Thank you, Emily, for all your good work. You are terrific and provide an especially useful service. I look forward to seeing what's next. Happy trails to you!
There’s a continuance of polluting with a cavalier business-as-usual attitude.
Obstacles to environmental progress were formidable pre-pandemic; however, Covid-19’s impact not only stalled most projects being undertaken, it added greatly to the already busy landfills and burning centers with disposed masks and other non-degradable biohazard-protective single-use materials.
Also, I no longer saw mainstream news-media coverage of Greta Thunberg's environmentalism, or any noteworthy climate-concern or pollution stories, except by some right-wing publications’ continued attempts to shame and/or discredit her.
In an interview with the online National Observer (posted Feb.12, 2019), Noam Chomsky noted that while the mainstream news-media, including The New York Times, do publish stories about man-made global warming, “It’s as if … there’s a kind of a tunnel vision — the science reporters are occasionally saying ‘look, this is a catastrophe,’ but then the regular [non-environmental pro-fossil fuel] coverage simply disregards it.”
I also read a particularly disturbing editorial 9 years ago printed by a local newspaper (The Surrey Now-Leader), headlined “Earth Day in need of a facelift”. It opined that “some people would argue that [the day of environmental action] … is an anachronism,” that it should instead be a day of recognizing what we’ve societally accomplished. “And while it [has] served us well, in 2017, do we really need Earth Day anymore?”
Varied lengths of the same editorial, unfortunately, was also run by some sister newspapers (including my community’s newspaper The Peace Arch News), all then owned by a news-media mogul who also aspired to own his own oil refinery.
Until reading this, I had never heard anyone, let alone a mainstream news outlet, suggest we’re doing so well as to render Earth Day an unnecessary "anachronism”. Considering the sorry state of the planet’s natural environment, I still find it one of the most absurd and irresponsible acts of editorial journalism I've witnessed in my 38 years of news consumption.
Then, over eight years later (on October 7, 2025), a story was posted by that same newspaper (The Surrey Now-Leader) that placed quotation marks around the words “fossil fuel”, as though the phraseology is no longer objective or accurate. For me at least, that’s unprecedented in mainstream journalism. Perhaps the fossil fuel industry now insists upon news media, as well as fossil fuel friendly politicians, always using the euphemism “energy” over the implicitly unflattering “fossil fuel”.
Meantime, if the universal availability of a renewable energy alternative would come at the expense of the traditional ‘energy’ production companies’ large profits, one can expect obstacles, including the political and regulatory sort. If something notably conflicts with corporate big-profit interests, even very progressive motions are greatly resisted, often enough successfully.
Thank you for your existentially important reporting and have a wonderful time on your adventure and I look forward to what is coming next after ExxonKnews!
Thank you, Emily, for all your good work. You are terrific and provide an especially useful service. I look forward to seeing what's next. Happy trails to you!
Emily, you have provided reporting and narratives of the highest quality and importance. Looking forward to your next projects.
Thank you, Emily, and looking forward to supporting your next adventure!
Thank you for ALL of your hard work and you deserve a break! See you on the other side
Emily:
Look forward to reading your words again soon. Best to you and be safe in this crazy world!
Thank you for your vital work and best wishes bringing the world on board with your new project. Your work is greatly appreciated.
There’s a continuance of polluting with a cavalier business-as-usual attitude.
Obstacles to environmental progress were formidable pre-pandemic; however, Covid-19’s impact not only stalled most projects being undertaken, it added greatly to the already busy landfills and burning centers with disposed masks and other non-degradable biohazard-protective single-use materials.
Also, I no longer saw mainstream news-media coverage of Greta Thunberg's environmentalism, or any noteworthy climate-concern or pollution stories, except by some right-wing publications’ continued attempts to shame and/or discredit her.
In an interview with the online National Observer (posted Feb.12, 2019), Noam Chomsky noted that while the mainstream news-media, including The New York Times, do publish stories about man-made global warming, “It’s as if … there’s a kind of a tunnel vision — the science reporters are occasionally saying ‘look, this is a catastrophe,’ but then the regular [non-environmental pro-fossil fuel] coverage simply disregards it.”
I also read a particularly disturbing editorial 9 years ago printed by a local newspaper (The Surrey Now-Leader), headlined “Earth Day in need of a facelift”. It opined that “some people would argue that [the day of environmental action] … is an anachronism,” that it should instead be a day of recognizing what we’ve societally accomplished. “And while it [has] served us well, in 2017, do we really need Earth Day anymore?”
Varied lengths of the same editorial, unfortunately, was also run by some sister newspapers (including my community’s newspaper The Peace Arch News), all then owned by a news-media mogul who also aspired to own his own oil refinery.
Until reading this, I had never heard anyone, let alone a mainstream news outlet, suggest we’re doing so well as to render Earth Day an unnecessary "anachronism”. Considering the sorry state of the planet’s natural environment, I still find it one of the most absurd and irresponsible acts of editorial journalism I've witnessed in my 38 years of news consumption.
Then, over eight years later (on October 7, 2025), a story was posted by that same newspaper (The Surrey Now-Leader) that placed quotation marks around the words “fossil fuel”, as though the phraseology is no longer objective or accurate. For me at least, that’s unprecedented in mainstream journalism. Perhaps the fossil fuel industry now insists upon news media, as well as fossil fuel friendly politicians, always using the euphemism “energy” over the implicitly unflattering “fossil fuel”.
Meantime, if the universal availability of a renewable energy alternative would come at the expense of the traditional ‘energy’ production companies’ large profits, one can expect obstacles, including the political and regulatory sort. If something notably conflicts with corporate big-profit interests, even very progressive motions are greatly resisted, often enough successfully.
Emily - Thank You for staying in the fight lo these many years.
Tease!
Thank you for your existentially important reporting and have a wonderful time on your adventure and I look forward to what is coming next after ExxonKnews!
Love this project and excited to love what comes next! How can we find you once you're on Ghost later this year?
Thank you! Just stay subscribed and we will send out the first issue to our existing email list!