Who you gonna believe?
I wonder if it always was like this, or whether such contentious interpretations day in and day out are a modern phenomenon. Even for a junkie like me, this is simply head-spinning. Perhaps all the more why many simply decide to shut themselves off from this cacophony and instead rely on their favorite news sources. You know, like the Faux News people!
What was the event that triggered all these headlines? In a weighty tome that can put anybody to sleep, the US EPA found "no signs of “widespread, systemic” drinking water pollution from hydraulic fracturing."
But, we are talking about energy and politics. Not really science. Which means:
it’s widely believed the Obama administration is deferential to natural gas fracking companies because the industry is more environmentally friendly than Big Coal but also robust enough to help drive much-needed economic growth. That attitude is shared by other members of the president’s partFight coal, but then a wink-wink towards natural gas.
Except, even the fighting coal is not really happening, notes the Pulitzer-winning writer at my favorite magazine:
So, where do all these leave us? Do the President and his people have any real energy policy at all? Kolbert writes, "the White House’s energy policies remain a muddle." Great! Can anything be done?
the Administration is undermining its own best efforts. But such a muddle is probably the best we can expect until and unless American voters demand something more coherent.Ah! American voters demanding something coherent? Good luck on that!
All these mean that after November 2016, we will most likely end up with a President and a Congress that will be a lot more fossil-fuel friendly than the friendly environment that currently exists. Meanwhile, there is a climate conference coming up in December:
Good luck on that, rest of the world!