5 ms·

I mostly find The Economist to be propaganda, for example they try to frame energy vs covid because they always want to disparage "green energy" and covid safet

I mostly find The Economist to be propaganda, for example they try to frame energy vs covid because they always want to disparage "green energy" and covid safety measures. That's their bias, I find it to be really grating but hey to each their own. What I would have liked to have seen in this article was a breakdown of the causes of death. It seems like the implication is that energy costs caused people to freeze to death, or at least keep the temperature low and... get more sick? I guess? Not sure. But since energy prices are tied to everything else, how much of these excess deaths were knock-on effects of high energy prices affecting the costs of goods and subsequently human behavior? I would be curious to see a breakdown of the effects because it's hard for me to believe that people are just freezing to death because they can't afford $100/month extra on their electricity bills. Maybe this is true, but I would like to see a breakdown of the causes of death for each person. One of the things that came to mind is the idea that let's say there's some percentage of people on the verge of suicide on any given day. Could an extra $100/mo on their utility bill, or the inflation from high energy prices, have enough of an effect that they kill themselves? I think this would be a more interesting analysis than "herp derp energy production is more important than covid safety", especially when the easy argument against the effect of energy costs on an individual is that expensive energy is only relevant when consumers pay for it directly. If the state subsidizes energy production then (assuming no blackouts) nobody is going to freeze to death (which they hinted at in their article, but didn't realize the end conclusion that a nationalized energy sector makes energy costs largely irrelevant to the individual). Personally I don't really care either way, but I think this post sucks and I don't see why it's so high up.

