Difference between revisions of "EcoWorld"

Latest revision as of 16:05, 19 February 2011

About

EcoWorld "is an internet publishing company featuring the web site www.EcoWorld.com, an information resource on nature and clean technology" [1]. It presents itself as an environmentalist organization, but many of the articles are actually slanted against environmental conservation.

The domain ecoworld.com was originally registered in 1994 to Ed Ring, CEO of the company and editor of the site [2] until mid-2009 when it was sold to a Southern California investor who currently operates the web site.

EcoWorld is referenced in multiple Wikipedia articles, but it's not immediately clear if they're considered to be accurate or merely as a source for alternative viewpoints.

Views

2008-03-17 ECOworld: a website officially unconcerned about accuracy: a 2008 blog entry highly critical of EcoWorld and Ed Ring
- Ed Ring's response

Links

Official

home page
- about
- who is: staff, editors, advisors, and sponsors
  - editorial advisor Charles Convis has ties to the Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc.

Reference

~~Wikipedia~~: no equivalent page (as of 2009-05-07)
~~Conservapedia~~ : no equivalent page (as of 2009-05-07)
~~dKosopedia~~: no equivalent page (as of 2009-05-07)
~~SourceWatch~~: no equivalent page (as of 2009-05-07)

News

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-==Overview==
+==About==
 [[category:web sites]][[category:organizations]][[EcoWorld]] "is an internet publishing company featuring the web site www.EcoWorld.com, an information resource on nature and clean technology" [http://ecoworld.com/about/]. It presents itself as an [[environmentalist]] organization, but many of the articles are actually slanted [[anti-environmentalism|against environmental conservation]].
@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 EcoWorld is referenced in multiple [[Wikipedia]] articles, but it's not immediately clear if they're considered to be accurate or merely as a source for alternative viewpoints.
 ===Views===
-In a response to a [[2008-03-17 ECOworld: a website officially unconcerned about accuracy|2008 blog entry]] highly critical of EcoWorld and [[Ed Ring]], Ring wrote:
+* [[2008-03-17 ECOworld: a website officially unconcerned about accuracy]]: a 2008 blog entry highly critical of EcoWorld and [[Ed Ring]]
-<blockquote>
+** [[2008-03-17 ECOworld: a website officially unconcerned about accuracy/Ed Ring response|Ed Ring's response]]
-<P>Dear Sir: If you took the time to read more than one or two posts on EcoWorld, you will see we were, for example, one of the first to point out the massive rainforest destruction occurring in order to grow biofuel. You would also see our enthusiastic and unwavering support for EVs and solar power, and our unrelenting search to identify clean technologies to enable the coming electric age.</p>
-<p>Our position on freeways is more nuanced than you give us credit for - we believe roads are the most versatile mode of transportation available, and that the efficiencies of rail only play out in cases of very high urban densities or longer intercity modes. Because cars, trucks and busses can all use roads, because they don't require as much maintenance, security or operating personnel, and because they allow great personal independence - we think upgrading our road network is being given too little priority.</p>
-<p>Adding to this the fact that cars are becoming smart, clean and green is the clincher in our view. We believe the world is within a generation of abundance, not scarcity, and green technology will deliver this abundance. We are optimists. It only takes 1 gigawatt of additional off-peak electrical output to recharge 1.0 million EVs for commuters. "Smart growth" proponants have declared war on the car, and we think this is a well-intentioned mistake.</p>
-<p>As for climate change - I think it is naive to think big business is fighting the alarmism. Nobody benefits more than big business when regulations are put in place to restrict CO2 emissions. Wall Street gets to trade CO2 credits, corporations get subsidies to develop new technologies to mitigate the CO2 - the consumer pays more and small businesses go under because they can't afford to comply. It isn't at all clear to me based on all of the climate science I've read that anthropogenic CO2 is the clear culprit in climate change, nor that climate change is the existential crisis it is made out to be. Moreover, it seems to me that people suggesting we slow down and examine the economic and social consequences of massive transitions to reduce CO2 emissions should be considered the moderate ones, not those raising the alarm and demanding radical and abrupt changes.</p>
-<p>Another reason EcoWorld highlights the arguments of climate skeptics is because we believe debate is important, and frankly are alarmed by the consensus in the media that the debate is over, and by the demonization of people who don't think the debate is over. Science and journalism relies on skepticism and debate to allow the truth to emerge.</p>
-<p>EcoWorld is supported by advertisers, and there aren't a lot of them. If we were willing to compromise our integrity, i.e., rail against the "deniers" and advocate policies and positions that constitute today's conventional wisdom on environmental issues, you may rest assured our commercial and financial success would be far greater than it is presently.</p>
-<p>You may criticize our positions as vehemently as you like. But if you question the sincerity of our viewpoints or the depth of our concern for the environment, you are mistaken. You are welcome to call me or email me to discuss this at any time. And I have earned my nickname of "Redwood." I have personally grown from seed and given away thousands of trees, and never charged anyone for any of them.</p>
-</blockquote>
 ==Links==
 ===Official===