This could be a fun game: take a Washington Post story and find the factual errors. I'm not talking about errors of omission or analysis or any kind of error, by the way, I'm talking strictly about getting the facts wrong. For instance, take this article by Tim Craig on Dominion's proposed coal-fired power plant.
Statement
"Kaine and Dominion emphasize that the proposed power plant, to be called the Virginia City Hybrid Energy Center, would use updated scrubbing technology to limit emissions of carbon dioxide, a big source of acid rain."
Factual errors
Carbon dioxide does NOT produce or contribute to acid rain. The article should say "sulfur dioxide," which does contribute to acid rain. Also, current scrubbing technology is NOT capable of capturing carbon dioxide from the smokestacks of power plants; that would require "carbon capture" technology which has not yet been developed. Scrubbers capture particulates, mercury, and sulfur - but NOT carbon.
Environmentalists, who have collected 30,000 signatures opposing the plan, say Kaine's support runs counter to a detailed energy proposal he put forward in September. Although the plan expressed support for the new Dominion plant, it also called for a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.
Factual error
It is simply wrong to claim that Gov. Kaine's energy plan "called for a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2025." Actually, as I explained here, Gov. Kaine's plan actually calls for Virginia to be emitting at 2000 levels (122.66 million metric tons) by 2025. That would constitute roughly a 23 percent reduction in projected CO2 emissions from "business-as-usual" (aka, "baseline") projections. It would constitute roughly a 7 percent reduction from 2007 carbon dioxide emissions levels -- NOT a 30 percent reduction as claimed in this article.
In addition to pure factual errors, there are numerous questionable statements in this article that fall on the borderline between factual, analytical and interpretive errors. For instance, check this out:
Statement
"The plant, slated to be in operation by 2012, is designed to lessen Dominion's reliance on electricity produced and transferred from out of state while boosting the slumping economy in southwest Virginia."
Analytical/factual error
No, that's not what Dominion "designed" the plant for, it designed the plant to produce electricity at the highest possible profit to itself. Dominion certainly did NOT design the plan to "boost the economy in southwest Virginia."
Or this:
Statement
"And if the facility is built, Dominion has agreed to convert one of its 11 coal-burning plants in Virginia and North Carolina -- Bremo Power Station in Fluvanna County, Va. -- into a cleaner, natural gas-burning plant."
Analytical/factual error
Actually, Dominion has to clean the Bremo plant regardless, but the company is saying that it will only do so if it gets to build the Wise County plant. Uh, no.
I could go on and on, but here's a fun challenge for all you guys: go through this article, and other articles in the corporate media about Dominion Power, coal-fired power plants, or any other subject really, and find the factual errors. Then, find all the analytical/interpretive errors as well. But first, make sure you find yourself a comfortable chair and brew yourself a nice big cup of coffee, because you may be there a loooong time...
P.S. For some actual FACTS about the Dominion power plant, see this excellent article in an excellent newspaper, unlike - ahem - certain rags.
Boy, you can say that again!
He touched on Kaine's punt - the "it's out of my hands" aspect. Surely there's more to this. Kaine is the governor after all, so to say he can't influence the decision in a significant way sounds fishy.
He touched on the Air Control Board taking over. He could have said more about how appointments are made, what Kaine's plans are in this regard, and so on.
Bottomline - some information was provided but far from the amount needed to paint a clear picture of Kaine's potential role. Is that Craig's failure to dig deep enough or the Post's general lack of interest in in-depth reporting?
As far as carbon scrubbers, the article mentions "updated scrubbing technology", not "current scrubbing technology" as you stated. I'm not sure what "updated" means, but I doubt they're looking into algae farms to recycle CO2.
I can't fault the article on these points. A little vague, yes, but not really wrong.
See here:
Acid rain is mostly caused by human emissions of sulfur and nitrogen compounds which react in the atmosphere to produce acids. In recent years, many governments have introduced laws to reduce these emissions.
or here:
"Acid rain" is a broad term referring to a mixture of wet and dry deposition (deposited material) from the atmosphere containing higher than normal amounts of nitric and sulfuric acids. The precursors, or chemical forerunners, of acid rain formation result from both natural sources, such as volcanoes and decaying vegetation, and man-made sources, primarily emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) resulting from fossil fuel combustion. In the United States, roughly 2/3 of all SO2 and 1/4 of all NOx come from electric power generation that relies on burning fossil fuels, like coal.
or here:
Acid deposition is a general term that includes more than simply acid rain. Acid deposition primarily results from the transformation of sulphur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides into dry or moist secondary pollutants such as sulphuric acid (H2SO4), ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) and nitric acid (HNO3). The transformation of SO2 and NOx to acidic particles and vapours occurs as these pollutants are transported in the atmosphere over distances of hundreds to thousands of kilometers. Acidic particles and vapours are deposited via two processes - wet and dry deposition. Wet deposition is acid rain, the process by which acids with a pH normally below 5.6 are removed from the atmosphere in rain, snow, sleet or hail. Dry deposition takes place when particles such as fly ash, sulphates, nitrates, and gases (such as SO2 and NOx), are deposited on, or absorbed onto, surfaces. The gases can then be converted into acids when they contact water.
However, I think we're missing the main point. This article correctly connects Gov. Kaine with the issue, notes the role the Air Pollution Control Board has, and thus the role the Governor has in appointing new members. Its not perfect, but I'm happy to see the Post wake up to this critical issue.