Getting Green v. Going Green

Its hard to talk about global warming without addressing the economic feasibility of going green. Frequently, even those who believe that global warming is a man made phenomenon will hesitate at taking action, due to the perceived cost of converting to a "green" economy. This was the primary reason why the U.S. was one of the few nations who did not sign the Kyoto Protocol, an international effort to lower greenhouse emissions by 33%. The Bush administration believed that the effect on our economy would far outweigh the possible benefits. In the end the question of going green vs. getting green is an extremely complex one. It combines the often disputed science of global climate disruption, with the difficult and imprecise science of economics.

(1)

In order to make accurate, informed decisions on the topic of economic feasibility, people must be informed of the truth, not the "truthiness". With a subject as important to people as their money, the possibility of fear mongering and junk journalism is extremely high. So the question is, who does a better job revealing the truth of the economics of going green, Fox news or Comedy Central?

We will start with Stephen Colbert, and Jon Stewart. Where do they stand? Are they seekers of truth? Or are they peddlers of truthiness?

(2)

This was a great clip on climate disruption, with a lot of information to sift through. The question is whether he was stating the truth. He mentions that the congressional budget office states that "Cap-and-Trade" will cost the average american household only $175 a year. Well, what is "Cap-and-Trade"? The CBO website states that Cap-and-Trade is a system where, "...The government would set gradually tightening limits on emissions, issue rights (or allowances) corresponding to those limits, and then allow firms to trade the allowances." They state that such a system would reduce emissions at a lower cost to the american household then a "command-and-control" system, where strict caps on emissions allowances would be placed, and companies would be forced to reach those levels by a certain time. While digging through the extensive reports available at the CBO(3) website regarding climate change, I was able to verify Colberts claim. 
FACT: The CBO estimates the cost of a cap and trade system at 175 dollars per year for the average american household.
FACT: The study WAS done by a rainbow pony!
(4)


The Colberts then begin to throw numbers back and forth. The different organizations reported various numbers for the cost of a cap and trade program, and Colbert reported them all accurately. What is interesting to note is what the  organizations had to say about the others estimates. For example, according to the Heritage foundation, the EPA's estimate is skewed downward, since it is based on consumption and assumes a doubling of nuclear power, among other things.The Heritage foundation also states that the CBO report discussed above ignored some crucial factors, including economic damage from job losses, which the Heritage foundation estimates will be around 1.1 million. On the other hand, to back up its data, the heritage foundation rely's on the Black Chamber of Commerce, which has a very focused area of study, to say the least. Read the entirety of the Heritage centers report here. (5)


FACT: In the end, Colbert reports the information correctly. The various organizations did make the estimates he claims that they did. 


In the end however, when you look at the information, it becomes clear it is very difficult to make an accurate estimate of just how much the cap-and-trade initiative will cost. Al Gore claims a green economy will create jobs. Various groups claim it will cost jobs. It is a very complex issue to try to work through. Colbert and Gore do an excellent job however of getting to their main point, namely, that the price of doing nothing will eventually cost the american household much more then any of the estimates that were given.


So what about Jon Stewart? Does he deliver the facts as well as Stephen Colbert?





(6)

At around 2 minutes 30 seconds, Jon states that the 500 million dollars is only 1.3% of the money given out by the governments green energy program, and that most of the other who received a loan companies are doing well. Is this true?
A quick search of the DOE loan program website (7) shows which companies are receiving loans, which totals around 35 billion dollars. And its true, most of them are doing well, some of them quite well. In addition his quote of 1.3% is mostly true. The actual number is 1.392%. So closer to 1.4% if you round up.


FACT: The money given Solyndra was only 1.3% of the total loan programs budget, and most of the other companies are doing well.


So, Solyndra, while a great example of governmental corruption and incompetence, particularly the Obama administrations,  does not reflect on the economic feasibility of a green economy. If anything, research shows the success of the DOE loan program, and the unfortunate decision of the Obama administration to focus on Solyndra as the programs poster child. Jon Stewart does an excellent job showing both sides of the issue, giving his audience an important piece of information; specifically, that solyndra is a bad example of an otherwise successful program.


We will now move on to Fox News. Will they maintain the same standard of journalistic integrity, examining all sides of an issue?




Bill O'Reilly on Solyndra (8)

In this clip, between 40 seconds and 1 minute 15 seconds, Bill O'Reilly shares his view on solyndra. He expresses his frustration at the U.S. Government spending money on companies like solyndra. His statement was factual, solyndra did go bankrupt. But he does not give a full report of the days news. He frames the news in such a way that people will believe the government is funding nothing but incompetent companies, when in fact Jon Stewart showed us the true scope of the solyndra situation. It was but a small portion of a much larger initiative that is doing very well. O'Reilly fails to mention this, leaving his audience to assume that all the governments green initiatives are wastes of money. This is a case of framing, and junk journalism, where a comprehensive reporting of the news was not given, and the other side of the case went unsaid.


