:wtf:
Excuse a brief rant about what seems to be a rise in ridiculous cover stories and op-eds. Apparently, the only way to get printed these days is to say something that makes 'counterintuitive' seem quaint. No, you have to go all the way to crazy-town. This kind of nonsense is happening on all topics (do I even have to mention "death panels"?), but in my wheelhouse, I've seen some doozies in the green world. A couple cases in point lately:
1) Forbes Magazine declares Exxon the Green Company of the Year. The basic argument of this piece is that Exxon is the world's best producer of natural gas, which is lower carbon than coal. That alone apparently makes the company "green."
2) An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today declares that switching to compact fluorescents is not worth it because of "bad lighting." The core absurdity: "Will some energy be saved? Probably. The problem is this benefit will be more than offset by rampant dissatisfaction with lighting." Really? Cutting energy use and expense 75% for each bulb changed probably saves energy? And it will be outweighed by lighting concerns?
What makes these kinds of arguments so dangerous is that chunks of the discussion are logical and well-thought out. Those are the flowers growing out of a turd of argument. But gullible people will latch onto the most ridiculous claims and just remember those.
EDIT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-winston/exxon-is-green-cfls-proba_b_272640.html