The NYT should swallow its own medicine
Amen to Gregg Pollowitz, who skewers the NYTimes’ editorial promoting layoffs and the death of the S.U.V. in the name of saving the environment:
Do you know what else emits tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere? Printing newspapers on perfectly good trees. Maybe Congress should tax the Times until they switch to the environmentally friendly all-digital format. Of course, they’d have to fire 90 percent of their workforce, but, think of all the ice that will save at the North Pole!
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Enviro-nitwits, New York Times
Mudville Gazette
» The five-year plan
Legal Insurrection
» Is "Finish the Job" the New "Peace With Honor"?Pundit & Pundette
» Hiding the decline: Deniers made them do itPower Line
» More From the East Anglia ArchivesFounding Bloggers
» Did The New York Times Just Tell Glenn Reynolds To “STFU”?Doug Ross @ Journal
» 'Hope is fading fast' --- the T-ShirtDoug Ross @ Journal
» BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Boston Globe Climate Beclownment Spectacular
The Times pollutes the human mind!
but the
PravdaNYT is IMPORTANT.. that is why THEY must keep printing. they view themselves as a ruling class shaping the minds and the feelings of the sheeple..so the carbon credit tax shouldn’t apply to them..
MWUAHAHAHA
I love it!
Plus, I’m sure if anyone made a proper study of it, they would find that the methane produced by this lot far outweighed what the bovine population creates. Doesn’t arugula cause excessive flatulence?!
Yes. Let’s get those gas guzzlers off of the road and manufacture new, fuel-efficient cars, all the while ignoring the energy used to make said cars. Case in point:
Chutzpah, pure and simple.
Since when are we taking the NYSlimes seriously anyway?
Uberschmack to the face.
Actually, the Times could go the rest of the way to make the sacrifice for the environment. Think of all the electricity that goes into the online version that could be saved if they just went out of business altogether.
It isn’t as if we need to read it to know what it is going to say every day. President Bush lied, we should let anyone who wants to come in to our country just come on in and we should give up our 2nd Amendment rights. Oh, yes, whatever it is, it’s the USA’s fault or responsibility, unless it’s Iraq, and Bush lied about that, so it’s his fault. And about those layoffs, well, I hear that Congress is going to extend unemployment benefits.
Did they pull the blog entry? When I click on the link, I get a blank page.
Sorry, but, I am not giving up my AWD SUV anytime soon. I live at 7100′ elevation, and we typically get 230″+ snow in the winter.
You’ll never see me risk my life driving a dinky Prius with 4″ of clearance and getting stuck in a 5′ blizzard anytime soon.
Add the allergies and toxins in the cheap ink and you have an environmental disaster. The ugly ’spills’ caused by loose newspaper blowing around and causing buildup in our alleys and parks could be stopped if only the federal government would step in.
BTW
I live outside of New York City, like almost every other American, and I need my truck. Period.
Kiss my truck driving, beer drinking cigar smoking, talk radio listening, polar bear eating, patriotic American butt NYT, you bunch of commies.
Hey BlameAmericaLast,
NJ doesn’t get any where near that much snow; however, I am still holding onto my SUV. They will have to pry the keys from my cold, dead hands.
And if we stick them with hiring illegal aliens to deliver the paper, they’d really be hurt.
Q: How much manure can you haul in a Prius?
A: Not nearly as much as the NYT slings each and every day.
I have to agree with you on the ability of a Prius to operate in our part of the country too. We are only at 3000 ft in the middle of nowhere Idaho, but we have enough winter driving fun to make life without 4 wheel drive very precarious. There are also a lot of unpaved roads in our area of high desert and nearby mountain region and most hunting or fishing spots require an off road capability to get there. The smug latte drinking weenies at the dying NYT need to pull their heads out of their butts and understand there are expanses of wide open country where an SUV is a necessity that actually is used off road instead of some inner city status symbol. They wonder why they keep losing circulation as they continue to print this type of drivel.
Also – so it’s now a good thing that GM has cut 35,000 jobs and is sending 4,500 jobs to Mexico?
That’s a lot of Americans who still have families to feed who now don’t have a livelihood.
