C
Captain Compassion
Guest
MEDIA BLAME AMERICA FOR CHINA'S CO2 EMISSIONS
Newsbusters, 21 June 2007
http://newsbusters.org/node/13650
Noel Sheppard
When it was announced Tuesday that China surpassed the United States
as the world's leading emitter of carbon dioxide, NewsBusters asked,
"Will Media Notice?"
In reality, the answer is a mixed windbag, with most press outlets
totally ignoring the revelation, and a few actually blaming the
problemon - wait for it! - the United States. I kid you not.
However, before we address that stupidity, it first must be relayed
thatnot one of the television news outlets bothered reporting the
Chinese CO2 data at all. It appears that television news divisions
only feel CO2 is a problem if it's emitted by American corporations or
citizens.
As for the print media, the few that did cover this story either gave
it very little attention, or made some fairly predictable excuses for
why it's okay as the planet nears its seemingly inevitable doom at the
handsof greenhouse gases for China to be the leading "polluter."
For instance, the New York Times devoted a total of 83 words to this
story in its "World Briefing Asia" section Thursday on page A12 (no
link available):
China has overtaken the United States as the top emitter of carbon
dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, because of surging energy use in its
economic boom, a Dutch environmental agency said. Other experts have
estimated that China will not surpass the United States until as late
as next year. ''But whether it is 2006 or 2007 is not the key issue,''
said Fatih Birol, chief economist of the International Energy Agency.
''What is key is that China is becoming the world's top carbon dioxide
emitter.''
That was all the print-space the Times felt this story deserved.
Alas, that was more than the Washington Post and USA Today devoted to
this story, as LexisNexis and Google News searches identified not one
word printed about this in those leading papers.
Not one.
Does this suggest that CO2 really isn't the problem, and that all this
focus on U.S. emissions of this gas is - forgive the pun - a lot of
hot air?
After all, if greenhouse gases (GHGs) are indeed destroying the
planet, given the media's focus on manmade global warming, shouldn't
it have been front-page, headline, lead story news that the country
with the largest population - which has now just begun an
extraordinary economic expansion - has become the largest emiitter of
CO2 in the world?
Seems not. In fact, the publications that did give focus to the story
made excuses for why China should be given a pass for its gas.
For instance, the Los Angeles Times devoted 1032 words to this story,
although placed on page A3 (emphasis added):
"Even if that already has occurred, China's per capita emissions are
only about one-eighth the average for the wealthier industrialized
countries of Europe and North America, Birol said. At current
projected growth rates, China's per capita emissions in 2030 still
will be only one-third those of the West, he added."
Interesting excuse, isn't it? After all, the alarmists claim that CO2
is killing the planet, correct? And, we need to do everything possible
to immediately halt the continually increasing emission of this GHG or
low lying areas will be flooded, species will go extinct, and
mankind's very existence on this planet will be in jeopardy.
If this is the case, why are per capita emissions at all relevant?
Isn't this kind of like a homicide division not worrying about finding
sole murderers when there are serial killers still at large?
Or, to put this in more of a "green" perspective, should the
Environmental Protection Agency only concern itself with the largest
polluters, but ignore the greater number of smaller ones?
For example, let's assume that you have five major corporations
dumping hazardous waste into the San Francisco Bay. One of them is
responsible for 49 percent of such dumping, while the other four dump
the remaining 51 percent shared equally between them.
Should the EPA ignore the four lesser polluters because they're each
only polluting a quarter as much as the largest one? Pretty illogical,
isn't it?
Regardless, isn't comparing per capita emissions specious on another
level altogether? If you really want to compare a country's GHG impact
on the planet, isn't land mass somewhat more relevant than population?
As such, shouldn't a nation's CO2 emissions as a function of its size
be a better way to compare environmental impact on the atmosphere? If
that is the case, given that China is "slightly smaller than the US,"
it now leads America in emissions per acre. Just something to consider
that the media choose not to.
Yet, maybe even more preposterous than this per capita emissions
discussion was the Associated Press's take in a piece entitled "China:
Criticism of CO2 Emissions Unfair" (emphasis added):
Developed countries are hypocritical for criticizing China's
greenhouse gas emissions while buying products from its booming
manufacturing industry, Beijing said Thursday.
For those keeping score, that was the opening paragraph:
Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang called China the "world's factory"
and said criticism of its increased emissions was unfair.
"The developed countries move a lot of manufacturing industry into
China. A lot of the things you wear, you use, you eat are produced in
China," he said at a regular news briefing. "On the one hand, you
shall increase the production in China, on the other hand you
criticize China on the emission reduction issue."
Unfortunately, AP writer Anita Chang, after presenting this incredibly
specious position by Gang, chose not to refute it in any way, or quote
folks who did. As such, I feel compelled to do her job for her.
