The media have a bad habit of assigning motives to politicians when they have no possible way of knowing what actually exists inside their heads. The NYT gives an especially egregious case of this silly mind-reading in its discussion of the international conference on global warming in Bali, Indonesia. The NYT told readers that: "The differences in philosophy at the meeting were striking and fundamental. European Union negotiators said they favored specific government-imposed caps on emissions and wanted industrial countries to lead the way. The United States favored relying on "aspirational" goals, research to advance nonpolluting energy technologies and a mix of measures, including mandatory steps like efficiency standards for vehicles and appliances — but all set by individual nations, not mandated by a global pact" (emphasis added). How does the reporter know that the U.S. delegation, or President Bush, has a different philosophy than the leaders of the other countries represented at the talks? Is it possible that he is simply more indebted to industries that stand to lose from restrictions on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (e.g. coal, oil, and autos) than his counterparts in other wealthy countries? Perhaps their environmental groups are more effective in pressing their case in national politics. It seems at least possible, if not likely, that the different approaches to climate change on display at Bali have far more to do with political pressure than with philosophy. It would helpful to readers if the NYT reporters can avoid making assertions which they do not know to be true. btw, this article also comments in passing that China and India (who also refuse to agree to caps) will soon surpass the U.S. as the largest emitters of GHG. It would have been helpful to point out to readers that on a per capita basis that these countries still emit less than one-fourth as much GHG as the U.S.. It might also have been helpful to point out that since these countries are far poorer than the U.S., and did not create the problem, it is virtually inconceivable that they will agree to substantial restrictions on emissions unless the rich countries pay them to accept restrictions. NYT readers who care about global warming would probably want to know this information.
--Dean Baker
