Thursday, May 20, 2010

Union stop-AB32 story today ignores Natl Academies reports, misleads re Stop-AB32 effect

The Union reporter Dave Moller's stop-AB32 story today, State study says AB32 could fuel inflation, comes two weeks after his previous stop-AB32 story.

Today's story omits any mention of yesterday's National Academies' "Strong Evidence On Climate Change Underscores Need For Actions To Reduce Emissions And Begin Adapting To Impacts" climate reports. And further, in saying that proponent Dan Logue (merely) wants to phase AB32 in, in order to ease economic blows, this story builds on a misleading assertion from the earlier story - namely, that the proposed threshold unemployment level for reinstating AB32 was last reached just three years ago - whereas the bigger-picture fact, that the full-year-threshold requirement has been reached for only 3 short stretches in the last 30 years (link), would give the reader a much different, and more accurate, perspective.

Perhaps Moller and his editor were unaware of the National Academies reports? Perhaps they were unaware that the initiative's economic threshold is so stringent as to effectively kill AB32?

Perhaps; but after the previous story I did alert Moller to the "only 3 stretches" fact:
[Dave, your] story doesn't mention that the "one full year" reqt has only been met 3 times in the last 30 years, as documented here:
"...once in the late 1980s (for about ten quarters), a similar stretch in the late ‘90s, and once in 2005-06."

"Ignore is the root word for ignorance."

No comments: