“Oil exploration debate takes on a new urgency”–but USA Today (11/20/17) left out the most urgent part of the debate.
The lead story of the November 20 USA Today, “Drilling Closes In on Alaska Wildlife Refuge,” was supposed to give readers the basics surrounding proposed legislation to allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The article is intended as an explainer—“Here’s What You Should Know,” its online headline concludes—but one idea is conspicuously absent from its explanation: climate change.
Sales of drilling rights in the northeastern Alaskan coastal plain are slated to be attached to the Senate version of the tax bill, ostensibly as a way to raise revenue to offset the cost of massive tax cuts. The article’s lead frames the issue in terms of proponents’ view of the refuge “as an area rich with natural resources that could help fuel the United States’ drive for energy independence”—despite the fact that the United States became a net exporter of oil in 2013, and any increase in oil production would likely go to overseas markets.
After many paragraphs of wrangling over how much oil is likely to lie under the refuge, and how much money the US government would be likely to make from it, reporter Michael Collins includes a single sentence on the environmental impact of opening the wilderness area to oil extraction:
What’s more, opponents argue, drilling is a risky endeavor that would cause widespread and permanent damage to the coastal plain, destroy the area’s natural beauty and jeopardize its wildlife and ecosystems.
But nowhere does the article mention the biggest environmental danger posed by opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling: If the billions of gallons of petroleum believed to be under the refuge are pumped out and burned, they will add gigatons of carbon to the atmosphere, contributing to the ongoing climate catastrophe.
Nowhere in the article do the words “climate,” “warming,” “greenhouse” or “carbon” appear. Here’s what USA Today should know: This kind of coverage of energy issues is wrecking the planet.
ACTION:
Please tell USA Today to mention climate change prominently when writing about energy issues.
CONTACT:
Email: letters@USAToday.com
Twitter: @USA Today
Please share your messages to USA Today in comments. Remember that respectful communication is the most effective.
Justin Anderson contributed to this Action Alert.
Is USA Today controlled by the oil industry? Maybe it is if you don’t at least discuss climate change. Shame!
So I’m mildly confused. Are you trying to say that it’s the supply of petroleum that creates consumption? So that if the supply were to be cut back, consumption would automatically shrink? Or conversely, that if the supply of petroleum rises, consumption automatically expands?
Up till now, I have been under the impression that it’s the demand for energy that creates consumption. I need to drive somewhere and I own a car with an internal combustion engine. The more I drive, the more gasoline I buy and the more carbon dioxide I produce.
And, therefore, by the logic I have followed up till now, it’s the nature of the technology portfolio that forces me to buy fossil fuels. If we had different technologies, our demand for fossil fuels would decline. e.g. My wife and I just switched our house off natural gas by installing a geothermal heat pump. No more natural gas consumption. And our electricity all comes from wind. So our house has the technology and the electric supply agreement that gets our house off natural gas.
But by your logic, if drilling in the Arctic were to increase the supply of natural gas, something about that increased supply might cause me to abandon my geothermal system and go back to having a natural gas furnace.
I’m sorry. I am afraid I just can’t connect the dots in your argument. As best I can tell, it’s the nature of our technology portfolio that forces us to rely on fossil fuels, and that the only sure way to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels is to change our portfolio. Get rid of the technologies that require fossil fuels; replace them with technologies that don’t.
was that USA Today report brought to you in the edition by Big Oil? much like CBS’s 60 Minutes report on Yemen left out the role of the US? perhaps that day US arm’s companies where funding the program hehe! Again as the late great Danny Schechter would say about the corporate/state press “the more you watch, the less you know”.