The Guardian vs. The Guardian on Obama and climate change
By Ian Sinclair
20 November 2014
In its editorial on the recent US-China climate change deal The Guardian, generally considered the most radical, left-wing voice in the UK national press, stated “President Obama’s commitment to fighting climate change has not been in doubt”.
What, then, should we make of Suzanne Goldenberg’s Guardian report three days earlier that noted “the reality is that Obama has spent the last six years expanding coal, oil and gas production under his ‘all of the above’ energy strategy”?
Or, in the same report, Goldenberg quoting Obama from his 2012 re-election campaign: “We quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high. We’ve added enough new oil and gas pipeline to encircle the earth and then some”?
Or Goldenberg’s November 2012 Guardian report titled ‘The day Obama chose a strategy of silence on climate change’ about a 2009 off-the-record meeting between the White House and the environmental movement when the Obama Administration stated they would not talk about climate change?
Or George Monbiot’s November 2012 Guardian article about the US Presidential race that noted “neither Mitt Romney nor Barack Obama – with the exception of one throwaway line each – have mentioned climate change in the wake of hurricane Sandy… For the first time since 1984, climate change wasn’t mentioned in any of the presidential debates”?
Or Goldenberg’s 2010 Guardian report titled ‘Barack Obama reverse campaign promise and approves offshore drilling’ that noted Obama had announced the “opening up of over 500,000 miles of US coastal waters to oil and gas exploitation for the first time in over 20 years”?
Or Monbiot’s December 2009 Guardian article that argued “the immediate reason for the failure of the [Copenhagen United Nations climate change] talks can be summarised in two words: Barack Obama”?