Reuters, NYTimes: Such a difference in a fossil energy report’s handling
Writers at two of the world’s premier news outlets, the Reuters wire service and the New York Times, found dramatically different hooks in a new report on fossil fuel costs to the economy. Remarkably, the study ignored any health or other costs due to the usual reason for worry: CO2. Rather, it calculated health and other harm due to more palpable pollutants – oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, heavy metals, soot, grit, etc. Its estimate: about $120 billion in economic harm, half from coal. The analysis is from the National Academy of Sciences’s Nat’l Research Council.
A prominent but standard reception is seen in the New York Times‘s story by Matthew L. Wald: Fossil Fuels’ Hidden Cost Is In Billions, Study says. He marches through the hidden health and environmental costs, bringing up only briefly and at the end the iffy performance by hybrid and electric vehicles by these metrics – which, again, exclude the big bugaboo called carbon.
Over at Reuters, Timothy Gardner handles it quite differently and the hed reflects this starkly: Electric cars don’t deserve halo yet: study. Reuters in fact stands pretty much by itself – and yet appears to stick to specific findings in the report. It sees a different priority for listing them. One is unsure the reporters and editors involved at Reuters showed stellar judgment, but they thought for themselves. The story says, “Electric cars will not be dramatically cleaner than autos powered by fossil fuels until they rely less on electricity from conventional coal-fired power plants.” He quotes the chairman of the report committee as saying such cars cannot be a “major green alternative” to your standard Jeep or Volkswagen until the electrical generation, and manufacture of hybrids etc themselves, gets cleaner. Gardner apparently figures the biggest surprise in the report, hence the natural lede, concerns the relatively low eco-benefit of electric cars – after all, nobody will be surprised to learn that coal and oil remain dirty.
Different as these stories are, one common weakness is apparent to these eyes. They both do too little to emphasize that the study deliberately excluded, as too imprecise to calculate, the greenhouse gas impacts on climate and hence on health and the economy by fossil fuels or motor vehicles. Wald does mention the report’s climate-blind aspect several times. But Gardner at Reuters virtually ignores carbon emissions in his discussion of the mediocre performance of electric cars in this paper’s analysis. While useful as evidence that even without climate change in the mix a cleaner way to make power is important, the study thus is hardly a reason by itself to decide for or against, say, buying one or another kind of car.
Similarly, the underlying theme in the report that “externalities” of energy’s cost, across the board are a “case for governmental intervention in the form of regulation, taxes, fees…” etc. gets fairly low play in most accounts.
A more explicit and clear handling of the report’s scope and limits is, remarkably, also at the Times at its Green Inc. blog, by Jad Mouawad. His third graf starts off declaring that it comes with a “major caveat.” And that is its exclusion of the main reason so much shouting is underway about fossil fuels use on this planet.
AP, as far as can be seen, did not cover. Several smaller outlets in coal producing regions did.
Other Stories:
- Bloomberg – Tina Seeley: Coal’s Environmental Damage Costs U.S.$62 Billion ; And lede says “not including costs of global warming.” She gets an acid quote from a coal industry rep: the report’s focus on hidden costs “completely ignores the hidden benefits of coal-based generation” such as cheaper air conditioning.
- Charleston Gazette – Ken Ward Jr.: Study finds $62 billion a year in ‘hidden costs’ of coal ;
- McClatchy / Miami Herald – Renee Schoof: Report looks at hidden health costs of energy production ; This one doesn’t bring electric or hybrid cars up at all.
- Lexington Herald-Leader (Ky) Andy Mead: Report assesses cost of pollution form coal plants/ Price Tag Put At $62 Billion A Year ;
- Science News – Janet Raloff: Report Tallies Hidden Energy Costs ; If the externalities of power production were in the utility bill, it would double, she reports. She adds, these “don’t account for pricey environmental havoc associated with global change….” Her story provided the quote above about these all being reason for government intervention in market pricing. ;
Grist for the Mill: NAS Press Release; Full Report ;
- Charlie Petit