I hate eltist New Yorker types who think everywhere is just like where they live and that trucks are just pleasure vehicles that people drive for manly points or something. Most trucks out there WORK. They pull something, haul something. Like the steel to make the building the stupid NYT is sitting in.
To the driving point — I drove a Honda Civic for a year in Boston, MA.
SCARIEST driving of my life. And it’s so low to the ground the salt from the trucks essentially erodes the underneath of your car.
And without 4WD, slipping all over the place. I lived at the top of a hill and I once had to park my Civic at the base of the hill and walk up the ice because the car wouldn’t make it.
hahaha nice
Excellent point.
My only worry is what would I use to wrap fish and line the bird cage?
The NYT destroys the environment in order to spread lies, anti-American propaganda, and to undermine our most covert military / intelligence operations designed to fight terrorism, and they have the audacity of hope to tell the rest of us how to live our lives?
Don’t tell me how to select a vehicle and I won’t tell you how to suck a latte NYT. You know more about sucking than the rest of us anyway..
“Congress should tax the Times until they switch to the environmentally friendly all-digital format”
How is all-digital environmentally friendly? Do computers, semiconductor devices, and wiring grow from trees? Must be from the same plantation were they grow and harvest those eco-friendly hybrid cars.
I understand the skepticism of the NY Times (and of all the environmental doom-and-gloom we are being bombarded with), but arguing for an eco-friendly, all-digital format vs. paper does not seem to add up. All of our gadgets are based on the energy intensive processing of raw materials extracted from dear Mother Earth.
Heck, at least trees are a renewable resource, a crop to be planted and harvested.
The NY Times should switch to earth-friendly lemon juice ink. No one would tell the difference and the editorial page would make more sense.
But you’re all forgetting the most important point:
There’s no such thing as global warming. Jeez.
This says what I think of a Prius.
I like my big Silverado. When I want more mpg then my Harley-Davidson Sportster gets about 50 mpg and is more fun than a Prius.
I told my parrot he’s gotta go digital, he’s not having any of it until “this parrot is an ex parrot!”.
I don’t even the Times anymore. What’s the use? Besides, while the argument of reducing CO2 sounds good, the reality is newspaper circulation is dropping across the land. People are just sick of the same old liberal slant.
If you do read the paper, please be responsible and recycle.
Boomer, BlameAmericaLast,
As you can see the NYT understands your situation and is response to rising gas prices thinks increasing gas taxes will help. Just like the Global Warming Carbon Tax this will give us hope by encouraging us to walk everywhere, which will be very useful getting you to work in snowstorms.
If the Times went out of business:
–what would bums use for park bench blankets?
–what would I wrap fish guts in?
–what would I use for “mountain money” on camping trips (oh, did I *really* say that)?
*out*
It’s good for so many reasons and each one of them can be used to blame Bush…
/sarc off
LOL wow… that quote is made of Epic Win.
/nerd-speak
The New York Times? They’re still in business? I thought they were dead…
Anyway,
Don’t forget the fleet of non-hybrid trucks that deliver that bird-cage liner every day.
Or the volatiles that pour off the printing press, into the atmosphere, every time they run their presses.
Or the carbon generated shipping literally thousands of tons of paper stock and ink to their presses.
Or the carbon generated every time they fly their “reporters” from here to there.
Etc.
Care to contrast the NYT’s carbon footprint, per reader, with Drudge, MichelleMalkin, and other modern sites?
So why do liberals still prefer paper to phosphors? Why is the blogosphere primarily conservative, while the written press is primarily liberal?
Because, for the most part, liberals are technically challenged…
No. However, the Times has already invested in servers for their web presence. We’re just suggesting that they use it more.
And I really don’t think a few servers compare to cutting down whole forests every year just to print and distribute trash. Maybe if they switched we would see building lumber drop in price…
dpt,
You ever notice how you can type something, delete it and type something else?
Welcome to Earth.
“And I really don’t think a few servers compare to cutting down whole forests every year just to print and distribute trash.”
It is not a question of a few servers. The production and consumption of cell phones, computers, servers, etc. do grow year after year. That is why Intel, Apple, Cisco and others strive to compete and stay in business.
As with paper products, there is an extensive, energy intensive extractive industry required for our digital age.
