Hey Reuters, you’re running Bush’s climate propaganda
Rather than news with a hint of impartiality, more than ever Reuters is pushing the Bush-Howard argument against Kyoto. That is to say that major emitters of carbon who happen to be developing nations are outside the agreement, thereby implicitly invalidating it. More specifically, Reuters – supposedly the factual news service – has just posted this update on the latest U.N. blueprint for climate action. In it, Reuters claims that
Kyoto only sets binding goals for cutting greenhouse gases for 36 industrial nations. The United States and developing nations led by China, the two main emitters of greenhouse gases, are outside Kyoto.
This is patently false. China ratified Kyoto in 2002 and is therefore inside Kyoto – a position thoroughly opposite to that occupied by America. It is completely false and misleading to suggest otherwise, Reuters. It is within the agreement that China’s right to not yet be bound by targets is affirmed. Indeed, the key principle of international law which so many would-e analysts are so happy to ignore in reference to climate change is that of “polluter pays”.
Not only are the richest nations of the world those best equipped to deal with imposed limitations on their emissions, they have become the richest nations by placing the greatest stresses on the planet’s support systems. There is a clear relationship between economic growth and greenhouse emissions. While China must (and will) be brought into the emission limitation fold before 2020, it is a wonder that America has yet to be appropriately pilloried for inverting the relationship between responsibility and accountability.
The article was written by Joe Ortiz, with additional reporting by Alister Doyle and editing by Robert Woodward. Assuming that the editor touched it last, this falsehood is therefore Woodward’s responsibility. Reuters is also responsible for publishing a strategically convenient misrepresentation, and Ortiz – as lead author – should be condemning this falsehood unless he intended it and therefore condones it.
Shame, Reuters. A typo wouldn’t besmirch your reputation. This does.