At 2 minutes, he begins to talk about Jon Stewart. He shows clips from an interview he had on The Daily Show. In the first clip he shows, he seems very reasonable. He makes his point, and at 3:16, he stops the clip and goes back to talking about progressives not believing in fiscal responsibility. 


Now watch the full interview, taken from The Daily Show. Start at 2:40 seconds.

(9)


As you can see, on the O'Reilly factor, the clip is cut off before Jon makes his point about the importance of investing in new technology, and the small percentage of the total loans given by the DOE for energy company creation that solyndra represented. Again this is a case of framing the news the way the O'Reilly factor wanted it framed.


It should be noted that Stewart told O'Reilly in the full interview that the DOE loan total was "10-20 billion" of which solyndras share was "half a percent". This is a contradiction to his statement of Solyndras loan being 1.3% of the total. 1.3% is accurate for what is reported on the DOE website, which is a loan total of over 30 billion. In the interview Stewart got his facts wrong, but the general idea was the same. Namely that the solyndra loan was a small portion of the much larger total, which O'Reilly conveniently leaves out of his show.


Now continue watching the two clips. You will see that once again, on The O'Reilly Factor, Bill makes an excellent point about 16 dollar muffins. Then they end the clip. If you watch the full interview, they ended the clip right before Jon can make a point about the Wall Street collapse costing way more then a few muffins. Again, counterpoint ignored.


Once again, The O'Reilly Factor has framed the show in such a way that you see only one side of the debate, deliberately cutting of the counter argument. That is unethical journalism. Point being, you cannot trust The O'Reilly Factor to give a full, unbiased accounting of the economic feasibility of going green.While there were statements of truth, they were surrounded by truthiness and manipulative broadcasting, making them almost worthless.


Again it should be noted that The Daily Show uses some of the same techniques. There are times in the show when Bill O'Reilly was cut off, when about to make a very valid argument.  However, at the end of the interview on The Daily Show, there is a notice on the bottom of the screen directing viewers to their website to see the entirety of the interview, which I did. The O'Reilly Factor made no attempt at so informing their viewers.   


So what about Glenn Beck?


It was extraordinarily difficult to find a glenn beck segment relating to a green economy, surprisingly enough. His shows aren't available on hulu.com. A search of Glenn Becks video files from glennbeck.com yielded no results either. A youtube.com search results in a bunch of useless garbage. In the end. I could not find one.
I did find however, the following article. (10)


In it he states quite a few facts, holding up spain as proof that promoting green jobs will be devastating to the economy. He gets this information from a study recently done in madrid. He does not give the name of the study, or where it could be found. He later quotes the Minister of Industry. Finding something I could perhaps verify, I journeyed to the interwebs, only to discover that, what a surprise. the spanish minister speaks spanish! Not only was I unable to find the article in Madrid that contained such damning evidence for a green economy, even if I did, I would be unable to understand it. While not an example of his show, it is an excellent example of the kind of journalism he employs. Astonishing claims, backed up by sources his audience cannot find, or understand, does not make for good news reporting.


So in the end, who tells the truth, and who tells the truthiness?


Colbert presented all the facts relating to the cost of the Cap-and-Trade system accurately, on both sides of the line, informing people of the complexity of the issue. His presentation encouraged his audience to ask an important question of themselves. Going green WILL cost money, but will that money be worth it in the long run?


Stewart did a fantastic job of showing the political fall out that will occur due to the massive error of investing in Solyndra. However he succinctly lets his audience know that while Solyndra is a failure, it is by no means indicative of the entire DOE loan program. He too presented both sides of the issue.


O'Reilly did not so much report the news, as give a tidbit of information, then told his viewers what he wanted them to believe. He accurately stated the failure of Solyndra, and the entirety of the episode was then dedicated to framing the information in such a way as to make the green initiative look terrible, and representative of the entire spending structure of the government. He did not give a comprehensive look at both sides of the issue.


And Glenn Beck? Glenn beck wrote a 1 page article on the green economy, using a source his audience could not verify or even understand. Need I say more?


It is obvious that the difficult question of a green economy will take some time to be sufficiently answered. As was said before it is very important to hear all sides of the issue to make an informed decision. At the end of the day, Colbert and Stewart were accurate in the news they gave. They "framed" the news in a humorous light, but were not biased toward one side or the other. When it comes to global warming and its economic consequences, Comedy Central is where you can find the best reporting.
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)