Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
The substance if the article is deserving of criticism on it's own merits. First, it was opinion checking, rather than fact checking.
It chided the President for indicating that this type of disaster underscores the need for alternative energy, when in fact this type of disaster highlights the need to get off the oil tit.
It took issue with the President saying China was getting a head start in developing green industry, by point out that China is already a big polluter and on the way to becoming a bigger polluter. That misses the point that China in in the process of developing the capacity to compete with our start up industries that would create environmentally friendly products and alternative energy sources - that China want's to profit over our desire to improve the environment, not that it wants to improve its own.
It tried to rebut the President's statements on the Oil companies' resistance to regulations by pointing out that BP supported some of the President's environmental initiatives. Again comparing apples and oranges. The regulations that the oil companies have fought are the ones that would require them to engage in safer and more environmentally friendly practices in their own oil production, not in areas outside of their industry.
Finally, the alleged potential reserves about which the article spoke are reserves that could be tapped at tremendous environmental cost. I don't think the way around one environmental disaster is to create another one.
As I see it, the article's fact checking really only pointed out policies with which it disagreed, or misrepresented what was said. That is not fact-checking. That is hogwash.
Regards,
D-Ray
|
Now that's what I call a critique!!!
Myself, I thought is was an opposing viewpoint rather than hogwash, but we do tend to disagree from time to time.
Take care,
Chas