The new disaster few are talking about

[dreamville_bg]

New infrared video reveals growing environmental disaster in L.A. gas leak

"Scientists and environmental experts say the Aliso Canyon leak instantly became the biggest single source of methane emissions in all of California when it began two months ago. The impact of greenhouse gases released since then, measured over a 20-year time frame, is the

Comments

[ddstory]

The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is going to fix this somehow, I'm sure.

[underlankers]

It's probably not being talked about much for the same reasons California's water crisis isn't talked about much: problems like this are only real when they fit into convenient stereotyped narratives. If they contradict them, to the memory hole they go even when they're ongoing.

[404]

What "convenient stereotyped narratives" does this story not fit in?

[underlankers]

1) All oil problems occur in red states that are overly dependent on oil, enabling bashing Big Oil and Rednecks at the same time and pretending that oil and natural gas industries don't exist in blue states.

2) California is presented as a role model to emulate whether or not it deserves that being beside the point. This doesn't follow that any more than the water crisis does, hence relative neglect of it.

3) The idea that liberals conceal corporate problems as zealously as conservatives do points out that the entire political system is dysfunctional corporate fellatio, not just half of it, hence neglecting that side of things.

[garote]

Well, I'm glad to see you're working through your stereotypes.

Or is there some group of people you are referring to with this??

[telemann]

And yet, somehow the impression is that it's stunningly under-reported by almost every major agency and media outlet - even at a local level. I wonder why that is.

I think perhaps that's a wrong impression, since early December, it's been reported on consistently by national news networks' programming, cable news, and even political news commentary programs like Rachel Maddow (I first saw coverage there on December 4) and local newspapers and TV stations in Los Angeles have covered it. And that was during a very busy news cycle while the San Bernardino shooting story was on-going

[dreamville_bg]

For some masochistic reason, I happen to have been watching CNN for hours on a couple of days in a row now, and it didn't get mentioned even once. I've browsed at least 4 or 5 major media outlets, including FOX, WSJ, NYP, HuffPo, and USAToday, and it was nowhere to be found on their front pages. One'd think a disaster of this magnitude affecting so many people would be all over the news, and be reported 24/7. One would expect environmental organizations to be rushing Capitol Hill, and the White House coming out with at least hints of a plan to address the problem. Or am I missing something big here?

[telemann]

I know you have specified "front pages," and the op suggested the story wasn't getting the coverage it should receive, but I don't think its being neglected or ignored. Closing the gas leak seems to be the priority, with the required investigation and legal actions coming after that. I've read Steve Bohlen, California's state oil and gas supervisor, resigned on November 30th, as a result of this disaster. And a judge has ordered Southern California Gas Co to pay for all relocation costs for the victims, and for securing the vacated homes. So the process is ongoing. It's also a regional / state issue for California, and not a national one, so no on-going involvement with the White House currently (although that could quickly change

[dreamville_bg]

What do you mean "specified front pages"? I listed some of the most prominent, most mainstream news outlets. I've been browsing them almost daily, and I haven't seen this issue being covered anywhere near their front pages for the last week or so. That said, I'm glad you managed to dig up those few occasions where they were mentioned there - after all, Google can do miracles.

You're right, though: the media coverage of the disaster isn't as important as the steps that are being taken to tackle it. Which is why it occupied exactly one and a half lines of this post (plus the title line, admittedly). Meanwhile, you've occupied an entire thread with it. Frankly, I would've preferred if we had both focused on the remaining, more important part of the issue (and by extension, the post).