The Mediums
Okay, my turn to take armchair swipes at news coverage!
This article in Slate about global warming is pretty bad. I generally like William Saletan's writing (and he's a Swarthmore alum too!) but I think there's a couple counterproductive ideas here.
The whole article is based on this neatly divided image: we're cooling our living places, but cooking everything else — which I don't think holds up on further review. He says that a sixth of US electricity goes towards cooling, which surprises me, but that still doesn't make AC demand the driving factor, or more to the point, the battle we have to win.
Yes, the amount of air conditioning is increasing, too, but that's probably not a reflection of environmental necessity, just the increasing luxury people can afford as economic production grows. Describing this trend with a tinge of desperation seems a bit ridiculous. It'd have probably increased similarly even if temperatures were dropping gradually.
I don't doubt that we can change regional weather patterns in depressingly short amounts of time, but air conditioning isn't the issue then so much as droughts and agricultural shifts. Look: if we all have to be a little hotter in the summers, we as a culture will survive, or if worst comes to worst, gradually move to cooler places. It's the ecologically sensitive stuff we have to worry about. Talking about the wrong thing, even if more people can relate to it, feels like a bad move.
You get the sense this article is kind of about the patio he & his wife built, which he talks about near the end, which is too warm in the summer to use. That's too bad. I don't want to harp on this since it sounds like your stereotypical conservative-style DC-media bashing, but, well.
Most of all, if we get a spate of relatively cool summers, we don't want there to be a rash of "Maybe Global Warming Isn't Happening After All!" type of thinking. The New York Post pulled a front page out of this during a cold snap a couple of years ago.
In terms of Other News, I checked the New Haven Register's primary endorsement out of curiosity today (I haven't read any Register coverage of anything to date) & was very disappointed to read the inane line of Iraq thought proffered pro Lieberman:
More informed commentary about that here.
This article in Slate about global warming is pretty bad. I generally like William Saletan's writing (and he's a Swarthmore alum too!) but I think there's a couple counterproductive ideas here.
The whole article is based on this neatly divided image: we're cooling our living places, but cooking everything else — which I don't think holds up on further review. He says that a sixth of US electricity goes towards cooling, which surprises me, but that still doesn't make AC demand the driving factor, or more to the point, the battle we have to win.
Yes, the amount of air conditioning is increasing, too, but that's probably not a reflection of environmental necessity, just the increasing luxury people can afford as economic production grows. Describing this trend with a tinge of desperation seems a bit ridiculous. It'd have probably increased similarly even if temperatures were dropping gradually.
I don't doubt that we can change regional weather patterns in depressingly short amounts of time, but air conditioning isn't the issue then so much as droughts and agricultural shifts. Look: if we all have to be a little hotter in the summers, we as a culture will survive, or if worst comes to worst, gradually move to cooler places. It's the ecologically sensitive stuff we have to worry about. Talking about the wrong thing, even if more people can relate to it, feels like a bad move.
You get the sense this article is kind of about the patio he & his wife built, which he talks about near the end, which is too warm in the summer to use. That's too bad. I don't want to harp on this since it sounds like your stereotypical conservative-style DC-media bashing, but, well.
Most of all, if we get a spate of relatively cool summers, we don't want there to be a rash of "Maybe Global Warming Isn't Happening After All!" type of thinking. The New York Post pulled a front page out of this during a cold snap a couple of years ago.
In terms of Other News, I checked the New Haven Register's primary endorsement out of curiosity today (I haven't read any Register coverage of anything to date) & was very disappointed to read the inane line of Iraq thought proffered pro Lieberman:
"Lieberman supported the war and believes setting a timetable for withdrawal will only aid the insurgents. It is the only responsible position. The United States can't abandon Iraq until some semblance of stability and security has been established."And that's it. Is there any way for people to start recognizing this as a fake argument? That's a dangerous "until" there, snapping around like a loose electrical line, and the burden should be on the stay-the-course side to grab it first. But no, better to leave it sparking and go after any skeptics who do try to grab it as pessimists and losers.
More informed commentary about that here.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home