The NYTimes continues to let down its readers about what’s happening at the global climate negotiations in Copenhagen with respect to the United States. Today’s editorial irresponsibly falls into line with the official US government position, creating the general impression that the world’s biggest per capita polluter is a cooperative negotiator, not that it is seen by the rest of the world as obstructionist. The paper argues that essential responsiblity for creating a path to a meaningful deal falls on the Chinese government, citing it for belligerence and extremism. At the same time, the silence of the editors on the extremism of the US position is deafening and sadly misleading.

Similarly, the lack of "enthusiastic participation" on the part of the Chinese is described as blocking a global accord. However, no mention is made of the attitude of the US government. In focusing on China, important facts are left out. For example, readers may want to know about the controversial statement made by the lead US negotiator, Todd Stern, this week that he "categorically rejects" the insistence of poor countries that rich countries contribute to them financially so that they can build sustainable economies, in other words that industrialized countries pay climate reparations to the poor countries as part of a deal. Even Europe has made a small pledge of reparations, although nowhere near what the Global South, which will be hardest hit by warming, is demanding. The US has not offered any such pledge and is sending mixed messages about the idea. Needless to say, this is not helping bring the world together to prevent future ecological destruction.

Ignoring the role that US citizens and business lobbies play in the actions of Congress, the paper points to China as having responsibility for any future climate legislation in the US Senate. The editors are entitled to their opinion. But c’mon.

Like the US government, the NYTimes continues to oppose the rest of the world in using 1990 carbon emissions levels as a comparison point instead of 2005, what Amnesty International’s 2007 Journalist of the Year calls "a stroke of advertising genius" that inevitably confuses citizens (a 17% cut in emissions sounds much more palatable than a paltry 4% cut).  The newspaper also misleads on the relative proposals of industrialized nations, throwing the US proposal in with everybody else when in fact, as described in an earlier post, it’s nowhere close.  The paper states, "Despite some differences, the industrialized nations have pretty much agreed to trim their emissions by 15 percent to 20 percent from 2005 levels in the next 10 years, and by 80 percent by midcentury." The editors leave out that such broad agreements for emissions cuts for industrialized countries by 2020 would not add up to preventing a disastrous rise in global temperatures. (Scientists insist cuts compared to 1990 levels need to be between 25% to 40% to reverse warming.)

The paper also manages to leave out the fact that the US position, no matter how it’s marketed, is the weak link on emissions cuts for 2020 for industrialized economies and that, if not for the general resistance to reducing fossil fuel consumption in the US, the world would be that much closer to a legally binding agreement. But it’s so much easier to blame everything on China.

---