I’ve written three pieces for GOOD, and probably will write no more. I’ve covered Egypt’s climate change troubles post Mubarak, the deep irony of Oil companies adapting to climate change impacts, and the little discussed Executive Order by President Obama on climate change.
I am calling on GOOD to apologize to its readers for publishing this piece of trash:
Disclosure: These views are my own.
GOOD magazine has jumped the shark. Once sailing a lean tack, the magazine now seems mastless, grasping for both attention and direction. Their front pages are filled with regurgitated aggregates of schlock and candy.
Just last week, GOOD published a piece on how cigarettes are cool. I’m not kidding you. “The Upside of Smoking,” was posted June 14 by Nona Willis Aronowitz. Nona is no guest blogger, she’s one of GOOD’s associate editors. She helps shape the magazines content (granted, her column is pure fluff that trolls for page views).
In The Upside of Smoking, Nona wrote smoking helps girls lose weight. She argues that smoking is cool. She states that smoking keeps your brain sharp. And that smoking can help you avoid awkward social moments - just fire up a butt and your talkative friend will auto-close his gabber.
Look, my understanding is that GOOD editors pre-approve content during weekly and/or morning meetings. If so, then this piece got the green light from the masthead. This tells me that GOOD doesn’t give a shit about human health, a rats ass about its reputation, or the effect the article would have on future collaborations with other writers, like me.
Does GOOD or Nona really believe that cigarettes have an upside? No. I think they’re tactlessly trying to stoke flames to increase pageviews, which is just plain trashy.
It also shows that, to my mind, not one of their mastheads has experienced the deep emotional and financial pains from losing a loved one to cancer. And if they have, shame on them! Further, the fact this garbage was published also shows the editors probably do not have kids of an age susceptible to picking up smoking for the first time in their young lives.
Disingenuous fluff pieces have no place in the pages of GOOD. It’s disrespectful of the type of readership GOOD deserves. Dangerous to its young readers. This trash chips away at the magazine’s credibility. This is the road to failure.
If people at GOOD read this rant and claim ignorance of the content its own editors publish, then clearly there are much deeper problems at the management level. (GOOD, I prefer you reply to me publicly. But if you wuss out, you can reach me here.)
Cigarette smoking is not cool. It fucking kills people. It causes miscarriages and birth defects. The ag-waste and littered-butts pollutes the environment. Growing tobacco causes deforestation, uses loosely regulated pesticides, and is socially stigmatizing. And, apparently, it makes men impotent. To say otherwise is stupid and indefensible. GOOD needs to publicly apologize.
Editors, writers, interns, finance, webbies, sales go get’em: http://www.good.is/about/jobs
My latest article for GOOD Magazine is up, here. It’s one of the most surreal moments in environmental history: Oil companies are adapting to climate change. Companies like BP and Exxon are worried about climate impacts to their infrastructure, pipelines, drill rigs, and operations. They’ve hired climate experts and IBM to evaluate vulnerabilities, and industry is expected to spend billions in upgrades.
Above, a Russian pipeline ruptures as it sinks into melting permafrost.
I argue that:
(T)he very industry that publicly denies the very reality of climate change, is looking to climate experts for help. They cooperated with consultants who analyzed oil and gas industry’s ability to absorb impacts from a changing climate. The resulting report was a terse assessment showing that the oil and gas industry was far behind the climate action curve.
IBM teamed with two heavyweight climate consultancies, Acclimatise and Carbon Disclosure Project to produce the report, Building Business Resilience to Inevitable Climate Change. Located in the UK, the climate consultants work primarily with very large corporations to identify how climate change will impact their products. The oil and gas industry, already overly sensitive to political and economic swings, is not prepared for the impacts to their physical assets. For example, oil platforms located in shallow oceans were not at all built with sea level rise in mind. This is not to mention being battered by bigger and more frequent storms such as Hurricane Katrina.
A British panel on Wednesday exonerated the scientists caught up in the controversy known as Climategate of charges that they had manipulated their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming.