(By Ray Drake)
SZ: "Bush Bravely Refuses Environmental Protection"
Few newspapers have been as consistently one-sided and mind-numbingly populist over the past few years as the Sueddeutsche Zeitung when it comes to reporting on the United States and President George W. Bush. The latest example is an article entitled "USA: Economy Against Bush".
The article's opening paragraphs read:
"USA: Economy Against Bush
The US President bravely refuses environmental protection - but the companies of his country are rethinking in the meantime.
By Andreas Oldag
With his categorical 'no' to all binding objective-setting for climate protection, President Bush has not only isolated himself in the circle of industrial states. Also in his own country he is increasingly encountering resistance. They are initiatives from the US states but equally from companies that have of late discovered their heart for environmental protection."
The first problem with the article is that the Sueddeutsche Zeitung appears to intentionally confuse President Bush's rejection of the Kyoto Treaty with a stubborn and sweeping refusal to protect the environment on any level. The article does not begin by stating that Bush bravely refuses Kyoto but clearly asserts that he "bravely refuses environmental protection" and categorically rejects all environmental standards and goals. In so doing, SZ is once again providing its readership with the simplistic, black-and-white, Bush-is-evil view of reality that they so obviously crave.
Unfortunately for SZ, reality is far more complex and nuanced. Whether one supports it or not, the Bush administration clearly does have a well-defined environmental policy consisting of numerous objectives and standards. These include:
- The Clear Skies Initiative: According to the White House, this plan "has been introduced in Congress and would dramatically improve air quality by reducing power plants' emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury by approximately 70 percent over the next 15 years, more than any other clean air initiative."
- "The EPA announced a proposal to require coal-burning power plants to make the steepest emissions cuts in over a decade. The Interstate Air Quality Rule will require power plants to substantially reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. Sulfur dioxide will be cut by nearly 70 percent and nitrogen oxide emissions will be cut by approximately 50 percent.
- "Mercury emissions from power plants are not currently regulated. For the first time ever, the Bush administration will impost a mandatory 70 percent cut in mercury emissions from those sources by 2018.
- "In April 2003, EPA issued a proposed rule that will dramatically reduce pollution from heavy-duty diesel engines used in construction, agricultural, and industrial equipment. (...) Soot and nitrogen oxide emissions will decrease by more than 90 percent by 2014, and the sulfur content of diesel fuel will be cut 99 percent by 2010.
- "President Bush has committed America to meeting the challenge of long-term global climate change by reducing the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic output by 18 percent by 2012 compared to 2002.
- "A 42 percent increase in climate change research initiative funding."
But of course, none of those items are ever mentioned by SZ. Readers are left to assume that Bush is a nature-hating barbarian out to destroy the environment at all costs. And that is precisely the view of Bush the media has conditioned them to expect.
Another interesting aspect of the Oldag article is its implication (in the headline) that the private sector is against Bush. So what is it now for the hard-left German media? Is the Bush administration the evil minion of American private interests or their new enemy? German conspiracy theorists are likely in a conniption over this article.
But Oldag reassures readers that capitalist firms like GE and 3M are not pursuing environmentally friendly products and technologies out of the goodness of their hearts, but are instead acting in self-interest to pad their bottom-lines. In so doing, the author unknowingly contradicts the titular claim of his article that the economy is "Against Bush". To quote from the White House website:
- "Addressing
global climate change will require a sustained effort, over many
generations. My approach recognizes that sustained economic growth is
the solution, not the problem – because a nation that grows its economy
is a nation that can afford investments in efficiency, new
technologies, and a cleaner environment." ---President Bush
- "Our
approach recognizes that sustained economic growth is an essential part
of the solution, not the problem. Economic growth will make possible
the needed investment in research, development, and deployment of
advanced technologies."
Finally, towards the end of the article the author touches on the true source of so much European ire: The refusal of the United States to sign the Kyoto Treaty. Oldag writes that American concerns over the treaty represent a "horror scenario":
"Washington has come up with a horror scenario according to which Kyoto would cost the US economy 400 billion Dollars (313 billion Euros) and 4.9 million jobs."
But the article never offers a shred of factual evidence or the slightest explanation as to why these estimates in fact represent hyperbolic exaggeration. Readers are provided no alternative view by SZ as to what the actual, "realistic" impact on the US economy would be. Essential elements of the Bush administration's views on Kyoto are omitted as well. Here is the White House's statement on the issue:
"This
Administration decided not to participate in the Kyoto Treaty on
climate change because its implementation would have meant the loss of
nearly $400 billion in U.S. GDP, and up to 4.9 million lost American
jobs, many of which would be exported overseas to developing countries
with lower environmental standards, hurting our economic
competitiveness. It is bad enough that the jobs go to the other
countries. But that also means that the greenhouse gas emissions and
air pollution also go there, and in many instances go up -- so we would
not achieve anything to address the issue of reducing emissions
globally. That is why 95 U.S. senators, with no opposing vote, rejected
the design of the Kyoto Treaty in 1997, long before President Bush came
into office."
The SZ piece also never brings up the fact that India and China, the world's two most populous nations, are exempt from the treaty, meaning that nearly half the world's population is exempt. Another key fact that is largely ignored by the German media is that the US Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike, voted unanimously (95-0) to reject Kyoto in 1997. Additionally, the 1990 baseline used by Kyoto for measurement of emissions provides a huge advantage to nations like Germany that once had territory in the Warsaw Pact and have since shut down large numbers of obsolete factories left over from the Cold War. Nations like Ukraine and Poland have effortlessly cut emissions since 1990 in that they have simply shut down unprofitable old Soviet-era factories. Nations like Japan, Australia and the United States don't share in that historic advantage.
But those facts are of little interest to a German media that has found the Kyoto treaty to be a convenient, populist blunt-object with which to bash the United States before the screaming masses. Blinded by ideology and profit-lust, many German news outlets have adopted the mentality that the United States and President Bush are guilty until proven innocent. SZ's Oldag piece is just another example of one-sided reporting that twists reality and "bravely refuses" to give readers all of the facts.
(Note: Emphasis above in the original)
Update: One of our commenters, Lars, says that he is a regular SZ reader and writes:
"I cannot remember of any article that correctly explained the US
environmental protection strategies compared to Kyoto. The place where
I first learned about the differences was a Slashdot discussion! And
the only German media so far which repeatedly had quite objective
comparative articles about the topic was Telepolis
(http://www.telepolis.de)."
We appreciate your honesty Lars.
Recent Comments