Kyoto Protocol

Given the amount of media coverage surrounding the Kyoto Protocol, it is very discomforting to see the poor reporting job done on this environmental issue. The article Dangerous Climate Impacts and the Kyoto Protocol, presents “several plausible interpretations of dangerous interference in terms of particular environmental outcomes…” (O’Neill and Oppenheimer). The newspaper articles rely heavily on figures and facts given from political persons with political motivations. On the other hand, political and economic views were highlighted quite a bit more than any actual environmental concerns. That contrasts greatly with the scholarly journals that try to remain focused on the science of the issue instead of the politics. This type of bias is not intentional, but the prevalence of one point of view is severely detrimental to the articles’ neutrality. The extremes of each case are easily cited, yet no “intermediate or tentative position” is reported or quoted. According to Boyd and Ibarrarán, there are definite benefits to implementing the policy because the growth rate of carbon emissions is reduced. In general, the newspaper media seems more concerned with the political and economic facets of the protocol.

Out of the numerous articles researched, very little of the actual specifics of the Kyoto Protocol was discussed. The bias is intentional because they are trying to support their point of view on the issue. hard to tell whether it is the media itself or special interest groups who are responsible for this kind of rhetoric. Instead, they relied on figures and facts spouted off from some “important” figure. The established technique of cost–benefit analysis provides the appropriate framework to this objective” Instead of focusing on the political debate surrounding Kyoto, the scientific journals attempt to explain or determine the costs associated with the protocol in both environmental and pure economic terms. Although it is both an environmental and economic issue, it is a political one as well.