To begin with, the piece mentioned that China's CO2 emissions have
been skyrocketing due to, amongst other things, that nation's
"voracious coal consumption." In fact, "China relies on coal for
two-thirds of its energy needs."
Is this energy exclusively being used for the production of exports,
or do inhabitants use electricity as well? Doesn't some of this energy
usage go to the creation of products for said inhabitants, or does
China export everything it produces?
Chang conveniently chose not to address this.
Furthermore, can every nation get a pass for the CO2 it emits related
to exports, or just China?
After all, according to the CIA's World Factbook, China trailed the
European Union, Germany, and the United States in total exports for
the year 2006 (estimates all). Shouldn't these entities also be
allowed to reduce their net CO2 emissions by those specifically
related to the production and transport of their exports? Or, does
only China get such a convenience?
And, doesn't China benefit from all of the money it takes in for
selling these exports, or are Chinese corporations giving everything
away for free? Don't these export revenues help the economy and result
in increased employment and an improved lifestyle for the citizens, or
are these people all slaves for western imperialists?
Obviously, such positive economic ramifications were totally ignored
by press representatives suggesting that China's economic boom and its
resulting increases in GHG emissions only benefit America and the
West.
Finally, it is interesting to note how the press all seem okay with
China's growing CO2 problem being related to the strength of its
economy. For instance, this from the LA Times piece: "China's
emissions have outpaced predictions because the economy has grown
faster than expected."
So, it's okay for a country's CO2 emissions to expand if it's caused
by economic growth? Outstanding. Then, why isn't this also true for
developed nations?
After all, the nations of the West still need to expand their
economies to feed their citizens. If the media can realize that with
increased economic growth in China comes increased GHG emissions, then
shouldn't all countries who are seeing such growth get a pass for
increasing their emissions as well?
As the reader likely has concluded, herein lies the real media
hypocrisy, for none of this is about CO2 emissions or GHGs. If that
was the case, a new national leader in death-causing emissions would
have indeed been front-page, lead story news with experts expressing
grave concern for the planet.
Instead, the media's response to this report or lack thereof indicates
that they couldn't care less about GHGs or global warming. This is all
about taking down the big bad wolf of western capitalism, and any
pretense to the contrary is totally belied by how Tuesday's China news
ended up not being news at all.
--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
Celibacy in healthy human beings is a form of
insanity. -- Captain Compassion
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
Newsbusters, 21 June 2007
http://newsbusters.org/node/13650
Noel Sheppard
When it was announced Tuesday that China surpassed the United States
as the world's leading emitter of carbon dioxide, NewsBusters asked,
"Will Media Notice?"
In reality, the answer is a mixed windbag, with most press outlets
totally ignoring the revelation, and a few actually blaming the
problemon - wait for it! - the United States. I kid you not.
However, before we address that stupidity, it first must be relayed
thatnot one of the television news outlets bothered reporting the
Chinese CO2 data at all. It appears that television news divisions
only feel CO2 is a problem if it's emitted by American corporations or
citizens.
As for the print media, the few that did cover this story either gave
it very little attention, or made some fairly predictable excuses for
why it's okay as the planet nears its seemingly inevitable doom at the
handsof greenhouse gases for China to be the leading "polluter."
For instance, the New York Times devoted a total of 83 words to this
story in its "World Briefing Asia" section Thursday on page A12 (no
link available):
China has overtaken the United States as the top emitter of carbon
dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, because of surging energy use in its
economic boom, a Dutch environmental agency said. Other experts have
estimated that China will not surpass the United States until as late
as next year. ''But whether it is 2006 or 2007 is not the key issue,''
said Fatih Birol, chief economist of the International Energy Agency.
''What is key is that China is becoming the world's top carbon dioxide
emitter.''
That was all the print-space the Times felt this story deserved.
Alas, that was more than the Washington Post and USA Today devoted to
this story, as LexisNexis and Google News searches identified not one
word printed about this in those leading papers.
Not one.
Does this suggest that CO2 really isn't the problem, and that all this
focus on U.S. emissions of this gas is - forgive the pun - a lot of
hot air?
After all, if greenhouse gases (GHGs) are indeed destroying the
planet, given the media's focus on manmade global warming, shouldn't
it have been front-page, headline, lead story news that the country
with the largest population - which has now just begun an
extraordinary economic expansion - has become the largest emiitter of
CO2 in the world?
Seems not. In fact, the publications that did give focus to the story
made excuses for why China should be given a pass for its gas.
For instance, the Los Angeles Times devoted 1032 words to this story,
although placed on page A3 (emphasis added):
"Even if that already has occurred, China's per capita emissions are
only about one-eighth the average for the wealthier industrialized
countries of Europe and North America, Birol said. At current
projected growth rates, China's per capita emissions in 2030 still
will be only one-third those of the West, he added."
