3 ms·

> 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

> 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
      > 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. Bingo.
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.

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
    > 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. Bingo.

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.