Sanders' Plan to Fight Global Climate Disaster Too Ambitious, Says NYT
(snip)
A truly informative and fair piece here would compare Sanders plan to those of the other presidential candidates (including Trump). Some prominent environmental organizations do this, and rank Sanders plan at the top of the primary crowd. (Greenpeace awards him its only A+ score, and 350.org gives him 3/3 thumbs up, along with Cory Booker, Julian Castro, Tom Steyer, Elizabeth Warren and Marianne Williamson.)
But instead, the only comparison the Times gives readers is the misleading and unhelpful parallel it draws between Sanders insistence that the government-subsidized fossil fuel industry help pay for his climate plan through litigation, fees and taxes, and Trumps demand that the government of Mexico foot the bill for his wall. Note that the fossil fuel industry, which has spent massive amounts of money to deny climate science and block restrictions on carbon, is made up of corporations subject to US law (at least in their US subsidiaries), unlike the sovereign country of Mexico.
Sanders plan to prevent global climate catastrophe and Trumps anti-refugee wall are not obviously alike in any substantive or significant way; its as if the paper cant resist slipping in gratuitous digs at Sanders any chance it gets, even as the world burns.
Meanwhile, in the presidential debates, journalist moderators have devoted fewer than 10% of their questions to the climate crisis (FAIR.org, 10/17/19). Until media start to treat the climate crisis with the urgency the scientific community continually tells us it requires, they will continue to be a major part of the problem.
https://fair.org/home/sanders-plan-to-fight-global-climate-disaster-too-ambitious-says-nyt/
This is a good read.