Why I avoid reading Thomas Freedman (and the NY Times)

Why I avoid reading Thomas Freedman (and the NY Times)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/03/opinion/friedman-the-amazing-energy-race.html?_r=0

I like to evaluate arguments both left and right to keep myself centered and challenge my preconceived ideas. Reading the following is such a mass of misinformation it is not productive to read it. One of my preconceived notions is that global warming is based on junk science. One of Thomas Freedman's preconceived notions is that what he thinks matters. Another is that an Obama crony capitalist represents republican thought.

"Sadly, many Republican "leaders" rejected Obama's initiative, claiming it would cost jobs. Really? Marvin Odum, the president of the Shell Oil Company, told me in an interview that phasing out coal for cleaner natural gas — and shifting more transport, such as big trucks and ships, to natural gas instead of diesel — "is a no-brainer, no-lose, net-win that you can't fight with a straight face."

But, remember, natural gas is a fine gift to our country if, and only if, we extract it in a way that does not leak methane into the atmosphere (methane being worse than carbon dioxide when it comes to global warming) and if, and only if, we extract it in ways that don't despoil land, air or water. The Environmental Defense Fund is working with big oil companies, like Shell, to ensure both.

But there is one more huge caveat: We also have to ensure that cheap natural gas displaces coal but doesn't also displace energy efficiency and renewables, like solar or wind, so that natural gas becomes a bridge to a clean energy future, not a ditch. It would be ideal to do this through legislation and not E.P.A. fiat, but Republicans have blocked that route, which is pathetic because the best way to do it is with a Republican idea from the last Bush administration: a national clean energy standard for electricity generation — an idea the G.O.P. only began to oppose when Obama said he favored it."

Where does Freedman come off specifying caveat's? It is ridiculous assuming the course of technological development.


Sent from my iPad