Television: *CHOMP*

^ That was the sound of your television eating energy.
California Seeks to Curb Appetite of Power-Hungry TVs

California's Energy Commission (CEC) is attempting to put a restriction on television sets; they want TVs sold in the state by 2013 to use 50% less energy than they do now! The Electronics industry is protesting because they say consumers are able to do so on their own, by adjusting brightness/light/etc. settings on their TVs themselves. However, the CEC is countering by saying that the standards they have proposed can be easily, efficiently, and cost-effectively done.

The article also taught me that the good old cathode-ray-tube TV sets are actually the most energy efficient, compared to the newer, fancier plasma or LCD screen sets. Intriguing. You'd think that since the latter two were newer, their energy efficiency would have increased...guess it isn't so! But then I suppose that is somewhat the same way for cars...the fuel-efficiency hasn't changed all that much since Ford's lovely Model-T.

But I digress.

This was a dandy little article, packed with information even though it was quite short. The lede was straight-to-the-point, which was appropriate for this type of article, yet it was quite clever as well. I liked how the headline and lede tied in together (though they probably weren't written by the same person, there had to have been some sort of collarboration) to the idea that TV's "consume" too much power.

The reporter also did a good job at presenting both sides of the issue, even though she was given very few words to work with. She let her sources do the talking, which also shows an excellent use of quotes that further the story rather than simply reiterate what has already been said. This also let the reporter say more in a short amount of space...however, she also didn't say too much, or try and cram as much information as she could, which is what I often see in articles as short as these.

The end of the article was also good in that it provided a little bot of background information that was not essential to understanding the story but helpful in understanding it. This also shows good use of the inverted pyramid form of writing a news story, which worked well with the subject matter.

All in all, a really sweet story, which is normally not the case when it comes to articles this short!

Empire State Building Plans Environmental Retrofit

You can read the article here!

The article talks about how the owners of the Empire State Building in New York have announced plans to make the building greener and more environmentally-friendly in order to conserve energy as well as cut down on costs. They are completely renovating the building and retrofitting it with things like dual-flush toilets and extra insulation. While the project is expensive, they estimate that it will pay for itself in about three years. Not too shabby!

This was a very well-written article, as it hit every point and answered most questions I/the reader might have about the project. It was also concise, and gave just the right amount of information needed. The lead wasn't anything special, but it was cute and drew me in. It also used sources who did add some good opinions to the article.

The one criticism I do have about this article was a lack of a variety of sources and opinions. Every source spoke of the planned changes in a positive light, but there must have been some people who might be concerned. Sources like the tenants of the building, or those who work in the building, might have added a differing perspective to the story. For example, the article says that, "tenants may also see a mark-up on rents because of the desirability of green features." Well, what do these tenants think about this?

Other than that, a good, informative article. Plus, I personally like how one of the largest buildings in the world is setting this "green" example...

People involved with the retrofit said the Empire State Building can offer
an example of how older buildings can retrofit to the highest energy standards
and effectively cut down their greenhouse gas emissions, a contributor to global
warming. The largest share of New York City’s greenhouse gas emissions, 78
percent, comes from the city’s buildings, with commercial buildings contributing
25 percent, mostly from the use of electricity and natural gas.

...hopefully, other buildings will follow the Empire State's lead!

Green Shoes?

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/timberlands-new-footprint-recycled-tires/

This is a nice, short little feature story about how the outdoor-sy company Timberland is planning on making some of their shoes out of recycled rubber material from worn-out tires.

I really liked this article because it was succinct, got straight to the point, and explained the transition well. It was also balanced in the sense that there was no editorialization; the reporter did not insert her opinion into it by saying that the change was good or bad, but always referred back to what the Timberland company said about the new "green" shoes.

Concrete Is Remixed With Environment in Mind

Here's the link to one of the most dry articles I've ever read in my life:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/science/earth/31conc.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=earth

Now, why, you ask, was it so very boring to read?
Answer: Jargon.

The article was loaded with it, and many times it didn't even attempt to explain these words to the reader. Maybe it's just me, but I think that terms like "aggregate" (in the context of rock,) "carbon sequestration,""isocyanates," and "blast-furnace slag" aren't exactly used in daily conversation by people other than chemists and/or concrete connoisseurs. I think they should be defined for people like me who care about the environment and what materials can harm the environment but who do not know that much about chemistry at all.

The terms also made the article dull to read simply because it is not interesting reading something that isn't easy to understand. When it comes to novels or schoolbooks, yes, a little mental work is great. But when I read a newspaper article (and this article will be printed in the paper tomorrow, according to a small footnote on the online edition) I want to get straight to the point and not have to shift through words I don't understand.

