What’s with the editorial writers at the New York Times and the Washington Post? What does it take for political reality to sink in?
An unsigned NYT editorial bashing Bush on global warming — particularly for his opposition to mandatory emissions limits — says this:
Meanwhile, Mr. Bush’s staunch and patient friend, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, has once again – this time in The Observer – appealed to the president to join in a global effort to limit greenhouse gases.
Well, not exactly. Blair’s Observer editorial is notable precisely because it marks his rather conspicuous break from the Kyoto (read: mandatory emission limits) crowd. He’s pleading with Bush to join a worldwide effort to develop clean-energy technology. His "staunch and patient" friendship continues to consist entirely of him attempting to accommodate Bush in exchange for … nothing.
The WaPo editorial board thinks, well gosh, here’s the chance Bush has been looking for to abandon his retrograde position on climate change and hop aboard the multilateral train:
What is clear is that Mr. Blair’s initiative offers an excellent opening for Mr. Bush. The president, who has benefited from Mr. Blair’s support, should say he supports the prime minister’s initiative, wants to leave the Kyoto dispute behind and is ready to address climate change issues, actively and enthusiastically, in an international forum once again.
They argue earnestly that this is the right thing to do, because climate science has made it indisputable that warming is a problem.
Bush should reciprocate Blair’s friendship. He should join a multilateral agreement. He should admit he’s been wrong about climate change.
Meanwhile, back on planet earth …
