Greenhouse Asses at the Wall Street Journal

The editorial page of the Wall Street Journal struck again on Wednesday with another intellectually dishonest screed related to global climatic disruption, which they continue to deny.

We've documented before how the WSJ editorial pages get their content spoon-fed from the global warming denialist fringe, and this latest offering called "Greenhouse Affect" has not strayed far from the nut house. It's unclear where the scribblers of opinion there get their news. They'd do well to read the honest work of their very own reporters on climate and energy, in the reality-based pages of their very own newspaper.

Because it's an otherwise excellent newspaper whose brand value gets diminished every time the editorial writers say something else irresponsible and unconstructive about the most significant ongoing economic and financial transformation of the present age.

The financial world, as well as the progress of corporations and technological advancement, rely on empirical science. It provides the foundation of the global economic system, a measure of truth and certainty that all players count on. So what are we to make of opinions -- in a pre-eminent financial newspaper -- that are intellectually dishonest about facts, distort truth and lead readers astray?

Take the measure for yourself as you read their latest piece about biofuels. Two scientific studies were just published which demonstrated that biofuels are worse for the environment than fossil fuels. WSJ uses it as an opportunity to attack environmentalists, and concluded this way:

Yet special blame also belongs to the environmentalists, who are engaged in a grand bait-and-switch. They stir up a panic about global warming, and Washington responds to the political incentives. Then those policies don't work and the greens immediately begin pushing a new substitute, whose outcomes and costs are equally uncertain. But somehow, that never seems to discredit the entire enterprise and taxpayers keep footing the subsidy bill. Our guess is that these new revelations will also be ignored. They're too embarrassing.

An interesting theory that overlooks crucial facts. Washington's oversize support for biofuels in the Energy Bill was not put together to please environmentalists, nor to respond to global warming. It was a move designed to reduce "energy dependence" on foreign oil and as an enormous giveaway to agribusiness interests. Oops.

It's worth noting, by contrast, what another newspaper had to say about the new research on biofuels. Here's how the San Francisco Chronicle concluded its piece:

Today's biofuel industry needs to change rapidly in order to avoid worsening the climate-change problem, but doing so will put it on a path toward a sustainable and profitable future. Global agriculture can produce enough food and fuel for our growing world - but we need to make sure that the cheapest way of doing so is also the best for our planet and people.

There's a positive spirit!

It's also worth noting what Edison Electric Institute President Tom Kuhn had to say at his annual "state of the industry" speech to Wall Street on the very same same day.

We always look forward to our annual briefing to talk to you about the key issues that are facing the electric utility industry. This year may mark a watershed in the way that our nation thinks about and addresses energy—how we get it, how we use it, and how much it costs. What is happening in our industry is the beginning of a transformation. And much of this transformation is the result of the need to address the issue of global climate change.

If the chief spokesman of the electric utility industry can say those simple words, you'd think the WSJ editorial writers could, too.

Related Stories

Mr. Murdoch, Please Make the Wall Street Journal Carbon Neutral

Pressing Murdoch on the Journal's Climate Views (NYT)

WSJ Launches New Environment Blog (CJR)

Signal Fading from Wall Street Journal's Alternate Climate Universe?

Case Study: How Climate Skeptics Spoon Feed the Wall Street Journal

• ‹ previous
• up
• next ›