NY Times lets dirty energy soil its op-ed page

[marmar]

NY Times lets dirty energy soil its op-ed page

by Mike Casey
18 Jun 2011 7:00 AM


Cross-posted from The Great Energy Challenge.


Just as the traditional news media began its current freefall of layoffs, staff cuts, closures, and substitution of ideology for journalism, The New York Times, thank goodness, decided to double down on good (albeit not perfect) journalism.

That's why it’s baffling to see a dirty-energy front-group operative, Robert Bryce, getting a seat last week next to Thomas Friedman and Nicholas Kristof on the Times’ opinion page, with a piece of pro-dirty energy propaganda, without having to say if he’s paid by dirty energy.

I remember from journalism school that opinion pages are run separately from the news pages. But is it really that hard for someone on the Times’ opinion page staff to ask Bryce where his host organization, the Manhattan Institute, gets its money? Don’t Times readers deserve to know that the Manhattan Institute gets a significant amount of money from dirty energy?

I’m not even expecting that the Times actually demand a factual grounding for the opinion pieces it runs. That seems to have gone out of style awhile ago. The Washington Post demonstrated this new normal with its tortured sidestepping of questions about why it let columnist George Will demonstrably lie about the wide and deep scientific consensus around global climate disruption. Basically, it seems that you can lie without consequence on the nation’s most influential opinion pages. ...........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.grist.org/fossil-fuels/2011-06-18-new-york-times-dirty-energy-op-ed

[LARED]

1. I read a lot of fuming about how people make a living but read

nothing about how the opinion piece is inaccurate.

[TheWraith]

2. Grist doesn't let facts get in the way of grinding their axe. nt

[kristopher]

3. Do you suggest that the central point of the Grist article (deception) is irrelevant?

The spin and misdirection in the article have been addressed hundreds of times, it is the failure of the NYT to properly identify the conflict of interest by their guest that is the issue.

However since you are requesting that the content be addressed, allow me. Using careful analysis - instead of carefully crafted climate denier type cherry picked misrepresentations - tells us that the environmental impact and resource availability of the noncarbon options compares like this.




Mods, this is the simgle paragraph abstract (presented in its original form in italics after the text box) that I've broken apart for ease of reading.

You can download the full article at his webpage here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

Or use this direct download link: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/ReviewSolGW09.pdf

You can view the html abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Download slide presentation here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/0902UIllinois.pdf

Results graphed here: http://pubs.rsc.org/services/images/RSCpubs.ePlatform.Service.FreeContent.ImageService.svc/ImageService/image/GA?id=B809990C

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

Abstract

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85. Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge. Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs. Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs. Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs. Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85. Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations. Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended. Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended. The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85. Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality. The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss. The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs. The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73 000–144 000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300 000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15 000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020. In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[TheWraith]

4. Good god, you're still reposting that one article like it's the holy grail?

Here's a hint: it doesn't mean what you think it means.

[kristopher]

5. ...considering... impacts ... on water supply, land use, wildlife...

Science, ain't it a bitch.

[bananas]

6. Here's how the article is inaccurate - in specific details

First, Robert Bryce is well known for spewing garbage, and it's entirely appropriate for the OP to point out that he is paid to do that by a right-wing conservative think tank.

Second, read this entire article, it goes into detail about the errors in Bryce's editorial:

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/10/241882/small-is-beautiful-robert-bryce/

“Small IS Beautiful”! Robert Bryce Pushes Nuclear Power by Quoting Famous Author Who Called It “an Ethical, Spiritual, and Metaphysical Monstrosity”

By Stephen Lacey on Jun 10, 2011 at 12:38 pm

The NY Times has published an error-riddled op-ed by Manhattan Institute disinformer Robert Bryce. The piece makes a decidedly schizophrenic and misleading case against renewable energy in California. Bryce argues that because large-scale renewable energy projects have some local environmental impact, we should avoid developing them and instead focus on much more dangerous fossil fuels and nuclear.

The former “paper of record” should be embarrassed to run pro-dirty-energy disinformation from someone so widely refuted (see “Debunking Robert Bryce’s power hungry gusher of lies“). In particular, Bryce actually has the chutzpah to quote economist E. F. Schumacher’s famous line “Small is beautiful” to promote fossil fuels and nuclear power — when Schumacher wanted us to get off of fossil fuels and was strongly anti-nuke!

Doesn’t anybody at the Times use Google for even the simplest fact checking anymore?

Climate Progress contacted Bill McKibben, who wrote the Foreword to a re-release of Schumacher’s 1973 classic, “Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered.” We asked him what he thought about Bryce quoting Schumacher this way. He replied:

<snip>

The full op-ed is worth debunking in detail because Bryce is pushing a bunch of anti-clean-energy talking points that are becoming popular in conservative circles. Progressives need to know how to debunk them. We’ll try to cover the key points here with useful charts.

<snip>

[txlibdem]

7. Bryce claims to be for renewables but is really being paid by the fossil industry?

That would be shocking to learn about someone.

I would personally doubt anything written by a DUer if they were similarly "in the pocket" of fossil fuels (like coal or NATURAL GAS).

[bananas]

8. Bryce makes a lot of false claims, but I haven't seen that one yet.

Where has Bryce claimed to be for renewables?