robbiep 3y ago
> because they always want to disparage "green energy" and covid safety measures. This is simply not a true reflection of the voice of the economist, which has been climate-real (in terms of aligned with the scientific evidence) for more than 25 years
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  a) even if I grant you your timeline, that's still decades of delay and denial b) they have still been championing people like Bjorn Lomborg within that timeframe. c) they appear to have become more US culture war aligned recently as their readership changed which is obviously a step backwards on climate (and COVID)
  - robbiep 3y ago
    your comment is still a gross misrepresentation of the economist 'voice'. I've been a semi-regular reader for at least 20 years, for instance, and have never seen or heard reference to Bjorn Lomborg. For example, I just logged in and searched for him - there are 5 articles he appears in since 2001. I struggle to find any sort of COVID skepticism or 'behind the science' viewpoint with their reporting, frankly I don't think this is true unless you can point to an example of it, and as a Doctor I am acutely sensitive to bad reporting on this. I don't particularly understand the economist hate that periodically appears here, except to acknowledge that there are different viewpoints, and unless you're radically one way or the other as it pertains to the US culture war which threatens every day to engulf normal discourse everywhere - a society in a phase change either to something greater or to a race to the bottom.
    - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
      I'm not saying The Economist is batshit insane enough to still be pushing Trump style lies about climate change. But it's an absolute fact that Trump and Putin only managed to get away with such insanities because for decades the right wing, after initially accepting climate science and starting to put measures in place, got bought by fossil fuel interests. The Economist was and still is part of that. https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2022/06/23/the-rights-and-wrongs-of-investing-in-natural-gas https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2022/06/23/t... Here's an article from 2022 and yeah it's not Trump level "China Hoax" stuff, but it's still clearly worrying that investing in gas isn't attractive enough, as if that's the big problem we face. Similarly the current article. Expensive energy kills apparently, so what's the cheapest source of Winter heating? Wind powered heat pumps in well insulated homes? Probably not worth mentioning, just underline that without Russian gas we die.
- green_man_lives 3y ago
  The Economist doesn't do climate denial, they just do concern trolling wrt green energy. "Oh man look at how supply doesn't keep up with demand during the day" and they usually don't acknowledge that market incentives will lead to solutions like storage and arbitrage, because the user is meant to be left with the impression that green energy is a half-baked solution that wont work with our grid. Nothing in this article is non-factual, but their primary purpose is as a propaganda piece. There isn't much intellectual value.
raincole 3y ago
There are quite a lot of articles about climate change on The Economist and as far as I know none of them denies it. But of course because they posted something that you don't agree with, they must be propaganda.
- p1necone 3y ago
  Climate change denial has moved beyond explicitly denying its existence at this point. At least the kind that can sway otherwise reasonably intelligent people. > It's not happening > Okay maybe it's happening but we didn't cause it > Okay maybe it's happening and maybe we did cause it but we shouldn't do anything about it because insert easily debunkable bullshit about electric vehicles and renewables being impractical or whataboutism involving other countries here. <== WE ARE HERE > Okay it's happening and we caused it but it's too late to do anything now so lets just keep the status quo.
  - Gud 3y ago
    And where did the Economist do this? When was the Economist ever denying climate change?
    - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
      Does their glowing obituary of Nigel Lawson count: > His frequent presence on the bbc, arguing against the reality of man-made climate change or, alternatively, that a bit of warming was desirable, depending on the day, outraged environmentalists and scientists alike. https://www.economist.com/britain/2023/04/04/nigel-lawson-was-the-economic-brain-of-thatcherism https://www.economist.com/britain/2023/04/04/nigel-lawson-wa...
      - jdminhbg 3y ago
        Seems like no, it does not count, because they're explicitly saying he was wrong: > the reality of man-made climate change
mardifoufs 3y ago
Disparaging COVID safety measures means it's propaganda now? I absolutely get disliking the economist (they are war mongering at every occasion), but criticism of COVID measures isn't some sort of weird agenda lol. It only makes sense to look back and see what went wrong, and if anything there is a huge lack of criticism of how it all went down. Like I don't get it, would it have been propaganda if they praised COVID measures or?
- willcipriano 3y ago
  People are so conditioned to consume only propaganda that anything that isn't gives them extreme cognitive dissonance.
  - green_man_lives 3y ago
    There's plenty of propaganda for the other side, the difference is that it doesn't get posted to HN. I don't see the value of posting propaganda on HN. There is very little substance to this article. Propaganda doesn't mean "something I don't like" it means something with the primary goal of getting me to subscribe to some belief.
- green_man_lives 3y ago
  > Like I don't get it, would it have been propaganda if they praised COVID measures or? Yes, I am pointing out their bias. There is plenty of propaganda on the other side, but people aren't posting articles from Mother Jones or Salon or Breitbart on here. In an article about energy deaths a COVID comparison feels very shoe-horned in. Propaganda can be factual, nothing in this article was not factual, but it's still propaganda. I find that the primary purpose of The Economist is to be propaganda, it has little intellectual value. Which is the point of the rest of my comment.
geysersam 3y ago
If people are really freezing to death because they can't afford a relatively small exess expense I'd conclude that we need to improve the social safety net. Perhaps raise taxes and subsidize heating for the poor and vulnerable. Not decrease energy prices overall, mainly benefiting large manufacturing industries, while simultaneously causing climate change. But that's not a conclusion you'll read in the economist...
- adammarples 3y ago
  In the UK it was a vast increase in monthly expenses (still is) and yes it was partially subsidised. What nobody did was the obvious step of insulating houses, despite years of protest from Insulate Britain, who were dismissed as weirdos.

robbiep 3y ago

> because they always want to disparage "green energy" and covid safety measures. This is simply not a true reflection of the voice of the economist, which has been climate-real (in terms of aligned with the scientific evidence) for more than 25 years

ZeroGravitas 3y ago
a) even if I grant you your timeline, that's still decades of delay and denial b) they have still been championing people like Bjorn Lomborg within that timeframe. c) they appear to have become more US culture war aligned recently as their readership changed which is obviously a step backwards on climate (and COVID)
- robbiep 3y ago
  your comment is still a gross misrepresentation of the economist 'voice'. I've been a semi-regular reader for at least 20 years, for instance, and have never seen or heard reference to Bjorn Lomborg. For example, I just logged in and searched for him - there are 5 articles he appears in since 2001. I struggle to find any sort of COVID skepticism or 'behind the science' viewpoint with their reporting, frankly I don't think this is true unless you can point to an example of it, and as a Doctor I am acutely sensitive to bad reporting on this. I don't particularly understand the economist hate that periodically appears here, except to acknowledge that there are different viewpoints, and unless you're radically one way or the other as it pertains to the US culture war which threatens every day to engulf normal discourse everywhere - a society in a phase change either to something greater or to a race to the bottom.
  - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
    I'm not saying The Economist is batshit insane enough to still be pushing Trump style lies about climate change. But it's an absolute fact that Trump and Putin only managed to get away with such insanities because for decades the right wing, after initially accepting climate science and starting to put measures in place, got bought by fossil fuel interests. The Economist was and still is part of that. https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2022/06/23/the-rights-and-wrongs-of-investing-in-natural-gas https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2022/06/23/t... Here's an article from 2022 and yeah it's not Trump level "China Hoax" stuff, but it's still clearly worrying that investing in gas isn't attractive enough, as if that's the big problem we face. Similarly the current article. Expensive energy kills apparently, so what's the cheapest source of Winter heating? Wind powered heat pumps in well insulated homes? Probably not worth mentioning, just underline that without Russian gas we die.
green_man_lives 3y ago
The Economist doesn't do climate denial, they just do concern trolling wrt green energy. "Oh man look at how supply doesn't keep up with demand during the day" and they usually don't acknowledge that market incentives will lead to solutions like storage and arbitrage, because the user is meant to be left with the impression that green energy is a half-baked solution that wont work with our grid. Nothing in this article is non-factual, but their primary purpose is as a propaganda piece. There isn't much intellectual value.

