But evidently, the New York Times does. On page 1 of today’s Times, John Broder writes:
Skepticism and outright denial of global warming are among the articles of faith of the Tea Party movement, here in Indiana and across the country. For some, it is a matter of religious conviction; for others, it is driven by distrust of those they call the elites. And for others still, efforts to address climate change are seen as a conspiracy to impose world government and a sweeping redistribution of wealth. But all are wary of the Obama administration’s plans to regulate carbon dioxide, a ubiquitous gas, which will require the expansion of government authority into nearly every corner of the economy.
I think “energy quest,” as delineated on Dot Earth, is one sellable approach to building a narrative. A key is making sure, from the get go, that this is cast as a challenge of generations, with today’s efforts focused on what’s feasible now, on rebuilding a culture of innovation in which energy matters and setting the stage for grander de-carbonization efforts down the line.
Unfortunately, it looks like Andy’s former colleagues on the news side of the New York Times just aren’t paying attention.
I guess we still do need some reporting on the global warming views of Tea Party candidates and supporters. But seriously — is anyone surprised at all by what John Broder found? This is so newsworthy that it deserves to be on page 1?
If Broder asked the Tea Partyers whether they would support a policy of energy innovation that would reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, there’s no evidence of it in the story. People from across the political spectrum might support such a policy for reasons that include enhancing national security, and reducing environmental impacts such as air and water pollution and the destruction wrought by the likes of mountaintop removal.
It sure would be nice to know whether some sort of political consensus could be built around an energy quest policy. Maybe we could even make some real progress. But so far, the tired old narrative still seems to exert an irresistible pull, even on reporters and editors who should know better.