http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L11874085.htm

"Kenyan children demand action on climate change", was published on November 11th by Reuters.

The article says that on Saturday a march through Nairobi to call rich nations to take action on climate change was led by children. African children are perhaps the group most entitled to demand action, being not only members of the generation who must deal with global warming but also citizens of the continent least prepared to cope with its effects. In the article, Grace Akamu says, "Let them seize this moment to demand from the West a special fund to help us adapt to this threat".

Similarly to my first article, this one pretty much just lays the facts down and presents little in the way of bias.

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/061105/w110544.html

This article is called "Thousands gather in Kenya to weigh next steps on global climate change," and it was written by Charles J Hanley for CBC.ca, and published on November 5th, 2006.

The article reports on the opening of the UN conference on climate change, which took place in Kenya. According to the article, the continent that has contributed the least to climate change, Africa, is also the one which will be most devastated by its effects. Scientists predict a grim outlook for Africa, and it does not seem fair that this continent, having had little to do with the problem, is going to be hit with the brunt of its consequences. The article then goes on to revisit the Kyoto accord, which the US, who contribute one-fifth of the world's carbon emissions, refused to sign in 2001. Now, five years later, the countries who did sign Kyoto are waiting to see if the US "will submit to a mandatory regime of cutbacks."

This article's bias seems to side with Kyoto and sit quite directly across from the U.S. government, with little faith in it: "few here expect any dramatic shift in the U.S. position." The reason of this bias is simply that with the U.S. government's track record on this issue it's a hard bias for a thinking human being not to have.

Article Numero Dos

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/01/warctic101.xml

This article is called "More homes face flooding risk as budget is slashed by £24m" and it was published on November 1st 2006 on Telegraph.co.uk, written by the Telegraph's Politcal Editor George Jones.

This article reports that the UK government has made huge cuts to the budget set aside for protecting people and property which will be affected by flooding caused by climate change. The Environment Ministry predicts many nasty consequences of this budget cut, like increased risk of flooding, water quality failures, and illegal dumping issues (the article uses a word I was not familiar with, "fly-tipping" - which is the illegal dumping of waste anywhere it is not authorized)

The article's author, Mr. Jones, contrasts this budget cut against the recent unveiling of the Stern report, which mentions quite clearly the "increasing pressure for coastal protection", and Tony Blair's promise for Britain to set an example for other countries in combating global warming. There is a fairly clear bias in the article, as it speaks critically of the UK government. While it is not as teeming with opinion as it could be, the author's message is pretty clear, and he's right: the budget cuts make for sobering news after Tony Blair's promises regarding climate change, as reported in my previous post. It doesn't necessarily (hopefully) invalidate what the British government has promised, but it's cause for concern. On the other hand, when hasn't a government been inherently hypocritical? As far as modern democracy goes, the Brits seem to be doing alright on this issue.

Well, here's my first post on my online Geo-Journal, or as it could more aptly be called, my Geo-Blog. Unfortunately, that does not have the same alliterated ring to it as "Geo-Journal", but it does start and finish with the same letter, and that's got to count for something. But I digress. I've chosen to focus on the topic of Climate Change.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061030.wenviron1030/BNStory/International/

Story number one, entitled "Blair calls for 'decisive' action on climate change", was published on Monday October 30th in the online edition of The Globe and Mail, and there is no author given.

This article reports British Prime Minister Tony Blair's introduction to the Stern report, which is a 700-page report about the economic effects of climate change. According to Blair and the Stern report, if something is not done to combat the effects of climate change and reduce the emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause it, it will be disastrous to the world's economy. The article uses the comparison often tied with this report, which is that climate change at its current rate could end up costing more than the great depression and the two world wars combined.

I wasn't able to find a bias in this article, as it essentially just lays down the facts.

Bjorn Lomborg of the Opinion Journal (opinionjournal.com) has written an article criticizing the Stern report, calling it "sloppy", "dodgy", and "flawed". It does bring up some good points, though its bias is very clear, and for me just ends up making me wish that somebody would come up with some reliable, complete, unbiased facts.