Today the New York Times, guardian of journalistic integrity, published a story (not news analysis, but a real story) about how California is "gambling" with its new moves to reduce greenhouse gases.
Look below for more. . .
This is my first diary, so go easy on me. Here we go:
From today's New York Times:
The state's [California] aim is to reduce emissions of climate-changing gases produced by burning coal, oil and gas. Other states, particularly New York, are moving in some of the same directions, but no state is moving as aggressively on as many fronts. No state has been at it longer. No state is putting more at risk.
Whether all this is visionary or deluded depends on one's perspective.
The headline for this story reads: "In Gamble, Calif. Tries to Curb Greenhouse Gases"
This is simply incredible:
1). In an age where Bush simply ignores climate change and industry such as Exxon Mobile spends millions of dollars funding junk science, a state that listens to the scientists and takes action to avoid things like coastal flooding or widespread drought is "gambling." Amazing. We've known for YEARS that global warming could (or maybe will) have devestating effects on just about everything we need here to sustain our society: food, living space, health care. But one state, years later, tries to do something about it, and the New York Times calls it a "gamble," right in the headline.
2). Since NYT is now editorilizing in the headlines of its news stories (and not tagging it at analysis), I'm wondering where they were in the runup to Iraq? I can't recall a mention of Bush's "gamble" in Iraq. What about Bush's "gamble" in throwing out the Geneva Convention? Or the "gamble" with social security?
We shouldn't let them get away with this. Give the NYT ed board some real editorial content to read:
letters@nytimes.com