SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Wharf Rat who wrote (12650)5/18/2007 1:24:50 PM
From: Wharf Rat  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 36921
 
Bush feels heat on climate change
The president this week announced an auto-emissions plan designed to cut US oil consumption by 10 percent in 20 years.
By Brad Knickerbocker | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
In dusting off his State of the Union plan to promote alternative fuels and adjust vehicle fuel efficiency standards this week, President Bush is responding to a multitude of pressures:

• from the US Supreme Court, which last month ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate carbon dioxide;

• from another federal lawsuit argued May 14 in court in San Francisco, in which 11 states say Uncle Sam has failed to adequately raise auto mileage standards;

• from record-high gasoline pump prices;

• and from a Congress controlled by Democrats eager to engage the US government in addressing global warming.

Specifically, Mr. Bush ordered federal agencies to come up with regulations to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions from cars and trucks by the end of his administration some 20 months from now, The Washington Post reported. The goal is to reduce the projected growth in US oil consumption 20 percent below current forecasts within 10 years, mainly through a steady increase in the use of alternative fuels. In his Rose Garden announcement, the president said:

"When it comes to energy and the environment, the American people expect common sense, and they expect action.

"The policies I've laid out have got a lot of common sense to them. It makes sense to do what I proposed, and we're taking action, by taking the first steps toward rules that will make our economy stronger, our environment cleaner, and our nation more secure for generations to come."

Within minutes of Bush's announcement, critics were pouncing on what they saw as its environmental and energy failings. On his blog, Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch depicted the program as going nowhere, bound tightly in a big ball of red tape:

"Under the new Bush plan, EPA would have to gain the 'concurrence' of other federal agencies such as the Energy and Transportation Departments before moving ahead with any plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the White House Office of Management and Budget and the Council on Environmental Quality would oversee the effort.

"In other words, the White House has just wrapped the EPA in a straitjacket of bureaucratic process."

Nor were leading climate-change activists on Capitol Hill very pleased. "In effect, the president asked his agency heads to share ideas and come up with a plan that is due three weeks before he leaves office," said Rep. Edward Markey (D) of Massachusetts, chairman of a new House select committee on climate change, according to the Post. Mr. Markey said that decision "will leave motor vehicle fuel economy stuck in neutral until Bush's successor takes office."

Officials in California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's (R) administration were quick to echo criticism of Bush's plan to the Copley News Service. "We are concerned that this is a recipe for delay," said Linda Adams, secretary of the state's Environmental Protection Agency. We are concerned it is a stalling tactic." And Robert Sawyer, chairman of the state Air Resources Board, appeared even more skeptical of the plan. "It's awfully late, and I'm not confident it's real," Sawyer said

All along, Bush has resisted both mandatory restrictions on greenhouse-gas emissions as well as calls for stiffer Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for motor vehicles, which was observed in Investor's Business Daily.

"Rather than setting specific fuel-efficiency standards in law, the White House wants Congress to give the transportation secretary the discretion to set appropriate targets based on cost-benefit analysis and without impacting safety."

Just as Bush was making his announcement, California Attorney General Jerry Brown was "escalating California's legal war with the federal government over global warming policies," reported the Los Angeles Times. Mr. Brown was in federal court in San Francisco May 14 to challenge federal auto mileage standards on behalf of 11 states and several environmental groups. Like the recent Supreme Court fight over whether CO2 is a pollutant subject to regulation by the EPA, this promises to center on fundamental differences over the government's role in mandating vehicles that are less harmful to the atmosphere.

"Congress directed the agency to balance the ultimate goal of increased fuel economy against the need to preserve economic stability and consumer choice," Bush administration lawyers wrote in response to the lawsuit argued this week, the Associated Press reports. Federal law does not allow the agency to disregard that balance "to combat the global concerns raised by the emission of carbon dioxide by vehicles," the government lawyers wrote.