To give the poor reporter (Henry Fountain) some credit though, he did attempt to define some of the words he used. For example, I had no idea that "pozzolans" is the proper term to describe "reactive materials that help make the concrete stronger." This could come in handy some day.
I also liked that he attempted to use the analogy of a fruitcake in order to explain what happened to the concrete when certain materials or ingredients were used to make it. Fountain also did well when attempting to describe the sheer amount of concrete that is made and used by giving us things to compare the amount to.

Most of these good qualities, however, were relegated to the beginning of the article, and towards the middle I found myself getting distracted by that silly jargon.

However, Fountain did use some very good sources who obviously knew what they were talking about and were experts in their field. But again, they did a poor job at explaining what they knew in layman's terms.

So yes, it was an informative article, but it wasn't as well-written as it could have been, in my opinion.

Extravagent Results of Nature's Arms Race

This is kind of an interesting explanatory-type story about the weapons nature equips animals with for their defense: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/science/24armo.html?_r=1&em

It's a really well-written article which basically talks about the lastest research some scientists have done on the topic, and how extravagent ornamental defense systems might have evolved. The journalist does an excellent job of never using jargon, and writing in common terms any reader could understand. It is straight-to-the-point and always refers back to the nutgraph about the evolution of animals' built-in weapons.

It's also just an interesting topic...I've never really thought about how those horns and antlers on things from beetles to large mammals! Intriguing.

Russia to Ban Hunting of Baby Seals

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/world/europe/19seal.html?_r=1&ref=earth
There's the link to the article announcing news which I, personally, find simply wonderful: Russia is going to ban the hunting/clubbing of baby seals in its country! Hopefully, Canada will follow suit someday in the near future, though the article seems to shut down that hope by describing how not one lawmaker backed the senator who introduced legislation in the country aiming to ban the hunt.
I personally do not understand this. How can anyone harm this poor, defenseless thing?

http://www.unhcr.info/seals/seal1.jpg

Aaaaawwww.

Anyway, getting back to the article. I found that it actually did show both viewpoints on the issue; it got quotes from both animal right's organizations as well as from those who support the hunting of baby seals. It also pointed out a ban that the EU is considering on the import or export of all seal products, and said that the ban might conflict with international trade laws that are put in place. However, there are more quotes and facts attributed to those against the hunt for seals, and the article even ends on a quote which makes the hunt seem perfectly ludicrous, which might indicate a sign of some editorialization.

However, the article itself is well-written. It thoroughly explores the issue from all angles, and gives the reader a lot of information about the situation without overly editorializing, which is difficult to do when writing about such an emotionally-charged issue. The writing itself also flows well, and while the lede is very to-the-point, the nutgraph definately grabs the reader's attention by describing the photographs.

All in all, a good article on what I think is an important subject.

Europe’s Way of Encouraging Solar Power Arrives in the U.S.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/business/energy-environment/13solar.html?_r=1&ref=earth

This article talks about how many European cities have implemented a program in which homeowners and businesses are actually paid more to produce green energy than a coal-powered plant. Things such as solar panels and wind turbines, for example, are not an unusual sight. This system is now crossing over here to the United States, with the first city, Gainsville, Fla., becoming the first to implement a similar system. Other cities across the nation are discussing it as well.

The article is a well-balanced one that does show both the pros and cons of the issue. I don't really see any instance of bias, which is uncommon for an NYT article focusing on an issue such as the environment.

Also featured is an article about hybrid vehicles: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/business/media/13adco.html?ref=earth

It discusses the place that hybrid automobiles have in our society, and how Honda is planning to introduce a hybrid car for considerably less expense than other hybrid models out on the market. They aim to make the hybrid a mass-market product, rather than one that just the wealthy are able to afford, a very good strategy in these tough economic times. They are really trying to push the fact that everyone is able to, and should, buy the car. Rather than focusing on the environmental-friendliness of the car, their advertising campaign focuses on the the mass appeal of the car.

I thought this was an interesting article, again because of my major (advertising) but also because it's very neat to see a hybrid car become the norm rather than an exception. This will hopefully pave the way for other environmentally-friendlier cars in the future.

Also, a slightly scarier article: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/scientist-warming-could-cut-population-to-1-billion/

While the story was difficult to read sure to the numerous edits and insertions, it still got the point across: A scientist predicted that the Earth's population would plummet if the Earth got 9 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the average global temperature is today. While the article doesn't bother to show another side of the argument (which probably means it is biased in some way,) the fact that a scientist is even daring to state such an "apocalyptic prediction" (as the article calls it) is kind of un-nerving. What do you think about this?