So yesterday President Obama held a joint presentation (it was
clearly not a press conference) with Mexico’s President Felipe
Calderon. Listening to the audio, it sure sounded like Obama was
hailing Mexico under Calderon as “a leader in cutting
greenhouse gas emissions and in helping developing countries do
the same.” Read the
transcript yourself, and you’ll see that it reads more
ambiguously, and that possibly Obama’s intention was to say that
the U.S. is a leader in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and
Calderon has shown leadership among those developing countries.
I admit a slight bias against the latter interpretation given
Obama’s history of bemoaning U.S. irresponsibility and reckless
performance in the days Before Obama. And because he is addicted
not just to viscerally blaming the Bush administration for
anything that occurs, but also to taking gratuitous and often
inaccurate or at best wildly spinning shots. Including in this
particular context. So it would be very odd that Obama would
suddenly be hailing emission reductions under Bush.
Here are the most recent emission figures from the
U.S. Energy Information Administration for CO2 emissions from
energy consumption, in millions of metric tons and ending in
2008, the most recent year for which data are available:
2000
2008 %
change
U.S.
5863.809
5832.818
- 0.05
Mexico
383.326 444.565 +
11.6
And, as to more recent performance (last five years for which
data are available):
2004
2008
% change
U.S.
5965.321
5832.818
- 2.2
Mexico
385.988
444.565
+ 15.2
So let’s assume that Obama was not saying Calderon has cut
emissions. To say that would be to offer yet another example of a
man for whom facts do not matter, only rhetoric, and who rarely
misses an opportunity, real or perceived, to use that rhetoric to
speak ill of his own country — if generally as a way to
criticize those with whom he disagrees and/or who the guy
preceded him in office — while absurdly hailing others whom he
sees as models for his “fundamental transformation”.
That would be unseemly. So let’s instead assume Obama was
praising U.S. emissions performance under Bush. Yet, that would
be truly aberrant. Unseemly would be far more likely.
But if we take the transcript, audio and Obama’s history
together, it is equally likely that he is hailing (and taking
credit for) emission reductions that came on his watch so far,
which are as a result of the recession. Which is as bad as the
first interpretation.
ncatty| 5.20.10 @ 10:32AM
Taking credit for stuff you didn't do is standard political theater. He is happy with the formulation that you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time. That is how he got elected and that is how he governs.
DAC| 5.20.10 @ 10:34AM
Of course Mexico's GHG emissions are rising--where do you think US and EU companies are putting a growing part of their heavy manufacturing capacity? Hint, it's not Monterey, California. It's Monterrey, Mexico--which despite all the drug gang violence, is an industrial boom town on a scale you have to see to believe. Ask yourself, why are there new direct flights from Detroit to Monterrey, MX? Why, on the way from the Monterrey, MX airport to its downtown hotels, do you see sprawling campuses of every US heavy manufacturer (John Deere, Navistar, GM, etc)? Because in Mexico they make things and they want to make things, and they realize that they're competing not with the rotted out unionized hulks of the midwest, but with the non-union factories of Texas, the US southeast, and abroad, Brazil and China.
Mexico may have many flaws, its foreign policy and immi/emigration policies among them, but US companies go there to get hard work done efficiently and done right, to feed their domestic factories. Mexico would be cutting its own Achilles tendon if it ever spoke seriously of reducing "emissions." So Dear Leader can pontificate on this to his heart's content, but it won't change what's happening south of the border, down Mexico way.
By the way, the food in Monterrey is fantastic. One word for you: "cabrito."
Rich Rostrom| 5.20.10 @ 3:00PM
It would help if the arithmetic was correct.
The U.S. decline from 2000 to 2008 was 0.5% not 0.05%. The Mexican increase across that period was 16.0%, not 11.6%.