Federal law does not allow the agency to disregard that balance "to combat the global concerns raised by the emission of carbon dioxide by vehicles," the government lawyers wrote.

Meanwhile, Bush's fuel-efficiency announcement came as US gasoline prices hit a new high, noted the Cox News Service. The average price for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline hit $3.07.
csmonitor.com



To: Wharf Rat who wrote (12650)5/19/2007 7:10:42 PM
From: Wharf Rat  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 36921
 
Murdoch, She Wrote
An interview with Rupert Murdoch about News Corp.'s new climate strategy
By Amanda Griscom Little
16 May 2007

Rupert Murdoch.When Rupert Murdoch, the cantankerous and conservative owner of Fox News, enthusiastically joins the fight against climate change, you know we're past the tipping point on the issue. Think landslide.

Last week, the media mogul pledged not only to make his News Corp. empire carbon neutral, but to persuade the hundreds of millions of people who watch his TV channels and read his newspapers to join the cause. Messages about climate change will be woven throughout News Corp.'s entertainment content, he said, from movies to books to TV sitcoms, and the issue will have an increasing presence in the company's news coverage, be it in the New York Post or on Hannity & Colmes. Yes, as Murdoch told Grist in an exclusive interview on his climate plan, even Fox News' right-wing firebrand Sean Hannity can be expected to come around on the issue.

Murdoch's climate conversion marks a major turning point for a man who has made campaign contributions to numerous conservative Republicans, including recently ousted Sens. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), both of whom have expressed skepticism about the reality of climate change. Now, as Murdoch told Grist, a willingness to address the climate challenge will be a "litmus test" in his political giving.

Still, Murdoch is hardly a sentimental do-gooder. "[A]cting on this issue is simply good business," he said during the launch of his climate plan last week.

Whatever the motivation, News Corp.'s global reach is immense, and its grand climate plan could, if faithfully implemented, have a seismic impact that makes that of An Inconvenient Truth look like a tremor.

I sat down with Murdoch in his midtown Manhattan office after the launch to discuss how he came to embrace the climate cause, what he thinks of President Bush's environmental record, and whether an action hero can drive a hybrid car. (Full disclosure: I have a book contract with HarperCollins, a News Corp. company.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What motivated you to implement your climate plan? Was there a "conversion moment" when you realized this needed to be a priority?

I grew up in Australia, which is facing its worst drought in 100 years -- that has struck a personal chord for me. I've read about the climate issue over the years, but I was probably a bit more skeptical than my son, James, who's a complete convert, and who converted me. I saw what he did at [British Sky Broadcasting] and we said, well, let's make it company-wide.

So this is an example of younger-generation sensibilities trickling up?

Well, more twisting my arm, at first. But I've become more enthusiastic day by day. I don't think there's any question of my conviction on this issue -- I've come to feel it very strongly. The more I've looked into it, the more I've been able to see what we can do, not just from an operations standpoint but by subtly introducing [the climate issue] into our content.

What do you intend to achieve with your climate plan, and how will you meet your goals?

We want to help solve the climate problem. We'll squeeze our own energy use down as much as we can. We'll become carbon neutral for our own emissions within three years, and be entirely transparent throughout the process, publicly reporting our reductions and offsets. But that's just a start. Our audience's carbon footprint is 10,000 times bigger than ours, so clearly that's where we can have the most influence.

Story continues below
ADVERTISEMENT
You're known for making business-savvy decisions. What's your bottom-line argument for your climate program?

Whatever it costs will be minimal compared to our overall revenues, and we'll get that back many times over, by running a more efficient company and by growing morale among our employees. This program is a huge morale builder.

What's the business logic of weaving the climate issue into your content?

From what we see within our own company and from reading polls, the younger generation gets the issue of climate change completely. I think it will grow our appeal to younger audiences and bond our programming to them.

What opportunities does it present from an advertising perspective?

