New York Times Sees “Big Win,” But for Whom?

Accuracy in Media

A New York Times article on the Obama administration’s latest climate change regulations opens with a salvo from the perspective of someone championing those regulations. Certainly no effort was made to consider those who do not believe in the theory of man-made global warming.

“In a big win for environmentalists, the Supreme Court on Monday effectively endorsed the Obama administration’s efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from sources like power plants, even as it criticized what it called the administration’s overreaching,” begins the article. “But the combative tone of Monday’s ruling, along with its rejection of one of the agency’s principal rationales for the regulations under review, suggests that the road ahead may be rocky for other initiatives meant to reduce carbon emissions.”

So, this is a “big win for environmentalists,” but the “road ahead may be rocky for other [global warming] initiatives.” The Times may be calling the Supreme Court combative, but they are acting as outright agitators for climate change causes themselves.

The National Journal sees it a little differently. In an article titled, “Supreme Court Slightly Weakens EPA Global-Warming Program,” they write that “The decision does not address EPA’s new proposals to set carbon-emissions standards for power plants.” They view it as a ruling that instead “addresses an existing permitting program launched several years ago.”

And the Cato Institute’s Andrew Grossman sees the Supreme Court’s decision as largely a rejection of an Obama administration overreach: “At issue was one of the Obama Administration’s earliest efforts to skirt Congress and achieve its major policy goals unilaterally through aggressive executive action,” wrote Grossman, but the Court ended up “throwing out Obama Administration actions as incompatible with the law.”

One of the sources for the Times article was the George Soros-backed Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which Adam Liptak described merely as an “advocacy group,” meaning a left-wing advocacy group, since there was no ideological label attached.

“Most media ignored the serious economic impacts this rule will likely create,” noted James Simpson in a recent AIM column.

The Times did make some attempt to acknowledge the costs of the regulations, as discussed in the context of the latest Supreme Court ruling on them:

“Applying the law as written would increase the number of covered sources under one program to more than 80,000, from just hundreds, reaching commercial and residential sources and subjecting them to expenses averaging almost $60,000, according to a decision under review from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

A second program would reach six million sources, subjecting them to expenses of more than $20,000 each. The cost of administering the programs would rise to $21 billion from $62 million, and the new covered sources, Justice Scalia wrote, would face costs of $147 billion.

The agency said Congress could not have intended such an ‘absurd result.’ Its solution was to raise the statutory emissions threshold to 75,000 to 100,000 tons per year, thus reaching far fewer facilities. This was, it said, a permissible exercise of discretion and one subject to tightening over time.

Justice Scalia, writing for five justices, rejected that approach. ‘It is hard to imagine a statutory term less ambiguous than the precise numerical thresholds at which the act requires,’ he wrote.

Endorsing the agency’s approach, he added, ‘would deal a severe blow to the Constitution’s separation of powers.’”

“The Heritage Foundation estimates a loss of over 500,000 jobs, a decline in average family income by $1,000 and a 20 percent increase in energy costs,” writes Simpson. “The EPA acknowledged that electricity rates will rise, but if we can hold out until 2030, they assure us that prices will fall after that. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce claimed compliance costs for the new rule could exceed $50 billion per year.”

As for NRDC, it “sides with EPA, claiming a maximum cost of $14.6 billion by 2020 with offsetting benefits between $37 and $60 billion,” writes Simpson.

In the view of The New York Times, this amounts to a “big win” for environmentalists, by which they mean the left. But it looks to us like bad policy for America, as well as bad journalism by the Times.


Watcher’s Council Nominations: Amnesty By Stealth Edition

The Watcher’s Council

Welcome to the Watcher’s Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the ‘sphere and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday morning.

Council News:

Up For Grabs

Our esteemed Council member Elise at Liberty’s Spirit has decided to take a long hiatus from blogging and is leaving the group. It has certainly been great having her aboard and all of us wish her the best in her future endeavors.

That does mean, however, that we have a seat on the Council up for grabs. If you think you might be interested or want further details on what’s involved, please leave a comment under any story on Joshuapundit complete with your e-mail address (which won’t be published, of course) for consideration.

The Council In Action!!

* Tom White at VA Right! was interviewed and featured in the Columbia Journalism Review focusing on his knowledge and correct call of the defeat of Rep. Eric Cantor in Virginia by Dave Brat. Good stuff!

* Debra Heine of Nice Deb has an interesting new piece up at Breitbart concerning a One Million Dollar IRS Bounty Offered For Info Leading to White House…, by one of the conservative groups that was targeted and victimized.

This week, The MidKnight Review, Sarah Honig and The Pirate’s Cove earned honorable mention status with some great articles.

You can, too! Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries.

To bring something to my attention, simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title and a link to the piece you want considered along with an e-mail address (which won’t be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6 PM PST in order to be considered for our honorable mention category. Then return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week when it comes out Wednesday morning.

Simple, no?

It’s a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members, while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?

So, let’s see what we have for you this week…

Council Submissions

Honorable Mentions

Non-Council Submissions

Enjoy! And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that!


Congratulations to GOP on pyrrhic victory in Mississippi

By: John Hawkins

Last night, Thad Cochran beat Chris McDaniel in a primary run-off and became the GOP’s Senate candidate in Mississippi.

It wasn’t an honorable victory.

Cochran won by getting Democrats to vote in a Republican primary. This was done by touting his support of food stamps. It was done by paying “walking around money” to buy votes. It was done by smearing Tea Partiers as racists.

That’s what it took to re-elect a senile 76 year old man that few people even believe is mentally capable of serving out another term in the Senate.

The cost of that victory was the integrity, personal honor and reputations of prominent Cochran supporters like Haley Barbour, Karl Rove, Mitch McConnell, John McCain and the NRSC, who were all undoubtedly congratulating each other on their sleazy victory last night, while today they’ll begin to try to distance themselves from the dishonorable conduct they winked at during the campaign. We may never know which of them was ultimately responsible for smearing Tea Partiers as racists or centering the run-off campaign around getting Democrats to vote in a GOP campaign. But what we do know is that if Haley Barbour, Karl Rove, John McCain or the NRSC found it unacceptable, they could have put their foot down and demanded the campaign put a stop to it. None of them did because they were just fine with using those sort of tactics to defeat grassroots conservatives.

In return, they will probably get their doddering moderate senator elected instead of adding another grassroots conservative in D.C. But, the cost will be millions of turned-off conservatives, fund raising hits for the already failing NRSC, and even more animosity and venom between Tea Partiers and the establishment.

What was it King Pyrrhus said after his “victory” over the Romans that cost him many of his best officers and troops?

One more such victory and we are lost.

How many more “victories” like the one Thad Cochran won yesterday can the GOP stand without shattering to pieces?