Zakaria threw softballs to Chu throughout the article, as Newsweek showed it was simply a matter of when - not if - the administration should continue to pursue a drastic environmental agenda.
It was revealing which questions were - and were not - asked of the president's Energy Secretary. Zakaria made zero reference to ClimateGate, the economic consequences of cap-and-trade and alternative energy, and no mention of the actual validity of climate change.
"Do you think that having a price on carbon is crucial?" Zakaria asked.
"I absolutely believe a price on carbon is essential - that will send a very important long-term signal," Chu said. "[But] if it's five years from now, I think it will be truly tragic, because other countries, notably China, are moving ahead so aggressively. They see this as their economic opportunity to lead in the next industrial revolution."
Chu went on to state the controversial cap-and-trade legislation remains a high priority for the administration. And while Zakaria did not bother with any of the legitimate concerns and objections, he questioned whether the current bill was large and drastic enough (read: stimulus bill):
"When you look at the cap-and-trade bill that is floating around Congress, is it strong enough to do what you think needs to be done?" Zakaria asked.
"[G]et it going," Chu replied, alluding to alleged successes of the Clean Air Act. "Once you get it going and start making progress, very clever people start to dream up better solutions. So rather than wait around for a perfect bill that might be delayed for four or five years or forever, get it going."
Chu parroted Obama's rhetoric regarding the economic boon of alternative energy throughout the interview, but Zakaria was loath to challenge him on even the most basic economic realities of green-jobs - something Europe has come to see the hard way.
The skewed interview is typical given the magazine's past environmental coverage, where readers are left to assume any dissenting opinion is nonexistent.