There will be a lot of national and international marketers who will want to take advantage of the public mood around climate change. Car manufacturers are going to want to compete on fuel economy, for instance. It may not be the main thrust of their marketing, but we are certainly hearing from advertisers that they want to reach audiences on this issue.

Can you give some examples of how you'll infuse this issue into your programming?

Oh, the opportunities are endless. We own SPEED [a cable channel focused on cars and motor sports], for example -- that's got 60 or 70 million homes it goes into. We can get a lot of green programming in there. We're going to encourage this effort among the writers on all of our entertainment programming, whether it's sitcoms or movies or reality shows. Then there's the online arena, where we have MySpace, where we've already launched a channel dedicated to climate change. MySpace has got 175 million profiles on it, and that represents huge reach among the grassroots.

Do you worry that it will seem awkward to wedge the climate issue into your programming?

No, we've got to make sure it doesn't happen that way. There's got to be a certain degree of gradualism -- it has to feel natural, it has to make sense. Can a hero drive a hybrid car? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But what about a biodiesel SUV?

In your speech, you said, "We want to inspire people to change their behavior." Would you characterize this climate campaign as "activist media"?

There certainly is an activism element to it.

Might that complicate expectations of journalistic objectivity?

We're known for saying what we think in our newspapers. But this will in no way compromise journalistic independence. We're not a monolithic organization. We have on all our media outlets lots of columns representing many different sides.

But do you see Fox News and your newspaper outlets covering the climate issue differently as a result of this program?

Well, certainly giving it more attention. There will be more articles, more references, but the same broad range of opinions.

You said in your speech, "The debate is shifting from whether climate change is really happening to how to solve it." Doesn't that mean that the nature of the coverage would be changing, too?

Yes. I think when people see that 99 percent of scientists agree about the serious extent of global warming, it's going to become a fact of life.

Some of the commentators on Fox News have expressed skeptical views about climate science -- take Sean Hannity, for instance, or Bill O'Reilly. Have you heard any reaction from them to this program, or any backlash within News Corp.?

I haven't discussed it with them yet. And, no, I haven't heard any talk about it. Probably Sean's first reaction will be that this is some liberal cause or something, you know? But he's a very reasonable, very intelligent man. He'll see, he'll understand it. As will Bill -- he just likes to get debate going between people. And that has its benefits -- someone says "No there isn't," someone says "Yes there is," and they have it out for 10 minutes and it's entertaining and creates more consciousness.

You've been a longtime supporter of President Bush. What do you think of his climate strategy?

I've been a supporter and a critic of President Bush. I certainly supported his election. If you want my opinion, I think he's a greenie at heart, but they keep having committees and talking about what they should do, in some cases instead of doing it. I think he's a bad communicator; he should be getting out in front on this issue publicly.

But I think they're doing a lot behind the scenes, with ethanol and corn, for instance. This administration has put a huge amount of funding going toward climate research, and doesn't get any credit for it. It's typical of Bush -- I mean, he's tripled or quadrupled the money going to Africa for AIDS, and you never hear him talk about it.

Will you support, going forward, politicians who are trying to block action on climate change?

No. I think that that would be a litmus test, almost. If you had someone who is totally opposed to doing anything about climate change, I would oppose them.

Would you want them to support a mandatory cap on carbon emissions?

I would agree with that, to an extent. We have to be careful not to make this country totally noncompetitive, because it would just throw tens of millions of people out of work. Or worse, cause us to have to write a lot of tariffs, which would throw tens of millions of people out of work in other countries.

Do you have a favorite in the 2008 race?

I don't know who's sailing.

No, I mean the presidential race.

Ah! I thought you were talking about the America's Cup! [Laughs.] No, frankly I have fairly skeptical feelings about all of the candidates at the moment.

What are you doing on a personal level to reduce your carbon footprint?

Well, I got a hybrid car, which is a Lexus. It's a great car, but, I confess, I haven't learned how to read the dashboard yet!

grist.org