On a net comparison, is digital “greener” for the environment compared to paper? Honestly, I do not know, though I would not too readily describe digital as good for the environment. Yes trees are chopped down for print, but can be replanted.
For electronics, information, and electricity—our digital infrastructure, gold, copper, tin, lead, silver, indium, silicon, tantalum, etc. all have to be mined and processed. Silicon for semiconductors and solar need to be processed in energy intensive processes using toxic chemicals.
I don’t think the sky-is-falling with all the Al Gore, NY Times hype, but lets be careful what we (the enviro elites) deem and bless as being green. Often there is more feel good hype than substance.
I know for the greenie-types, cutting down trees is bad bad bad, yet lets look at things critically.
dpt, your attempt at even-handedness is commendable, but a trifle-wishy washy; the left offers no such nuances or trade-offs.
The NYT is NOT even-handed, and is notoriously hypocritical. so they are a target-rich environment.
I think I’ve reported here before that, on the same day the Times editorialized against “corporate welfare”, their business section reported approvingly that the Times Corporation had secured a $29 million tax break from the City to encourage them to build a new HQ downtown.
q.e.d.
“dpt, your attempt at even-handedness is commendable, but a trifle-wishy washy; the left offers no such nuances or trade-offs.”
I agree about the left and the NYT and its biases.
Pardon my side-track on the original commentary. I was not meaning to defend the NYT per se, just to offer a bit of counter to the “trees/paper are bad bad bad” vs. “digital/on-line is green green” perspective.
Link isn’t working for some reason. It’s just a blank page now.
But we’re not doing it simply for the sake of reading the NYT. Their paper and ink is mostly unusable for any other purpose other than their own (though recyclable), but your computer and cell phone can be put to myriad uses – many of them far more productive. For example, you may read the NYT web site, then switch over and use your computer in the battle against cancer, or to calculate the way to double the number of computer chips in the next generation of wafers. All-in-all I’d say digital wins.
Your puppie or fishbones may disagree…
“but your computer and cell phone can be put to myriad uses – many of them far more productive”
Come on, the dislike of the NYT is blinding one from seeing the use of newspapers for multi things. There’s the parrot cage application noted above, and I use newspapers and liberal amounts of lighter fluid to get my charcoal grill started. Sure, perhaps not as dramatic as fighting cancer or designing computer chips, but nonetheless quite practical—yet simple in our go-go age.
1. The eco-freaks are just flat out lying. Truth be told I doubt I know anybody who is not a conservationist; we all try to do the right thing regardless of the Gorites rants. And if there is one person I am convinced does NOT believe in Global Warming it is Al Gore. That Carney barker presentation of his is a dead give away; you see that same presentation for all those $19.95 Not Available in Stores, But Wait There is More, Miracle Stuff crap on TV.
We most certainly have an economy car for running around and a 4X4 pickup when we need a pickup. There is no contradiction there despite the Gorites rants.
Thing is almost everybody I know tries to conserve energy, it saves money. Technology has helped more than any tree hugging woose. But these Gorites do not want us to succeed–they NEED power over us and private homes and cars are a threat to that power.
Almost every mandate we have seen makes the situation worse–it locks us into one technology and stifles research. This holy mantra of the Leftist eco freaks “we can’t drill ourselves out of this” is just one more Gorite lie. Any solution that is not Government mandated is dismissed as if these people understood Energy Dynamics. We have oil and coal which is much cleaner than ever before, the Gorite Eco Freaks say NO. Solar energy on a LOCAL level can help, the Gorite Eco Freaks say NO. They demand some pie in the sky BIG centralized solution. Nuclear energy can help, Gorite Eco Freaks say NO.
But the Gorite Eco Freaks, NYT and phony alternative energy shills will lie. Being Leftist I guess that is to be expected.
Now I must decide if I take the car or the pickup to get my morning latte. The pick up truck is better for bumping cars with “Mother Earth” bumper stickers.
And what about all those deliveries of the NYTimes? Has anyone calculated the environmental impact of the gas from the trucks? The landfill problem from newspapers should also be calculated because, recycling or not, that’s where they end up for the most part.
Liberals always think the rules are for everyone else, not them….they just give out the wisdom of the ages for the rest of us poor slobs.
As always: