From the BBC:

A meeting in Washington of global political leaders has reached a new agreement on tackling climate change.

Delegates agreed that developing countries will have to face targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions as well as rich countries.

The informal meeting also agreed that a global market should be formed to cap and trade carbon dioxide emissions.

The non-binding declaration is seen as vital in influencing a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol, correspondents say.

The forum's closing statement said man-made climate change was now "beyond doubt".

In a related story:

EU energy ministers have agreed to increase the share of biofuels used in transport to 10% by 2020.

But at a meeting in Brussels they were unable to decide whether a target of getting 20% of energy from renewable sources by 2020 should be binding.

I was resetting my Google preferences when I noticed they had an 'Elmer Fudd' preference under languages. Observe:

And here's bork, bork, bork!

It just shows what can be accomplished when you have a bunch of clever developers with time on their hands. :)

And, perhaps by design, it leads to brand exposure for Google as bloggers like me -- again, with too much time on our hands -- highlight such trivialities. :)

My CTV.ca colleague Phil Stavrou went to the T.O. International Auto Show and this is what he found: A new generation of green autos emerging -- even luxury ones.

Russell Smith writes in The Globe and Mail about the role of publicists in the modern media age -- and what journalists should do about it.

From Slate.com:

The editors of the swimsuit issue have perfected a genteel notion of female sexuality. You might call it Minivan Cheesecake. That is, the magazine is just tasteful enough to be enjoyed comfortably by a middle-aged man who operates a minivan. This year's crop of 18 supermodels would look right at home in a Subaru commercial. They never reveal anything more than a stray nipple—and then it's tucked beneath a translucent swimsuit (Page 75) or body paint (Page 78). In return, the SI cameras maintain a discreet distance from the babes—none of the too-close-up shots you find in Playboy or Penthouse. The models seem to smile a lot morethan they do in the skin magazines, and they stop to pay tribute to inspirational heroes like Jane Goodall and Brett Favre. Why, there's even a special treat for the kids: supermodel trading cards!

The family-room aesthetic was handed down by Andre Laguerre, a raffish Frenchman and ex-DeGaulle associate who edited Sports Illustrated from 1960to 1974. Laguerre, who believed that a good deal of all magazine business should be conducted from inside a bar, found himself with a minor editorial problem: He had no compelling sporting events to cover during the winter months. In 1964, he had a brainstorm: He would supplement sport with skin. Laguerre summoned a young fashion reporter named Jule Campbell to his office and laid down the intellectual roots of the issue. He asked Campbell, "How would you like to go to some beautiful place and put a pretty girl on the cover?"

Macleans.ca has an interesting new feature. They have a panel called the Macleans 50.

From the blurb:

A diverse field of Canada’s most well known and respected personalities from journalists to politicians offering their comments on the issues of the day, everyday.

Essentially, the M-50, which includes Macleans journalists, can post comments on the stories Macleans.ca is covering that day.

See this one on Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach arguing for federal climate change money, as an example.

Now, how about the hoi polloi -- you know, you and I? Can we chip in to the conversation? Well, er, no. At least, not that I can see.

This feature is strictly for those with something to actually say. But the lessers are welcome to press their nose to the glass.

While I'm not really down with that principle (I don't think journalists should be above talking with their readers), it is potentially an interesting and useful way to broaden out a story.

For one thing, now reporters won't have to call sources for reaction! They just post now! Woo-hoo!! :)

However, I wonder what obligation has been imposed on the M-50 to post comments, or how they find out about new posts.

For example, there's a story up on Parliament passing the Kyoto bill. I wouldn't mind seeing what John Duffy, Mr. Climate Liberal himself, has to say about it. As I write this, however, no comment from Mr. Duffy.

Am I expected to click on the story several more times over the course of the day to see what his reaction might be? How long does Macleans think visitors will put up with that? I don't want to repeatedly revisit the same story just to see if an M-50 has deigned to comment.*

* In fairness, the Macleans.ca home page as a column in the centre that can accommodate the latest five M-50 comments. But you still have to check. A quick-and-dirty check shows RSS feeds for news categories, but not comments.

However, I suppose we shall see how it all unfolds over time. In any event, giving more voice to those with a voice can't be seen as a bad thing. :)

Afterword

Duffy never did comment on that story, although Tory blogger Stephen Taylor did.

Allan Rock, a one-time Liberal justice minister, is one of the M-50. There was a story posted on Prime Minister Stephen Harper's desire to appoint law-and-order-friendly judges. You'd think he'd be a natural.

It might have been interesting to see him mix it up over the issue with Guy Giorno, former chief of staff to Mike Harris, or John Reynolds, a former Conservative MP turned backroom player.

Alas, it didn't happen. 

I clicked on the bio of Adam Radwanski, managing editor of Macleans.ca, and he hasn't issued a comment for a week. A couple Macleans staffers haven't commented at all, which drops it to the M-48 at the very least. :)

The U.S. electrical industry can't see getting GHG emissions down below 1990 levels until some time in the 2020s.

Firedoglake.com has a team of six bloggers covering the Scooter Libby perjury trial. Their only real disappointment? The defence won't put the Scootmeister or Cheney on the stand.

Once upon a time, U.S. war planners envisioned about 5,000 U.S. troops in Iraq by early 2007.

A troop surge wasn't even a twinkle in Dubya's eye back then.

The Beeb has coverage of a recent seminar in London on Afghanistan. One speaker was Norine McDonald of the Senlis Council, which put out a provocative report last fall.

However, that's old news. Check out what Dr. David Kilcullen, chief strategist in the Office of the Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism at the US State Department, has to say.