On Saturday the front page had an ostensibly neutral, he said, she said, news piece on Federal approvals for an expansion of a methane pipeline.
 |
| Two takes on Methane Sunday and Saturday, front page |
On Sunday, the front page had an expose and investigation on dangerous methane leaks at the landfill. It was not so much of a he-said, she-said piece. It was more clearly an assertion that methane was leaking and doing so in violation of regulations.
By contrast, the pipeline approval was apparently within regulations. But it was still to transport methane.
Is the main problem the violation of regulations? Or the methane itself, and the reason for the regulations?
On transportation, which creates the greatest proportion of greenhouse gas emissions, we continue to have ongoing pieces about the inconvenience and ostensible "costs of congestion," but have much less on the emissions from driving, a very great "cost of driving," but one generally elided.
 |
| Two takes on driving Front pages, June 2015 and June 2019 |
Are greenhouse gases bad? Or are they just a minor annoyance? Is driving an important source of them?
 |
| On Drive-thrus: August (L) and a year ago (R) |
The period when we finally get a consistent through-line on emissions will be interesting and important to see.
At the moment, we silo off emissions, sometimes considering them, sometimes erasing them, depending on the popularity of the topic: Garbage is gross, cooking with gas is great, and driving is delightful.
 |
| This month on fire and drought |
1 comment:
I wonder if it is reporters/ editors bias.
Lots of my older family doesn't care much for the effects of carbon emissions. I wonder if who is assigned makes a difference in the importance placed in the writing.
Post a Comment