2008

As today’s coverage of McCain’s cap-and-trade speech makes clear, one cannot underestimate the power of the press in sustaining the global-warming movement. The Republican candidate’s Oregon speech outlines the usual GW drivel, demanding, reports the Associated Press, that “the country return to 2005 emission levels by 2012; 1990 levels by 2020; and to a level 60 percent below that by 2050.”

Really, and how is the current Kyoto plan to reduce to 1990 levels by 2010 going? CO2 emissions in the EU were 26 percent over their 1990 targets as of 2005.

But, of course, the AP won’t report this failure, meaning that the average reader has no context by which to judge McCain’s fanciful rhetoric.

Consider, by contrast, how AP (that most liberal and most ubiquitous of establishment news sources) reports on a different, “controversial” McCain policy — Iraq. Here are the nut graphs:

KANSAS CITY, Mo., April 7, 2008 — . . . Addressing the Veterans of Foreign Wars, McCain criticized Obama and Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and insisted that last year’s U.S. troop buildup in Iraq brought a glimmer of ‘something approaching normal’ there, despite a recent outbreak of heavy fighting and a U.S. death toll that has surpassed 4,000. Clinton and Obama, still battling for the Democratic presidential nomination, dispute the claims of success, arguing the war has failed to make the United States safer.”

Note the qualifiers: “insisted” and “despite a recent outbreak of heavy fighting and a U.S. death toll that has surpassed 4,000” as well as the reference to McCain’s critics, all of which give the reader important context.

AP’s coverage of McCain’s climate speech, however, contained not a single qualifier, much less a critic. So let’s rewrite it to make the language consistent with AP’s Iraq form (my additions in italics):

PHOENIX, Ariz., May 12, 2008 — John McCain . . . argues (insisted) that global warming is undeniable despite the fact that temperature data indicates the earth has not warmed in ten years.

“In remarks prepared for delivery Monday at a Portland, Ore., wind turbine manufacturer, the presidential contender says expanded nuclear power must be considered to reduce carbon-fuel emissions. He also sets a goal that by 2050, the country will reduce carbon emissions to a level 60 percent below that emitted in 1990. But leading economists dispute McCain’s reduction targets, arguing that European nations have failed to meet more modest 2010 reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol.”

Without journalistic malpractice, the global warming debate would be very different today.

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Lawmakers in Montana have been reviewing the recommendations that came out of the state's Climate Change Advisory Committee — nudged along by the Center for Climate Strategies — and for the most part are taking a pass:

The legislative Environmental Quality Council agreed to tackle legislation that promotes, with minimal expenditure, the use of local food, recycling and energy efficiency programs.

 

The decision follows previous meetings where the panel carved out recommendations that failed to gather the bipartisan support needed to adopt committee legislation.

The committee is now working with a pared down list of about a dozen broad areas for them to consider tackling – far fewer than the 54 recommendations that came from the governor's Climate Change Advisory Committee. Gone are items dealing directly with carbon emissions, standards on cars and off-road vehicles, and other ideas that scored lower in a public survey sought by the panel.

In other words, like the general public, Montana legislators are only willing to address the global warming crisis as long as it won't cost anything.

Yet another pair in a series of climate non-aggression pacts have been inked between U.S. states and foreign governments. This time, according to Greenwire (password required), “Wisconsin and Michigan entered into separate agreements with the United Kingdom on Monday, vowing to work together toward solutions to climate change. Under the pacts, Britain and the states agree to share research and ideas about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, promoting low-carbon technologies and raising public awareness.”

Here’s a quick refresher. Article I, Section 10:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

These two agreements appear to be arguably less “a cooperative effort…to reduce carbon dioxide emissions” as are the regional climate pacts such as RGGI or their counterparts with, e.g., Canadian provinces. But do they nonetheless still purport to supplant activities which the constitution vests exclusively with the federal government, barring express approval by Congress?

Their champions have long indicated that is their intent. Let’s turn to Environmental Defense’s Tony Kreindler, whose comments on the MI and WI agreements echo several years of explanations by activist governors: “The states are stepping up because of a lack of leadership at the federal level.”

It’s a good thing that, out of a sense of caution and zealous protection of the Constitution and Congress's prerogatives, there are all of those strict constructionists up on Capitol Hill introducing legislation setting forth the “wherefore” of the constitutional requirement and calling for a vote, to give the courts some guidance in the event one or more of these states’ citizens objects. Apparently holding up agreements with Indian tribes is one thing, but we're talking about the "imminent Danger" of a climate crisis here.