Fracking helps climate change

Fracking helps climate change

PE Bias Grade : C+

By: Allen Nitschelm on January 9, 2020 | Article Review

This is a review of the following Boston Globe Article:
Article Title Greenhouse gas emissions fall slightly
Date 01/08/2020
Article Link Boston Globe ( Page A2 )
Syndicated From Washington Post
Journalist Steven Mufson
Article Summary

US carbon emissions dropped in 2019, despite higher energy use.

Share This Story

The Boston Globe reports the ‘alarming’ news that while our carbon emissions as a country dropped last year, the U.S. still won’t “meet its commitments” to larger promised reductions. I thought Trump got rid of all that nonsense and we were no longer abiding by any such “commitments”?

But the overall drop in carbon output appears to have happened not because of any concrete steps we have taken, but because we are using more natural gas. The entire decrease apparently is a by-product of using more efficient fossil fuels, not less of them.

This “climate change” story is contradictory. The journalist should report that Trump is disregarding the climate-change hoax and thus our “commitments” were meaningless, while at the same time explaining that our reductions were by chance and not design. But the article instead seems to imply that these commitments are still meaningful and our goal as a country. They are not.

And in fact, we actually did nothing to try to lower our carbon emissions. Every aspect of our economy increased carbon output, but the total emitted went down. This apparently is because natural gas is so much more efficient and so plentiful that it is more economically efficient to burn than coal. It also happens to produce much less carbon dioxide than coal. Who knew that “fracking” was environmentally friendly?

Under President Trump, we no longer are abiding by any “commitments” made by the Obama administration. We are taking no steps to meet them, and our carbon footprint was still reduced, at least last year. I’m sure this trend won’t continue as the decrease is temporary.

If  we elect a Democrat in 2020 and he or she starts the process of de-industrialization of our economy and our society, eliminating air travel, beef, fossil fuels, etc., then our children can start teaching their children either Chinese or Russian, depending on their cultural preference.


Allen Nitschelm is publisher of He critiques the Boston Globe, mostly focusing on the bias in their news reporting. News articles are graded for bias, and the website has a listing of the average bias ratings for all reporters reviewed. See our website for more information and the four categories of articles we publish.

NOTE: We have been very active on our Facebook page for Public Editor Press. The page is getting lots of hits and comments, which have been very helpful. I urge readers to go there if you wish to participate or read reactions from others. You will need to “login” to Facebook to post your own comments but you can probably read them without a Facebook account. Here is the direct link to this article’s Facebook page:

To reach our Facebook site in general:


Author Rating

Rating: 5.0/10.


There are no user ratings at the moment.

Subscriber Ratings & Comments

Please be sure you are logged in to Rate Boston Globe Articles or Post Comments.

Here is the article you are rating for journalistic bias: Greenhouse gas emissions fall slightly

Rating scale in brief: 10 = A (No Bias) | 1 = F (Extreme Bias). For more details, please read Tips & Instructions below.

Please wait...

*Requires minimim of 5 Ratings to be displayed

Leave A Comment

Grading articles for bias is subjective. We hope that with widespread participation, we can give the reporters and editors at the Boston Globe valuable feedback on their professional work. Here are our suggestions for grading news articles for bias. (We do not rate editorial opinion columns for bias. But we do analyze the Boston Globe for overall editorial balance.)

Consider whether the article is completely free of bias (a grade of 10 or A), has been mostly free of bias (8 or 9, A- or B+), has been biased but not terribly or where the bias did not hurt the integrity of the underlying information (7 or 6, B or B-).

If the article was fairly biased overall, but subtle; or where the bias was particularly prominent but isolated to a single section, give the article a 5 or 4 (C+ or C). If the article was very biased but perhaps not intentionally so, perhaps a C- (3) would be deserved.

If the article was extremely prejudiced with major misstatements of fact, intentionally misleading, or ignored well known facts to advance a false narrative, give the article a D or F (2 or 1).

Reviewers must subscribe to Public Editor and agree to our terms of service to participate. Subscriptions are currently free. We recommend that all readers subscribe to the Boston Globe or the newspaper of their choice to support journalism, and to send the Boston Globe your feedback directly. Thank you for participating in Public Editor’s bias rating project!

Leave A Comment


Rating: 5.0/10.