The Wall Street Journal’s opinion pages are not exactly bastions of journalistic integrity, to say the least. This weekend provided a prime example of the Journal’s fundamental inability to reconcile opinions and ideology with facts, with a pair of opinion pieces promoting fossil fuels.
The first of the two pieces (posted two minutes before the other) is an op-ed by Robert Bryce. It’s Bryce’s two dozenth op-ed in the WSJ over the last decade, each and every one of which attacks renewables, promotes fossil fuels or, in most cases, does both. But this is hardly a surprise, given that Bryce was long ago exposed as a paid tool of the fossil-fuel-funded Manhattan Institute. (Not that it was hard to connect the dots, as no one not funded by Exxon would seriously suggest putting the company in charge of the Energy department. At least not in the pre-Trump era...)
In the past we’ve called out how Bryce distorted numbers, levelled bird-brained accusations, and misrepresented protests. This time, Bryce wants everyone to know that the US is producing a ton of natural gas, and much less wind and solar power. He uses a lot of numbers, the veracity of which, given his history, there’s good reason to question. But really, there’s no need to waste one’s time double checking.
Because yes, the US is still drilling for a lot of gas, more than it is building wind farms and solar plants. That is exactly the problem. Obviously Bryce doesn’t acknowledge that all this extra gas is going to kill the climate, but that’s the whole reason why we need public policy to support renewable energy. We’re drilling ourselves into oblivion, and the only way out is through developing clean energy.
But when policies are put in place to reflect that reality, the WSJ will be there to poo-poo them.
The second anti-human-surival-on-Earth piece the paper published Sunday was an editorial about Berkley, California’s ban on natural gas. The Journal, totally known far and wide for its super-sincere positions to aid marginalized communities, came out against a policy that will prevent new buildings from being built with natural gas connections.
Strangely enough, the piece actually admits that “electric heaters are generally less expensive than gas furnaces,” but then makes the illogical jump to claim that because California’s energy prices are higher than other states, and its natural gas prices are higher than other places, this ban will mean poor people have to pay higher heating costs. And it does nothing to actually support the contention that moving to “generally less expensive” electric heat would somehow raise prices.
Oddly though, the editorial acknowledges that the gas banning ordinance “contains a social-justice rationale” in its reference to the fact that the highest rates of asthma are located in “areas that were redlined pursuant to racist housing policies.” Yes, part of the reason to ban gas is to protect those who suffer its pollution, but no, that doesn’t mean the WSJ is going to take their health concerns to heart, as it references redlining only to hand-wave it away.
For those young or privileged enough not to know already, redlining was an explicitly racist system of structural oppression in which black Americans were deliberately denied access to the federal government’s Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, which literally drew red lines around minority communities. As a result, economic development in those marginalized communities remains depressed, leaving property prices so low that these became obvious choices for industry to locate dirty, polluting facilities that leave its neighbors struggle to breathe with disproportionately high rates of asthma and other ailments.
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial, however, turns a blind eye to this classic, textbook example of systemic racism. Instead the piece downplays redlining merely as “bankers once didn’t lend to the poor,” once again revealing how hands greased by fossil fuels are awash in white supremacy.
Top Climate and Clean Energy Stories: