Wired ought to know better than this. Probably does, in fact. But this feature that purports to tell “inconvenient truths” about environmentalism uses a gimmicky straw man to tell stories that are either trite or insignificant or both. The whole is premised on an invented idea of what it means to be an “environmentalist” before rhyming off supposedly heretical truths:
Winning the war on global warming requires slaughtering some of environmentalism’s sacred cows.
Such as, purportedly, that cities are bad and carbon-trading hasn’t worked. In support of which latter claim, Wired cites the trading system put forward in the Kyoto Accord; we might as well conclude that because Kyoto failed, international treaties on any subject are pointless.
The commenters are letting rip. The word “bollocks” comes up.
2 responses so far ↓
Wy // May 20, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Cities aren’t bad. Nuclear power (if properly life-cycle managed) is good. Carbon Trading (vice phased-in carbon taxes) isn’t going to work. A re-thinking of cars, transport, urbanization, etc, is in order.
They do have some (though not all) valid points.
Questioning WIRED’s “Carbon Blindness” » The Buzz Bin // May 25, 2008 at 10:07 pm
[...] (in general, the magazine has been increasing its eco-coverage over the past year), but coverage needs to be more responsible. Publishing Steffan’s counterpoint was a good step; however, the actual article needs [...]
Leave a Comment