raincole 3y ago

There are quite a lot of articles about climate change on The Economist and as far as I know none of them denies it. But of course because they posted something that you don't agree with, they must be propaganda.

p1necone 3y ago
Climate change denial has moved beyond explicitly denying its existence at this point. At least the kind that can sway otherwise reasonably intelligent people. > It's not happening > Okay maybe it's happening but we didn't cause it > Okay maybe it's happening and maybe we did cause it but we shouldn't do anything about it because insert easily debunkable bullshit about electric vehicles and renewables being impractical or whataboutism involving other countries here. <== WE ARE HERE > Okay it's happening and we caused it but it's too late to do anything now so lets just keep the status quo.
- Gud 3y ago
  And where did the Economist do this? When was the Economist ever denying climate change?
  - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
    Does their glowing obituary of Nigel Lawson count: > His frequent presence on the bbc, arguing against the reality of man-made climate change or, alternatively, that a bit of warming was desirable, depending on the day, outraged environmentalists and scientists alike. https://www.economist.com/britain/2023/04/04/nigel-lawson-was-the-economic-brain-of-thatcherism https://www.economist.com/britain/2023/04/04/nigel-lawson-wa...
    - jdminhbg 3y ago
      Seems like no, it does not count, because they're explicitly saying he was wrong: > the reality of man-made climate change

mardifoufs 3y ago

Disparaging COVID safety measures means it's propaganda now? I absolutely get disliking the economist (they are war mongering at every occasion), but criticism of COVID measures isn't some sort of weird agenda lol. It only makes sense to look back and see what went wrong, and if anything there is a huge lack of criticism of how it all went down. Like I don't get it, would it have been propaganda if they praised COVID measures or?

willcipriano 3y ago
People are so conditioned to consume only propaganda that anything that isn't gives them extreme cognitive dissonance.
- green_man_lives 3y ago
  There's plenty of propaganda for the other side, the difference is that it doesn't get posted to HN. I don't see the value of posting propaganda on HN. There is very little substance to this article. Propaganda doesn't mean "something I don't like" it means something with the primary goal of getting me to subscribe to some belief.
green_man_lives 3y ago
> Like I don't get it, would it have been propaganda if they praised COVID measures or? Yes, I am pointing out their bias. There is plenty of propaganda on the other side, but people aren't posting articles from Mother Jones or Salon or Breitbart on here. In an article about energy deaths a COVID comparison feels very shoe-horned in. Propaganda can be factual, nothing in this article was not factual, but it's still propaganda. I find that the primary purpose of The Economist is to be propaganda, it has little intellectual value. Which is the point of the rest of my comment.

geysersam 3y ago

If people are really freezing to death because they can't afford a relatively small exess expense I'd conclude that we need to improve the social safety net. Perhaps raise taxes and subsidize heating for the poor and vulnerable. Not decrease energy prices overall, mainly benefiting large manufacturing industries, while simultaneously causing climate change. But that's not a conclusion you'll read in the economist...

adammarples 3y ago
In the UK it was a vast increase in monthly expenses (still is) and yes it was partially subsidised. What nobody did was the obvious step of insulating houses, despite years of protest from Insulate Britain, who were dismissed as weirdos.