In case there was any doubt which side The New York Times favors when it comes to climate change opinions, the paper devoted three entire pages to “the effects of President Trump’s environmental policy.”
Just a day after Earth Day — on April 23 — the front page of the Sunday Review section of the Times featured an enormous graphic illustration of planet Earth and the headline “The Planet Doesn’t Have Time for This.” Beneath that, a subhead attacked President Donald Trump and warned the planet might “never recover” from his climate policies.
The bottom of the full-page spread featured climate alarmist and activist Bill McKibben’s dire warning about the “environmental onslaught” of the current administration. He specifically criticized reopening coal mines and he’s one of the many people who will march against the Trump administration on April 29.
“But there’s an extra dimension to the environmental damage. What Mr. Trump is trying to do to the planet’s climate will play out over geologic time as well. In fact, it’s time itself that he’s stealing from us,” McKibben claimed.
He praised the Paris climate agreement as a “good idea” because “we’re already seeing disastrous ice melt at the poles, the loss of coral reefs and the inexorable rise of the oceans.”
“Other presidents and other nations will have spewed more carbon into the atmosphere, but none will have insured, at such a critical moment, that carbon’s reign is extended,” McKibben argued. Ultimately reaching the bleak conclusion that, “[E]ven when we vote him out of office, Trumpism will persist, a dark stratum in the planet’s geological history. In some awful sense, his term could last forever.”
McKibben is the co-founder of 350.org, a left-wing climate group, which considers 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide the appropriate amount for the atmosphere. His group is funded by many prominent liberal donors including George Soros, Tom Steyer, The Grantham Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Wallace Global Fund, Marisla Foundation, Park Foundation and Tides Foundation.
That 350 ppm threshold was crossed way back in 1988, according to a 2008, article by The New York Times. Currently, the earth is around 407 ppm. This means McKibben’s goal (and others including James Hansen who came up with the figure) would require extreme regression or massive advancement in energy technology to accomplish it.
Yet, his views are so embraced by liberal outlets like the Times that his opinions appeared prominently on the Sunday Review. The Times even supported it with two additional pages of supposed evidence for his argument called “The World We Could Lose.” It contained accounts of cloud forests, horseshoe crabs, the Thwaites Glacier, the future of climate science, Hawaiian Honeycreepers and Joshua Trees.