Shame on the Washington Post Editorial Page

The purpose of an editorial page is to debate the great issues of the day.  And surely one of the greatest issues of the 21st century is, and will increasingly be, global climate change.  In conjunction with sustainability, energy and resource use, natural disasters, and biodiversity loss, sooner or later climate change will cause great damage to the human race if nothing is done.

The Washington Post editorial page covers almost none of this, aside from attacking the concept that we can do anything about climate change.  In alternately neglecting the issue and urging that we do nothing, the editorial page acts as a microcosm of much of American society, which grudgingly admits that climate change is happening, yet refuses to change old ways of thinking and behaving.

Questions about the nature of climate change, and of how we should respond, desperately need serious public debate.  Have we seen the start of natural disasters, such as hurricanes and drought, that are already delivering devastating blows to our way of life?  Or do we have a time-frame of 50 years before the human species truly starts to suffer?  Do we need a crash program to radically change our way of life now, or is a slower, more systematic effort the way to go?

These questions are being debated by serious thinkers, such as the economists Nicholas Stern and William Nordhaus.  Developments regarding climate change are solidly covered in the Post’s news sections.  Elsewhere, heavyweight thinkers on the environment, such as Jared Diamond and Lester Brown, explain the issues in clear and dramatic prose.  Yet we see none of this in the Post’s editorial pages.

Instead the editorials primarily consist of outdated perceptions that amount to virtual denial of climate change.  Rather than engaging seriously with scientists and environmentalists, Post editorialists prefer to insult popular figures who speak up.  In "Hollywood's Climate Follies" Robert J. Samuelson argues that we “should treat the pious exhortations to ‘do something’ with skepticism, disbelief or contempt.”  The obvious implication, that we should do nothing about the greatest long-term threat to our survival, is itself worthy of skepticism, disbelief, or contempt. 

Samuelson exemplifies a tendency to avoid facing up to new realities.  He is stuck in old paradigms that assume America’s current consumption of fossil fuels is the only viable way of life.

Samuelson says this straight out: "The lifestyles that produce greenhouse gases are deeply ingrained in modern economies and societies. Without major changes in technology, the consequences may be unalterable."  This evasion amounts to a philosophy of do nothing and pray.  It also shortchanges the United States, assuming that we are incapable of facing serious social and technological challenges, when historically we have been brilliant at adapting.  If Samuelson had been writing in 1940, perhaps he would have argued that there was no way to stop the Nazi onslaught, that the American people wouldn’t put up with changes that would require too much sacrifice.

Such thinking is far removed from a time in which America believed that, when it put its mind and will to solving a problem, anything was possible.  In 1961, John F. Kennedy promised to go to the moon by the end of the decade.  With the major technology undeveloped, with cumbersome computers laughable by today’s standards, we landed on the moon in 1969.  The Apollo Alliance for Clean Energy is named for this vision and seeks to enact a similarly ambitious program.

Our larger society needs to mobilize around such a vision.  First, however, we need to overcome climate change evasion.  Post editorialists may be a bit too sophisticated to continue to deny scientific reality, but they deny the conclusions toward which it inevitably leads.  Instead, they prefer to attack the messenger.  So columnist Anne Applebaum responded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, in which thousands of scientists confirm the truth about global warming: “The headline in the British Guardian newspaper on Saturday was almost gloating about the bad news” and that “So much was said about the need for ‘action’ and ‘change,’ in fact, that it's a wonder the resultant hot air didn't make temperatures rise higher” (Global Warming's Simple Remedy).

Why such an attack at such a time?  Does Applebaum mean that there’s no need for action and change?

No, for she grudgingly admits that something needs to be done, suggesting a carbon tax solution in place of the overly complex Kyoto scheme currently in place.  Applebaum may very well be right, if simplistic about the range of steps necessary.  Negotiating and implementing such a scheme is extremely tricky, and the United States has offered no leadership.  But then it’s difficult to offer leadership when every step of the way every option is questioned and derided in a flippant spirit of evasion.  Does Applebaum want to deride climate change warnings, or argue for a specific response?  Even she doesn’t seem to know.

The sin is one of omission as much as commission.  Scan page after page of Washington Post editorials and you will find nary a mention of climate or environmental issues.  Very occasionally you will find something thoughtful and serious, such as Naomi Oreskes’ editorial timed to coincide with the release of the IPCC report.  She concludes that, “In 1965, the concern that greenhouse gases would lead to global warming was a prediction. Today, it is an established scientific fact.” (The Long Consensus on Climate Change) Some serious discussion of biofuels has also begun, strongly prompted by recent events.  Unfortunately this all-to-rare acknowledgement is as far as the Post editorial pages ever go.

Much of the blame here must go to Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt.  His own writing shows where he stands.  His “Clogged Arteries” reveals his failure to move beyond 20^th century assumptions.  His argument, that the best way to combat congestion is to “actually build some roads,” with Smart Growth and public transportation relegated to secondary status, is exactly the reverse of the kind of thinking we need.  The old paradigm of endless expansion of fossil fuel reliance needs to be replaced with one of sustainability, yet you won’t even begin to see such a discussion on Hiatt’s pages.

Editorials such as Hiatt’s and Samuelson’s wouldn’t be so bad if we got plenty of discussion from all along the spectrum, but we don’t.  A distinguished economist, such as Samuelson, deserves a regular column to put his ideas before a wider public and has done so honorably for decades.  But when circumstances change and his ideas remain the same, when they are no longer relevant, we need something else.  Where is the distinguished climate scientist to give his or her perspective on a regular basis?  The distinguished environmental economist?

The public’s need to know is being infringed upon.  Hiatt is not doing his job.  He needs to change his thinking or resign.

Note: April 14^th will be a day of rallies throughout the country for action to stop climate change.  See Step It Up for more information.

Ethan Goffman, Politics and Environment Correspondent:

Ethan’s column, Environmental Connections, published on the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of every month to Gather Essentials: Politics is a discussion of environmental matters from local to global, covering transportation, smart growth, environmental justice, green buildings, climate change, energy independence and other topics.
Ethan is a writer and editor based near Washington, DC

Keep up with Ethan’s postings and Gather activity by joining his Gather network -- just click here http://www.egoffman.gather.com/ and select the orange “Connect” button on the left-hand side of the page

You’ll find Ethan and other Politics Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other Politics experts at politics.gather.com