The trees need their Jimmy Kimmel

Press coverage of environmental stories is far less of what it needs to be. A bit of Jimmy Kimmel fame might help

I like Seth and both of the Jimmies, but my normal nighttime routine is to click the Stephen Colbert monologue once it’s posted up on YouTube, with that being the limit of my watching late night shows. But I clicked on Jimmy Kimmel on Tuesday night, his first night after being suspended by ABC for his supposedly insensitive remarks about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the leader of the industry front organization Turning Point that promotes the fossil fuel industry among its other enterprises. Kimmel did not disappoint. He was everything that has made him a success on late night: fun and funny, with a caring heart.

I’m glad Jimmy Kimmel has his show back. In his monologue he cast his return as a victory against government oppression and censorship. And he’s right. I cheer. And if this proves to be a turning point in resistance to this administration, I cheer even more.

Trump’s overreach

If the overreach of this administration were merely that of trying to unconstitutionally muzzle a couple late night comedians, that would be one thing, but this administration is chipping away at and attacking our laws and norms across the board. Decades of good work from researchers and policymakers at the National Institutes of Health is being tossed aside for less than scientific assumptions about vaccines and medications. Learning and education are being assaulted with book bans and threats to the jobs and careers of educators who might criticize the life’s work of Charlie Kirk. The administration is also trampling gay and trans rights.

Attacks on the environment

Besides these attacks, this administration is taking a chainsaw, sometimes literally, against the environmental protections we have enjoyed for decades. I complain that these stories are not getting the same press coverage as they deserve. For example, The New York Times, NPR, and other major news organizations covered the Trump administration’s proposed recision of the Roadless Rule, a Clinton-era regulation that protects 58 million acres of American forests and wildlands.

If you followed the major news organizations, you may have thought that was as far as the story went. But an analysis performed by the Center for Western Priorities found the Forest Service received over 183,000 comments during its truncated 21-day comment period, and more than 99% of these comments opposed the plan to rescind the Roadless Rule. That is BIG news. A development like this can mean the rule will remain unchanged.

The news made it into a few regional outlets, but the major press did not cover this story. Having grown up in the sixties and seventies, I have a strong sense that this later development would have made the pages of The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other major newspapers. Also, in normal times, an outpouring like this would most certainly lead to the retention of the rule. My fear is the virtual press silence on this matter could make it easier for the Trump administration to ignore the comments completely, despite how strongly folks indicated their support for the rule.

The Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding

A month ago, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed rescinding the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding; once again, this proposal received a fair amount of press coverage.

The Endangerment Finding was issued by the EPA in 2009 and extends the agency’s authority under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. The finding lists six greenhouse gases—CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—for the danger they pose to public health. The EPA issued the finding in response to the ruling of the Supreme Court in the 2007 case, Massachusetts v. EPA, in which the Court ruled that greenhouse gases qualify as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

Since the issuance of the finding, more and more evidence has piled up indicating that these gases do indeed affect the health and well-being of everybody who lives on this planet. Heat waves are more severe and wildfires are larger because of these gases. Public health is affected by the resulting wildfire smoke, with more smoke-related deaths, more food insecurity, and a number of other health problems. In addition to the mounting science on the harms caused by greenhouse gases, courts have upheld the finding.

With the authority of the finding, once again based in law and affirmed by the courts, the EPA can regulate the emissions of motor vehicles. Under the finding, manufacturers must measure and report greenhouse gas emissions for any and all engines and vehicles they produce. Removing the finding releases them from this obligation.

The proposed recision of the finding would mean the six greenhouse gases would lose their designation as public health hazards and the EPA would no longer be able to regulate them.

Later developments, which have great bearing on the outcome of the proposed change are missing from large press outlets. One story out of Politico reports that internal agency presentation slides and internal agency notes obtained by Politico’s E&E News indicate that EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin—before agency staff have the time to review the public comments on the proposed change or have the time to complete, as the law requires, a Regulatory Impact Analysis—intends to sign off on the policy change. In other words, Zeldin and the administration want those greenhouse gases unregulated no matter what. Politico is no journalism backwater, yet other major news organizations are silent on this very real threat.

And a bright spot in this story is getting a lot of silence of the press. A coalition of 22 states and nine local governments is opposing the gutting of the Endangerment Finding. Besides filing comment letters, 19 state attorneys general and the city of New York filed an amicus brief in legal action against the workings of the EPA to make this recision.

Once again, I fear this silence will only help the Trump administration to fulfill its wishes.

The trees and the rest of the environment need their own Jimmy Kimmel

Jimmy Kimmel made Donald Trump mad. Trump’s FCC commissioner put pressure on Disney Television Group, which owns ABC, the network that broadcasts Jimmy Kimmel’s show, to suspend him. Tens of thousands of individuals canceled their Hulu and Disney accounts. ABC then put Jimmy Kimmel back on TV.

Kimmel kept his job because people cared. After all, he’s been part of their viewing habits for 22 years. But it was also a big story in the press. In the old days, they would say it was a front-page news story, above the fold. Today, they would say the story has gone viral.

I don’t mean to detract from the importance of Jimmy Kimmel and his show. Trump tried to unlawfully silence a comedian who regularly skewers the president. That is government censorship and should never happen. Yet I wish that there were more Jimmy Kimmels. A Jimmy Kimmel tree that would turn the Roadless Rule recision into a front-page story and keep further developments of the story in the headlines.

The same can be said of the greenhouse gases and the Endangerment Finding. I’d like to see the national monument that the Trump administration wants to open up to logging and mining get the same attention as Jimmy Kimmel. The same goes for buffalo, sage grouse, wolves, and all the other wild and wonderful things that this administration threatens. I know that news organizations are having a rough time. Budgets have been slashed and readership is down. But if there is any time we need a free and responsible press, it is now. The press needs to follow these stories and keep us informed.