G-8 EMISSIONS PLANS
"If the G-8's leaders genuinely wanted to cut carbon emissions by 50 percent over the next 40 years, this would mean taking steps they haven't even begun to contemplate. It would require such a drastic cut in our energy use and standard of living that their peoples would have risen up in mass revolt long before the target was reached.
"And nothing better shows up the unreality of all this - as President Bush tried to point out in the summit's only flash of honesty - than the fact that China (not represented at the G-8, although it now has the world's fourth largest economy) is already putting out more CO{-2} than anyone else. . ."
CHRISTOPHER BOOKER
Telegraph.co.uk
"Bush famously reneged on his 2000 campaign pledge to regulate utility greenhouse gas. Judging Bush on his seven years of global warming denial and obstructionism, he has made a major step forward at the G-8. Judging Bush on the basis of what he has done for our children, their children, and the next 50 generations, he has solidified his record of helping ensure that billions and billions of people suffer the grim consequences of catastrophic climate change."
JOSEPH ROMM
Guardian.co.uk
"As pressure has grown for developing nations to cut emissions, their leaders have played on Western guilt. Since climate change is largely the result of emissions from 20th-century industrial processes whose benefits went almost exclusively to Western nations, they argue, today's developing nations shouldn't have to pay to fix the problem - until they have made themselves rich by the same carbon-fueled methods.
"We have to admit that there is a certain moral logic to this position: Western nations have been polluting to their heart's content since the Industrial Revolution. Now, suddenly, having become rich enough to focus on trendy environmental causes, their elites have found eco-Jesus, and insist that everyone else convert to the same religion. "
EDITORIAL
Naitonalpost.com
IRAN TEST-FIRES MISSILES
"It is no coincidence that Iran fired its salvo of 9 ballistic missiles on July 9 while the G-8 leaders in Japan were calling on Iran to suspend its uranium-enrichment program. Its pyrotechnic display was a political statement, not a demonstration of any new military capability . . ."
JOE CIRINCIONE
Huffingtonpost.com
"So as of this [week], everyone in the Iran-Israel-United States triangle has (a) demonstrated that they can attack their enemies, (b) blamed the others for starting it, (c) claimed that their own acts have nothing to do with any possible offensive strike, and (d) airily dismissed the possibility of war. It's nice to see that everyone is so dedicated to reducing tensions in the area."
KEVIN DRUM
Washingtonmonthly.com
"Bush has six months left in office, and despite low poll ratings and draining wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the question is a serious one. Might he really launch an attack on Iran, which has refused to halt nuclear research that could lead to weapons? For the war wary, there are hawkish signs everywhere. A New Yorker magazine disclosure this week reported the White House pushed through a $400 million program to back covert operations in Iran against its leaders . . .
"If Iran ever wanted a reason to work on a bomb, an attack by the United States would be a good one and virtually guarantee the effort. Also, American forces, allies, and interests around the globe would instantly become targets for Iran-funded terrorists. And please, no dreams of regime change if an attack happens. The surest way to rally domestic support for Tehran's hardliners would be a foreign assault."
EDITORIAL
Sfgate.com
