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?

House Bill for a Carbon Tax to Cut Emissions Faces a Steep Climb

Here's the link to this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/07/us/politics/07carbon.html?_r=1&ref=earth

I thought it appropriate given the last article that I commented on. Representative John B. Larson is trying to pass a tax on carbon emissions in order to force companies to lower these emissions (if they want to save money!) These taxes would then be returned to the public in the form of lower payroll taxes. Though many people agree with this idea, political/economic reasons are keeping it from being passed.

This is a good explanatory story which details the reasons people might be for or against the bill, referencing past events to back up these reasons, such as the cap-and-trade system that lowered the prevalance of acid rain. It was very, very fair and balanced, and as it stands I found no evidence of bias; it clearly stated both sides' reasons for wanting what they do.

However, this is not the case in the story "Skeptics Dispute Climate Worries and Each Other" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/science/earth/09climate.html?_r=1&ref=earth.) The story even starts out with an opinion in its lede:

More than 600 self-professed climate skeptics are meeting in a Times Square
hotel this week to challenge what has become a broad scientific and political
consensus: that without big changes in energy choices, humans will dangerously
heat up the planet.

While I PERSONALLY agree with the writer, I don't believe it's appropriate to say that it has become a "broad scientific and political consensus." This is definately an opinion, because others might say otherwise; it just depends on what people one talks to and what sources one looks at. The article is also very one-sided, in that it highlights the major corporations that once tried to dispute the exsistence of global warming and supported naysayers, but who now simply try to present themselves as "green" companies in light of recent research. However, I'm fairly certain there are corporations out there, which the article does not mention, that still denies climate change...such corporations will be there as long as there are such people.

Also, most of the people quoted as those that do believe that humans are contributing to climate change. The last sentance of the story, however, actually sheds some good light on the naysayers; it is a quote from Yvo de Boer, head of the United Nations office managing international treaty talks on climate change, who says that, "skeptics are good. It's important to give people the confidence that the issue is being called into question." So while the reporter does sprinkle some of those dissenting opinions in there, the article is overwhelmingly and expressly disagreeing with these skeptics rather than just stating what each side believes.

And! An update on the situation I blogged about yesterday, about NY Gov. Paterson attempting to increase the amount of allowable CO2 emissions for corporations in the state. Officials said that his move probably will NOT effect the steps and measures that other states are taking in order to curb these emissions. Yay! The article I read to get this information said that other states reacted by "reaffirming their commitment" to the environmental policy. Here's the link to this particular article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/07/science/earth/07pollute.html?ref=earth

Paterson Draws Fire in Shift on Emissions

This article outlines the move that NY Gov. David Paterson made the week, in which he announced he would reconsider taxing power plants and other energy organizations proportionate to the amount of greenhouse gases they emit into the atmosphere.

This, of course, outraged environmental advocacy groups. They not only think this sends the wrong message to the Obama administration in Washington, but also believe that the energy industry has donated much money to the Paterson's campaign who in turn is now giving the undustry what it wants.

This is a well-written article in which both sides of the issue are presented. However, there are more dissenting opinions presented than there are supportive ones, which might show a sign of bias. However, this could also just mean that there are more people who do not support Paterson's move than there are people who do.

As Earth Day Nears, eBay Shows Its Green Side

This was a really interesting article to me, mostly because it had to do with my major (advertising) as well as the topic of my blog.

The story outlined how eBay is now trying to publicize itself as a "green" company by saying their site does good for the environment by helping people recycle their old things by selling them instead of throwing them away. However, the article also points out that this is somewhat misleading...many of the items sold haven't been used before and are, in fact, new. The article also states somewhat contradictory behavior by the eBay company.

Apart from the site, the way eBay is announcing its green credentials has
troubled some environmentalists. A big part of eBay’s effort is a five-page
insert in all 14 April editions of Hearst’s monthly magazines, timed to coincide
with Earth Day.
But Hearst magazines do not use recycled paper.

This kind of shows that eBay is not creating this awareness because they want to help the environment, but to generate positive publicty among people who don't bother to think twice about the kinds of resources the company is using for their campaign.

But for those who do think about such things, like environmental activists, the article does a good job of noting the hypocracy these people see in the eBay company in this situation.

Here's the link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/business/media/04adco.html?_r=1&ref=earth

The paper has also focused on the steps the Obama administration is taking in relation to the environment. Generally, the reporters have been doing well at showing the sides of both environmentalists and those who are not so sympathetic to the cause. However, there have been occasional, perhaps unintentional, slips that show the paper is clearly on the liberal side of things when it comes to this issue. For example:

A few weeks before he left office, President George
W. Bush told federal officials that, in effect, they did not have to bother
getting the advice of wildlife experts before taking actions that might harm
plants or animals protected by the Endangered Species
Act.
On Tuesday, President Obama said that, in effect, they did.

The use of the word "bother" here is inappropriate; the word has negative connotations, and it immediately shows the bias of the reporter (this was in the lede, too.) Here's a link to that article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/science/earth/04species.html?ref=earth