AP Scoffs at Efforts to Reduce Emissions

The closeted Kyoto fans at AP are coming out swinging at Toyako.  Just look at the headline:

US, allies want global pollution cuts — by 2050 


The AP begins by flaunting skepticism and incredulity.  The second half of their one-two punch is delivered in the first paragraph. 

World leaders embraced for the first time on Tuesday an ambitious but nonbinding goal of slashing greenhouse-gas emissions in half by midcentury to stave off global warming. Unimpressed environmentalists called the effort too slow and too uncertain. 


We haven’t even heard the details of the proposal and already the AP has pooh-poohed it.  It seems they’ve got a fee-vah, and the only prescription is more binding resolutions.

Leaders of some of the world’s richest nations praised the agreement, which endorsed President Bush’s insistence that fast-developing countries like China and India join in the effort. But one environmental critic suggested that by 2050 those leaders would be forgotten and “the world will be cooked.” 


Darn those rich nations!  If only they wouldn’t spend so much money on aid to people who actually need it, they could be fighting that fee-vah.  And just who is this mysterious “environmental critic?”  We don’t find out until the eleventh paragraph:

Said Atonio Hill, spokesman for Oxfam International, a confederation of organizations that work on climate change, poverty and other causes: “At this rate, by 2050 the world will be cooked and the G-8 leaders will be long forgotten. The G-8’s endorsement of a tepid 50-by-50 climate goal leaves us with a 50-50 chance of a climate meltdown. 


Oxfam, an organization that was originally created to eradicate famine in Nazi-occupied Greece, doesn’t let worldwide famine get in the way of their political objectives.  And speaking of political objectives, here’s the photo the AP uses to accompany the article:

And the caption?

A member of international relief group Oxfam dressed as US President George W. bush displays balloons representing the amount of carbon his country emits per capita during a performance in Sapporo on Japan’s northern main island of Hokkaido Tuesday, July 8, 2008.  


Of course.  Moving on:


The United States has never ratified the Kyoto treaty, with Bush complaining that it puts too much of a burden on the U.S. and other developed countries to reduce emissions while developing giants such as China and India are given a freer rein to pollute even as they vigorously compete with America around the world.

Bush will leave office next January, and both major candidates to succeed him have said they are willing to go further in cutting back American emissions.



Six months left and already they are getting a headstart on calling our current President, “Bush.”  They must be marking the days off their calendar until “enviro-saints” Sen.’s Obama and McCain can come in and save the day.  
But the move fell far short of demands by some developing countries and environmentalists pushing for deeper cuts by 2050 and a firm signal from wealthy countries on what they are willing to do on the much tougher midterm goal of cutting emissions by 2020.
“To be meaningful and credible, a long-term goal must have a base year, it must be underpinned by ambitious midterm targets and actions,” said Marthinus van Schalkwyk, South African Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. “As it is expressed in the G-8 statement, the long-term goal is an empty slogan.
Darn those wealthy countries!  Foiling the demands of “developing countries” and “environmentalists.”  I wonder if Oxfam is included in this list of demands; after all, boycotting food products that are shipped to people who need them is so good for “developing countries.”

And since when was South Africa the authority on “empty slogans?”  The same country that is still propping up Robert Mugabe has bigger issues on its plate than to shake its finger at G8 countries.
U.S. officials said they expected agreement on cooperation to be reached at Wednesday’s expanded meeting, even if painted with a broad brush. But the wording of the G-8 statement left a lot of wiggle room for the fast-growing economies to ease the potential burden.

And while the development appeared to be a victory for Bush, it could turn out to be mostly a symbolic one once the final statement from what the G-8 is calling a “Major Economies Meeting” is issued on Wednesday.

This is reading more and more like an opinion piece.  I still have yet to see any direct quotations from the wording of the G-8 statement.  

Heaven forbid President Bush have a victory!  Quick!…let’s downplay it as much as possible.

And why the uppity-ness over the Major Economies Meeting?  Just because major economic countries are concerned about the health of their livelihoods doesn’t mean that they want to automatically whittle down any proposals, unless the proposals are vapidly anti-economic growth.


The agreement — and the praise it elicited among European countries usually more ambitious on climate change — reflected a desire to avoid shortcomings of the 1997 Kyoto accord.

Kyoto, while considered by many a worthy first step, has also been seen as flawed by its failure to commit developing countries like China to emissions controls, prompting the U.S. refusal to ratify it. In addition, many countries with reduction commitments, such as Japan and Canada, are falling seriously behind.


At least they decide to off-handedly mention the failure that was Kyoto…at the bottom of the article…cushioned in mounds of qualifications.  Heaven forbid they mention that President Bush’s criticism of it was correct…

The United States has never ratified the Kyoto treaty, with Bush complaining that it puts too much of a burden on the U.S. and other developed countries to reduce emissions while developing giants such as China and India are given a freer rein to pollute even as they vigorously compete with America around the world. 


…which they kept as far away from the Kyoto-criticism paragraph as possible.

Congratulations, AP.  To paraphrase Lewis Black, you’ve done just a crackerjack job.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: