Global Warming Overreach

The Obama team is aware it has trouble, which explains last week's well-timed Environmental Protection Agency "finding" that carbon is a danger. The administration is now using this as a stick to beat Congress to act, arguing that if it doesn't the EPA will. (Reality: Any EPA actions will be tied up in court for years.) It also helps explain EPA's Monday analysis claiming the legislation won't cost all that much. (Reality: The agency could only make this ... Full Story »

Posted by Kaizar Campwala
Tags Help
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Kaizar Campwala - Apr 24, 2009 - 7:03 AM PDT
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Fabrice Florin - Apr 24, 2009 - 10:28 AM PDT

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Fabrice Florin
3.5
by Fabrice Florin - Apr. 24, 2009

Interesting opinion about challenges faced in U.S. Congress by a House global warming bill proposed by Rep. Henry Waxman. The author observes that the bill is opposed by a number of Democratic representatives from 'manufacturing, oil-producing, coal-producing, coal-using states,' alienating 'the very Democrats necessary to pass that bill.' It's an informative article overall, but the author presents Nancy Pelosi in an unfavorable light, which detracts from an otherwise insightful perspective.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Kaizar Campwala
3.1
by Kaizar Campwala - Apr. 24, 2009

There are legitimate policy issues brought up in this opinion piece. Too bad it is overwhelmed by the author's partisan inclinations.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Kristin Gorski
3.1
by Kristin Gorski - Apr. 24, 2009

The reporter clearly has some inside knowledge about the intricate politics which could derail this environmental effort. However, the piece is barely sourced. In addition, her conversational, sometimes sarcastic tone is an impediment to understanding the facts of the piece, not an aid.

See Full Review » (12 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.2

Average
from 3 reviews (30% confidence)
Quality
3.2
Information
3.0
Insight
3.0
Style
3.0
Context
3.7
Expertise
2.7
Originality
3.0
Relevance
4.0
Responsibility
2.7
Popularity
3.2
Recommendation
2.7
Credibility
4.0
# Reviews
1.5
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!