AP Analysis on 'Climate Change' Is Spectacularly Awful

AP Reporter Dina Cappiello at the Associated Press, aka the Administration's Press, has put up what I guess is supposed to be an analysis of President Obama's possible actions relating to "climate change" that is so bad that an adequate critique would require a college term paper -- at one of the few colleges left which doesn't brainwash and intimidate students into believing the alleged unassailability of contentions about man-caused "global warming."

So other than noting that Cappiello "somehow" forgot to note a Bloomberg News report about Obama's plan to "expand the scope of a Nixon-era law that was first intended to force agencies to assess the effect of projects on air, water and soil pollution" to now include "climate change" -- an action which if carried out to its full potential could stop virtually any project anywhere -- I'll just post key paragraphs and let commenters have what promises to be virtually endless fun picking Cappiello's work apart:


The issue:

Slowing the buildup of greenhouse gases responsible for warming the planet is one of the biggest challenges the United States and President Barack Obama face. The effects of rising global temperatures are widespread and costly: more severe storms, rising seas, species extinctions, and changes in weather patterns that will alter food production and the spread of disease.

Politically, the stakes are huge.

Any policy to reduce heat-trapping pollution will inevitably target the main sources of Americans' energy: the coal burned by power plants for electricity and the oil that is refined to run automobiles.

Those industries have powerful protectors in both parties in Congress who will fight any additional regulations handed down by the administration that could contribute to Americans paying more for electricity and gas at the pump. There's also the lingering question of how much the U.S. can do to solve the problem alone, without other countries taking aggressive steps to curb their own pollution.

... The prospects:

Obama has shown he doesn't need Congress to take action against climate change.

In his first term, he struck a deal with automakers to double fuel economy standards. After failing to pass a climate bill through a Democratic-controlled Congress, he proposed rules to control heat-trapping pollution from future power plants.

... While the pipeline project is a better alternative from a carbon pollution standpoint than shipping the oil by rail, the emissions created by harvesting tar sands, processing them into oil and eventually burning it in automobiles in the U.S. and abroad will contribute to global warming.

Obama also supports the natural gas drilling boom brought about by hydraulic fracturing, but that boom is also responsible for releasing methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

That really is as much as I can stand. Have at it, people, and try to forget the unfortunate fact that Cappiello's work will be treated as legitimate by most of the AP's subscribing outlets.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Tom Blumer
Tom Blumer
Tom Blumer is a contributing editor for NewsBusters.