Writing about expanding oil drilling without talking about its impact on the climate indicates a deep state of denial. (cc photo illustration: -POD-)
It’s gotten to the point that sensible people can agree that climate change is a real problem in the world. But some people manage to write about energy policy and pretend that that problem doesn’t exist—which is perhaps a more dangerous kind of climate change denial.
Take Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson. As we noted recently (FAIR Blog, 8/26/14), Samuelson is no longer really a climate denier. But it’s hard to tell how meaningful the shift in his views is when you see what he writes nowadays. His column in today’s print edition of the Post (9/28/14) is a full endorsement of increasing US oil drilling.
“One of the economy’s good-news stories is the oil boom, a derivative of the natural gas boom,” he writes, explaining that fracking technology has been applied to oil drilling and has “yielded similarly astounding results.” Samuelson declares: “By all logic, we should be working to sustain the boom.” Alas we are not, and his column goes on to explain why it’s disappointing that we aren’t drilling more oil and exporting it on tankers.
He doesn’t skip the downsides of drilling for more oil—he gives them one entire sentence:
Sure, there are concerns: Rail transport of crude oil involves safety issues; there are continuing environmental worries about fracking. Still, public gains outweigh the costs.
Whew. Back on planet Earth, burning more fossil fuels is going to have at least one consequence: It will continue contributing to the heating of the planet. But Samuelson never mentions climate change, which is too often treated as a non-event in coverage of energy (FAIR Blog, 5/15/12, 9/9/14).
In a way, this is merely a different type of climate change denial, one that wishes away the consequences of continuing to burn fossil fuels. Interestingly, the Samuelson column has a “Read more about this topic” link at the bottom, which takes readers to a Post editorial on the same subject, headlined “Commerce Dept. Should Allow Exports of US Crude.” This is notable because the Post editorial page has drawn attention for a series they’re calling “A Climate for Change,” which is supposed to represent the paper’s decision to take the climate crisis seriously. Except, apparently, when the same editorial page is making the case for drilling for more oil.
If climate change represents a profound crisis, the only sensible policy is to leave fossil fuels in the ground (Extra!, 5/13). A media system that has begun to understand the scale of the problem while at the same time advocating for policies that will make the problem worse is still in denial.
It’s the classic mis-direction; by not pointing at it (The climate change) they can ignore it. The elephant is in the room, and we all know it is there, so nobody has to talk about it do they.
And once that little mental gymanstic is completed, they can easily do what they are paid to do, promote the advertizers side.
The climate change crisis now upon us could have been prevented years ago if the media had informed the public of what the qualified scientific community was then warning would happen. Instead, we got the deniers — pundits lacking scientific credentials thinking up names to call paleoclimatologists and other climate specialists.
George Will, for example, dismissed global warming scientists as “zealots” promulgating “loopiness” and “climate porn” In his Newsweek column of October 13, 2007. And he’s still at it, calling the informed members of human society whatever names come to his mind for The Washington Post.
Is/was Robert Samuelson a “climate denier”? That would be someone who denies that there’s such a thing as climate. I’ve noticed a lot of liberals using this epithet, which has all the elegance of “the Democrat Party.” I presume you meant “climate change denier.”
Exporting gas I understand, oil does not make sence. Exporting illegal aliens permanently back home saves more money.
All but a few — thousands, at least — of the extreme Right has given up on climate change denial. So their default position is simply ignoring it, perhaps in the hope that it’ll just go away. After all, the only people who seem to think it’s important are scientists, and those who follow them. You know: rational twenty-first century civilized folks. Nobody who matters.
I always ask people involved what they want this country to do about it.Once they explain,
I usually just say NO and walk away.
Jerry you say the right has given up on “climate change”.Well no actually climate change is what they have always been pushing for.The left believed in Global warming.That the left has given up on.We all know climate changes.
Always bravo FAIR and Peter Hart. How in the [expletive deleted] do [expletive deleted] nitwits to put it in intellectual terms like Samuelson that’d manage to elude the likes of broken lightbulb Samuelson get to hold positions of power and respect? Is it because WaPo – and the personal kingdom of bully Jeff Bezos – is a flailing dinosaur, soon, although none too, to go the way of the pay phone? You have to presume he was hired by war criminal extraordinaire George Will. Either that or George Will’s wig. Will’s hair hasn’t deviated for three decades. Perhaps he’s really Dorian Grey, despite what he should be: in Mumia Abu Jamal’s prison cell one on one. I daresay Jamal would immediately forgive him. Samuelson writes: “public gains outweigh the costs.” Were this not so exemplary of capitalist rapaciousness it would be laughable. Says who Samuelson? I presume you took a straw pole. Do you still have the straw, and can we get a recount filthy [expletive deleted] Republican. Or Democrat; it’s all the same anyway. Ask Jennifer Flowers. Right Pandrelleymen. Typical of the sunk pathetic state of US politics they purport to address a political issue by skirting it: “It’s the classic mis-direction; by not pointing at it (The climate change) “ P, allow me a suggestion to improve your writing with a cite from Orwell: the worst metaphor is still better than the hackneyed and cliched. Bravo P; excellente comment. Really Duncan? In the context of the whole of FAIR, like overlooking a woman’s small faults to see her great virtues FAIR is not entitled to a rhetorical slip? Exporting gas is grievous to say the least. What are the great technocrats of petroleum funk going to do when America – north of the border – is to this day and age what it remains to Native Americans: move to China? Of course. Because like WalCrap, that’s where the money is. In answer to Mike E’s query, I would recommend junking ¾ of the automobiles currently despoiling the North American continent. That or – and You have to understand this is a vision, not a practical suggestion – level every church from Los Angeles to Portland, Maine. And when You see those churches lying in waste, you’ll know we’re getting closer to where we should be. A closing Nietzsche cite: beliefs very often times have very little to do with reality.