I've just read a piece written by Beth Romulo and published by Philippines-based Manila Bulletin Online regarding the new Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate.

I have no problem with the article save one point:

The new agreement is not intended to replace the Kyoto protocol, Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick explained, when the agreement was announced, but to complement it, by bringing in the developing countries, and offering them the most modern technology to help lower emissions. Despite the fact that the US did not ratify the Kyoto pact, it has proceeded voluntarily and been able to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 0.3 percent while the EU’s 25 members have increased to 3.4 percent.

Wow. According to him, the US has been able to reduce carbon emission by 0.3%. Moreover , that sentence that touches on US vs. EU emission is written as weaselly as it could be written.

Why is it spurious?

The author says that there is a drop but fails to give the time frame. Is it year to year basis? Is it 2005 against 1990?

According to BBC, "the US carbon dioxide emissions have increased to more than 15% above 1990 levels." Moreover, Washington Post says the US 2004 emission level has increased by 1.7%.

I could give him a benefit of a doubt and assume he meant a reduction for the year 2005 (despite that there are 5 more months before the year ends). However, mind you at the same time that the US targets 18% reduction in emission intensity, not reduction of 18% of emission level. There is a huge different in intensity and level and this is where the US has been able to do. The US has been able to reduce the intensity and I think the author of the article us confused with the two terms.

More about emission intensity from the same article by Washington Post:

Connaughton, the chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, and other administration officials said they are focused on obtaining practical commitments industrialized countries can meet without damaging their economies. He said that although some G-8 countries are struggling to meet their goal of bringing greenhouse gas emissions down to 1990 levels by 2012, the United States is on track to fulfill its pledge to reduce its carbon intensity -- how much emissions are rising relative to overall economic growth -- 18 percent by 2012.

On Thursday, the Energy Information Administration announced that the nation's carbon emissions rose 1.7 percent in 2004 -- but that amounted to a 2.6 percent drop in carbon intensity, because the U.S. economy grew 4.4 percent that year. The rate of increase in U.S. carbon emissions more than doubled from 2003 to 2004 because of heightened economic activity.

Now, I'm not saying reducing in emission intensity undesireble. Quite the contrary, any reduction is good to me. But this Beth Romulo needs to recognize which is which or else, misinformation might be spread out whenever he writes anything about greenhouse gases emission.