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