Worming Our Way out of Global Warming

In this editorial titled “A Tale of Two Targets,” the New York Times editorial board criticizes the United States Senate for its attempts to water down the House’s energy bill combating climate change. In a joint collaboration towards global environmental preservation, our world’s nations, particularly those involved in the December climate change conference in Copenhagen, are currently setting gas emission reduction targets. However, as this editorial critically informs us, the United States is currently skimping in comparison to its European equals--Britain, Germany, and France, for starters.

I completely agree with the arguments presented in this editorial. In short, the United States is failing horribly in fulfilling its duties to prevent global warming. However, this editorial would not have convinced me if I had believed otherwise. Many times, I have heard people say that length doesn’t matter. A short article is not necessarily inferior; it may simply be concise. However, in the case of this editorial, its lack of length also means lack of support and convincing rhetoric. Yes, this editorial comes from an extremely reputable news source, The New York Times, but the authors should not make this the basis of their credibility. They argue that the United States Senate is hindering the progress of the combat against climate change. They claim that opponents of such progress are mistaken in believing that high economic costs will result. But where is the evidence? What is used to support this editorial’s critique of the Senate’s decisions? Frankly, nothing much. A major portion of this editorial consists of a summary of what Europe plans to do and what the United States has not. While this does at least provide a comparison between the two levels of governmental action, it cannot serve as the sole piece of evidence.

The editorial board continuously displays its contempt towards the United States’ policy towards climate change with phrases such as “there is no excuse for the Senate’s backward march” but does not follow these assertive statements with convincing facts. It is evident from the start which standpoint the editorial takes towards how we should deal with climate change, especially since the New York Times is known to be more liberal. However, upon closer examination, the logic is flawed from lack of concrete support. Too much recitation of fact and too little persuasive argument results in an unconvinced reader. If I had not already been of the opinion that the United States must take more drastic steps in preventing the increased warming of the world we share, this article would not have caused me to reconsider.