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?

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