At Newsweek, the global warming crusade remains an important mission. The magazine’s latest push by came in an interview by CNN contributor Fareed Zakharia of Energy Secretary Steven Chu.
Zakaria threw softballs to Chu throughout the article, as Newsweek showed it was simply a matter of when – not if – the administration should continue to pursue a drastic environmental agenda.
It was revealing which questions were – and were not – asked of the president’s Energy Secretary. Zakaria made zero reference to ClimateGate, the economic consequences of cap-and-trade and alternative energy, and no mention of the actual validity of climate change.
“Do you think that having a price on carbon is crucial?” Zakaria asked.
“I absolutely believe a price on carbon is essential – that will send a very important long-term signal,” Chu said. “[But] if it's five years from now, I think it will be truly tragic, because other countries, notably China, are moving ahead so aggressively. They see this as their [1]economic opportunity to lead in the next industrial revolution.”
Chu went on to state the controversial [2]cap-and-trade legislation remains a high priority for the administration. And while Zakaria did not bother with any of the [3]legitimate concerns and objections, he questioned whether the current bill was large and drastic enough (read: [4]stimulus bill):
“When you look at the cap-and-trade bill that is floating around Congress, is it strong enough to do what you think needs to be done?” Zakaria asked.
“[G]et it going,” Chu replied, alluding to alleged successes of the Clean Air Act. “Once you get it going and start making progress, very clever people start to dream up better solutions. So rather than wait around for a perfect bill that might be delayed for four or five years or forever, get it going.”
Chu parroted Obama’s rhetoric regarding the economic boon of alternative energy throughout the interview, but Zakaria was loath to challenge him on even the most basic [5]economic realities of green-jobs – something [6]Europe has come to see the hard way.
The skewed interview is typical given the magazine’s past environmental coverage, where readers are left to assume any [7]dissenting opinion is nonexistent.
As the public has grown more and more educated and less and less [8]concerned over [9]climate change, just over the past four years Newsweek has:
-
Published a [10]cover story equating “well-funded” climate “deniers” to the tobacco industry misleading the public on the dangers of smoking; Attributed [11]extreme weather patterns in 2008 to climate change; After acknowledging an unpopular Al Gore cover story received a highly disproportionate number of negative comments, published a [12]letter equating “deniers” to (what else) Holocaust deniers with nary a contrarian reader viewpoint published; Had senior editor Sharon Begley justify Newsweek’s imbalanced reporting og climate change because giving the other side would be akin to granting space to [13]moon-landing deniers; Finally admitted to its role in the [14]global-cooling hysteria back in the 1970s; Published a proselytizing piece hailing Gore as an “ [15]Eco-Prophet” in late 2009.
Like this article? [16]Sign up for “The Balance Sheet,” BMI’s weekly e-mail newsletter.