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?