour brings a new wrinkle. But even for someone only half an arm's length away, it sometimes seems like the same movie has been playing over and over again for about six years. I can't imagine what it is like as a Washington beat reporter having to cover this stuff in a way that is even marginally interesting. The answer, as usual, seems to be more horse race stories, sprinkled with occasional prognostication about who's up and who's down, and why.

At least this time around we don't have to replay the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge fight again. Bottom line: We are being reminded loudly that neither party has a monopoly on bad ideas or special interest coddling. Or on pathological fear of the other guy's campaign ad next year. (“Meet Suzy. She won't be here for Christmas. She died because Congressman Smith voted to take away her mom’s SUV. Help Candidate Jones help make America proud again.”)

It does go to show how important it is for communicators and advocates to come at this through other doors, starting with local ones, and to focus on story basics. Tell it right, and bland policy pieces can come alive with local color. Case in point: Our report on controversial oil substitutes like liquid coal, shale, and tar sands.

It's a narrative about the troubles associated with emerging technologies that focuses on the facts out there in the world that can be written about from out there instead of in here. But lo and behold, congress is seriously considering two of the three. Which bumps the relevance of a local enviro or business piece up a couple of notches, maybe to the Sunday edition or the top of the editorial column.