Reporters tend to be skeptics. They have a hard time accepting information from sources perceived to have an ax to grind.
That?s why I laughed after reading Bryan Walsh and Tiffany Sharples? description of ?carbon calculators? in the latest TIME:
No two carbon calculators are the same, since footprinting is still an inexact science. But using one from a green group or a government agency ? and not one sponsored by a company ? should give you an unbiased number that will help identify exactly where you can go greener. “Global warming is an abstract idea that is hard for people to connect to,” says Bob Schildgen, the Sierra Club’s environmental-advice columnist. “It’s good to start at the basic level, with real numbers.”
Set aside for a moment the question of whether a carbon calculator offers any useful information. For argument?s sake, let?s accept the premise that the calculator offers something of value.
Why would a reporter think that a ?green group? that pushes an environmental agenda would provide unbiased information? Why would a reporter think that the type of government agency that would provide a carbon calculator would provide unbiased information?
Even more importantly, why would a reporter display his or her bias against a private, for-profit business ? the type of business that creates the wealth that funds the green groups and government agencies?
