The Guardian is one of the world’s best newspapers.

The American papers are plodding reads, prone to herdism, and cautious, for the same reason that they are fairly reliable on the facts themselves: U.S. journalists value the long and slow process of building up sources close to the actual news, which makes them risk-averse and often to close to the trees to see the forest. But rarely do you get the doesn’t-pass-the-sniff-test “scoop” that is so common in the UK. I’m not picking on the Guardian per se – all the broadsheets (except the FT) share the same culture and market. It’s just a different thing.

Shorter comment: don’t read the UK papers for news. Read them to be provoked.

There are six more days to the week. It will be difficult, but someone might do even worse.

Still, it’s sad to see the usually responsible Guardian sinking to the level of Revkin. Deep fall.

I think we should start rating reporters and outlets as to accuracy. Say, 0-10, where 0 equals Fox, and 10 equals Realclimate and Climateprogress.

[JR: A wrong story is a wrong story.]

And it seems likely that their take was inspired by a number of pessimistic stories quoting key stakeholders in the EU and the developing world who haven’t been impressed by the progress of talks or by the US position that Kyoto has to go.

“The reason why we are not making progress is the lack of political will by Annex 1 [industrialised] countries. There is a concerted effort to fundamentally sabotage the Kyoto protocol,” said ambassador Yu Qingtai China’s special representative on climate talks. “We now hear statements that would lead to the termination of the protocol. They are introducing new rules, new formats. That’s not the way to conduct negotiations,” said Yu.

Yu’s was echoed by Lumumba Di-Aping, Sudanese chair of the G77, the UN’s largest intergovernmental organisation of developing states which represents 130 countries at the talks. “Feelings are running high in the G77. It is clear now that the rich countries want a deal outside the Kyoto agreement. It would be based on a total rejection of their historical responsibilities. This is an alarming development. The intention of developed countries is clearly to kill the protocol,” he said.

I’ve read a few dozen stories in the last few weeks just like the one quoted above.

I get it, really. Joe thinks the glass is half full. Now maybe it will all work out, and if we can get a better international agreement in 2010, then I’d be all for that. But given the secrecy that is surrounding the current UN talks in Thailand, it’s not clear to me that we’re heading in that direction, or that the US is on the right track.

You must be under 30.

Scientifically, what a refreshingly straight-forward piece of writing your comment is to read here on CP the first thing in the morning. Us liberal oldsters that are camped out “here,” who have a moral need to not see ourselves as a BIG part of the problem, are continuing to do so by wasting time talking about the problem the “other” is. Your comment helps pulls back the curtain on that inane behavior.

I had not heard of the US effort to kill off the Kyoto Protocol. Even so, it makes perfect political sense. Given what I read in Hu’s speech at the UN Climate Summit in NY (see pages 6-8 http://www.un.org/ wcm/ webdav/ site/ climatechange/ shared/ Documents/ China.pdf ) I see China’s position being: one, we are a developing nation (and acting responsibly as such); two, the Kyoto framework (that exempted China) is the right framework to move forward with (i.e. the developed would must lead—which, if the US charged ourselves with the parts of “their” CO2e footprint that is, in fact/as an accrued “benefit,” ours, would demonstrate that we are standing beside—not above—them and trying to responsibly redressing the mess we both created and have set the unsustainable example about.

The failure of leadership you reference includes scientifically inadequate ACES/CEJAP—an interesting jobs bill, but a defective piece of climate change legislation. Taken together, as a strategy, completing the demise of the Kyoto Protocol, while missing a minimum scientific target for GHG reductions domestically in the proposed legislation, and as Pete Best (#5) references (whether it is 2.5% or somewhere between 4-5%), is a truth about this nation and its behavior that only those indoctrinated by the domestic MSM seemed to be challenged to see.

Using a metaphor of a puppet show being held in a open venue with seating in front of the stage for an invited few and a fence to keep the riffraff out, the curtain screens the puppeteers from the seating we were born into. Much of the rest of the wold, systemically fenced out by the dynamics of a fiat currency-based, fractional reserve banking enabled global capitalism, can see what we lack even a language for (due to having never seen anything but the stage from in front of the curtain—TV): what is going on, as visible, from the other side of the fence. This puppet show metaphor is little more than an update of Plato’s cave. Like in that older metaphor, few have the morays of a developed maturity—being an adult—to leave the comfort of the theater of privileged shadows . . . or, abandoning, as Pete labels it, political sensibilities—NOT.

What you reference as a surety about piping down is little more than peer pressure applied to silence those who feel it incumbent upon themselves to help their society mature. Such social dynamics are an abuse of peer pressure as a means of persuasion. The abuse is a major factor in the collapse of every “advanced” civilization eventually brings upon itself. Keep trust your emotional need to pursue and speak the truth, and thanks for the comment.

Becasue we can not step up domestically to do what is needed, we are dragging the world down to our level. First, the U.S. is working hard in Bangkok right now to kill off the Kyoto Protocol and assure that there is no second commitment period. Next, the U.S. is working to change the terms of the international climate regime from legally binding commitments, to non-binding objectives. There is no U.S. leadership on mitigation or financing for developing countries, but plenty of U.S. leadership on rolling back the current international structure.

I’m sure I am supposed to pipe down and accept this as Obama’s wisdom about real politics in the Senate. But to me it simply looks like a failure of leadership from someone who has not really absorbed what climate scientists are telling us.

Left or right, right of wrong – column inches have to be filled and its not always truthful but it makes sense politically.

Obama won’t have a climate bill by Copenhagen, but there is a silver lining. Instead, he can ignore Congress for a while and focus on the specifics of what we could actually accomplish administratively. This includes the new confirmation of EPA’s ability to regulate CO2. Taken to its logical conclusion, this could enable the president to make dirty power uncompetitive.

This can be done in several ways: announce cancellation of itemized tax breaks and subsidies for fossil fuels, instead of talking about it vaguely as a future international step. Then, see that CO2 spouting coal plants pay a financial penalty for the GHG’s they send into the atmosphere. I can think of a few ways that this could be accomplished, and others no doubt have additional ideas. President Obama still has enough tools at his disposal to do this if he so chose.