China Environmental Law

It turns out Joe Romm at Climate Progress (CP) is a friend of Bill Chandler, director of the energy and climate program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and one of the main sources for the Guardian story, “China and US held secret talks on climate change deal,” we reviewed yesterday.  Chandler has confirmed most of the story’s salient points are false.

1. Guardian: The talks were secret.  FALSE

CP: “Bill explained that the talks were not secret, but were merely off the record.  Indeed, Carnegie had written about the talks back in March.”

Exactly as I surmised.

2. Guardian: “The dialogue also challenges the conventional wisdom that George Bush’s decision to pull America out of the Kyoto climate change treaty had led to paralysis in the administration on global warming.”  FALSE

CP: “The Guardian puffs up the role of the Bushies in this talk, but in fact these talks were designed to get around the Bush administration intransigence on the issue.”

I am so glad I was right about this one.  If the Guardian’s version had been true, I would no longer feel confident in the sun’s rising in the east.

3. Guardian: China agreed to a “20% cut in carbon emissions by 2010.”  FALSE

CP: “The reporter, like many people, has confused carbon emissions and energy intensity.  China had previously announced a goal to cut energy intensity (energy per GDP) by 20% by 2010, which from my perspective was not much of a target, since it didn’t stop an accelerated use of coal even if they had met their annual efficiency targets, which they didn’t.”

Nailed this one too.  And to think I provide my analysis for free!

What’s left of the story?  Not much.  Chandler does believe that a “breakthrough” deal between the US and China is possible this fall.  Certainly many others (including me) believe that such a deal is “possible.”  I think it will be hard to trace the origin of such a deal back to the “off the record” talks profiled in the Guardian article, but of course “success has many fathers.” 

Where does this leave us?  Because of its provocative title, the Guardian article has gone viral.  Misinformation has been dispersed far and wide.  If the Guardian has any concern for the truth, it will publicly retract the story now.