Interesting excuse, isn't it? After all, the alarmists claim that CO2
is killing the planet, correct? And, we need to do everything possible
to immediately halt the continually increasing emission of this GHG or
low lying areas will be flooded, species will go extinct, and
mankind's very existence on this planet will be in jeopardy.
If this is the case, why are per capita emissions at all relevant?
Isn't this kind of like a homicide division not worrying about finding
sole murderers when there are serial killers still at large?
Or, to put this in more of a "green" perspective, should the
Environmental Protection Agency only concern itself with the largest
polluters, but ignore the greater number of smaller ones?
For example, let's assume that you have five major corporations
dumping hazardous waste into the San Francisco Bay. One of them is
responsible for 49 percent of such dumping, while the other four dump
the remaining 51 percent shared equally between them.
Should the EPA ignore the four lesser polluters because they're each
only polluting a quarter as much as the largest one? Pretty illogical,
isn't it?
Regardless, isn't comparing per capita emissions specious on another
level altogether? If you really want to compare a country's GHG impact
on the planet, isn't land mass somewhat more relevant than population?
As such, shouldn't a nation's CO2 emissions as a function of its size
be a better way to compare environmental impact on the atmosphere? If
that is the case, given that China is "slightly smaller than the US,"
it now leads America in emissions per acre. Just something to consider
that the media choose not to.
Yet, maybe even more preposterous than this per capita emissions
discussion was the Associated Press's take in a piece entitled "China:
Criticism of CO2 Emissions Unfair" (emphasis added):
Developed countries are hypocritical for criticizing China's
greenhouse gas emissions while buying products from its booming
manufacturing industry, Beijing said Thursday.
For those keeping score, that was the opening paragraph:
Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang called China the "world's factory"
and said criticism of its increased emissions was unfair.
"The developed countries move a lot of manufacturing industry into
China. A lot of the things you wear, you use, you eat are produced in
China," he said at a regular news briefing. "On the one hand, you
shall increase the production in China, on the other hand you
criticize China on the emission reduction issue."
Unfortunately, AP writer Anita Chang, after presenting this incredibly
specious position by Gang, chose not to refute it in any way, or quote
folks who did. As such, I feel compelled to do her job for her.
To begin with, the piece mentioned that China's CO2 emissions have
been skyrocketing due to, amongst other things, that nation's
"voracious coal consumption." In fact, "China relies on coal for
two-thirds of its energy needs."
Is this energy exclusively being used for the production of exports,
or do inhabitants use electricity as well? Doesn't some of this energy
usage go to the creation of products for said inhabitants, or does
China export everything it produces?
Chang conveniently chose not to address this.
Furthermore, can every nation get a pass for the CO2 it emits related
to exports, or just China?
After all, according to the CIA's World Factbook, China trailed the
European Union, Germany, and the United States in total exports for
the year 2006 (estimates all). Shouldn't these entities also be
allowed to reduce their net CO2 emissions by those specifically
related to the production and transport of their exports? Or, does
only China get such a convenience?
And, doesn't China benefit from all of the money it takes in for
selling these exports, or are Chinese corporations giving everything
away for free? Don't these export revenues help the economy and result
in increased employment and an improved lifestyle for the citizens, or
are these people all slaves for western imperialists?
Obviously, such positive economic ramifications were totally ignored
by press representatives suggesting that China's economic boom and its
resulting increases in GHG emissions only benefit America and the
West.
Finally, it is interesting to note how the press all seem okay with
China's growing CO2 problem being related to the strength of its
economy. For instance, this from the LA Times piece: "China's
emissions have outpaced predictions because the economy has grown
faster than expected."
So, it's okay for a country's CO2 emissions to expand if it's caused
by economic growth? Outstanding. Then, why isn't this also true for
developed nations?
After all, the nations of the West still need to expand their
economies to feed their citizens. If the media can realize that with
increased economic growth in China comes increased GHG emissions, then
shouldn't all countries who are seeing such growth get a pass for
increasing their emissions as well?
As the reader likely has concluded, herein lies the real media
hypocrisy, for none of this is about CO2 emissions or GHGs. If that
was the case, a new national leader in death-causing emissions would
have indeed been front-page, lead story news with experts expressing
grave concern for the planet.
Instead, the media's response to this report or lack thereof indicates
that they couldn't care less about GHGs or global warming. This is all
about taking down the big bad wolf of western capitalism, and any
pretense to the contrary is totally belied by how Tuesday's China news
ended up not being news at all.
--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
Celibacy in healthy human beings is a form of
insanity. -- Captain Compassion
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net