http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/26/AR2005122600781.html White House Prevarications
Tuesday, December 27, 2005; Page A24
GIVEN ALL THE fuss about what government officials in Washington
say off the record, it's surprising how little attention is paid
to some of the things they say on the record. Take, for example,
the subject of U.S. emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause
climate change. Earlier this month, we noted that the emissions
figures cited by U.S. officials attending the international
climate change conference in Montreal seemed dubious: Although the
negotiators claimed U.S. emissions had fallen by 0.8 percent
between 2000 and 2003, that drop actually reflected the recession
of 2000-2001, not any substantive environmental policy change. In
fact, as we noted, emissions had begun rising again in 2002 and
2003, and they looked set to rise again in 2004 -- to levels
higher than they reached in 2000.
James L. Connaughton of the White House Council on Environmental
Quality disputed our editorial; he noted, among other things, that
the 2004 figures had not yet been published. But now the Energy
Information Administration, one of two government agencies that
tracks climate statistics (the Environmental Protection Agency is
the other) has released its 2004 numbers. As many predicted, they
show a hefty 2 percent rise in greenhouse gas emissions, the
largest growth in five years. Thanks to that rise, U.S. emissions
now account for about 25 percent of the world's total. When the
EPA figures are released, they are expected to show the same
trend, despite the EPA's different methods of calculation.
...snip...edit for copyright reasons...
If it can't get its numbers right, why should we take seriously the
White House's declared intention to forge a "constructive and
effective approach" to climate change at all? (the lying b*st*rds! -editor)
...end editorial...