However any climate activist worth their salt has given up on the NYT.
this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2025
24 points (100.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
6969 readers
93 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The NYT has some very real problems — they are very much in the pocket of the oil industry — but they also have a huge audience and some trustworthy reporters working for them. Publishing an op-ed in the NYT is a good way to reach a much broader chunk of the population the Bill McKibben would reach through his own newsletter or the New Yorker.
I am sorry, I no longer feel that good people putting their names under the banner of NYT is helpful, the NYT has become a weapon of the rich preying on the truth and good people like Bill Mckibben putting their words there just provides a smoke screen of legitimacy for that to happen.
The NYT has been that way more than 5 generations. Despite the easily deserved scorn and contempt, it has not significantly changed since world war 1, and was iffy at best in the late 1800s.
Every few years there is a rotten new scandal that has people swear it off.
It is is a mixed experience. But with the bad come good. It is and probably will continue to be a good source of news of the environment.