The Guardian of London notes that President “George Bush was castigated by European diplomats and found himself isolated yesterday after a special conference on climate change ended without any progress.”

European ministers, diplomats and officials attending the Washington conference were scathing, particularly in private, over Mr Bush’s failure once again to commit to binding action on climate change. […]

Britain and almost all other European countries, including Germany and France, want mandatory targets for reducing greenhouse emissions. Mr Bush, while talking yesterday about a “new approach” and “a historic undertaking”, remains totally opposed.

The conference, attended by more than 20 countries, including China, India, Britain, France and Germany, broke up with the US isolated, according to non-Americans attending. One of those present said even China and India, two of the biggest polluters, accepted that the voluntary approach proposed by the US was untenable and favoured binding measures, even though they disagreed with the Europeans over how this would be achieved.

A senior European diplomat attending the conference, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the meeting confirmed European suspicions that it had been intended by Mr Bush as a spoiler for a major UN conference on climate change in Bali in December.

“It was a total charade and has been exposed as a charade,” the diplomat said. “I have never heard a more humiliating speech by a major leader. He [Mr Bush] was trying to present himself as a leader while showing no sign of leadership. It was a total failure.”

Climate Progress breaks down Bush’s approach to climate change: “If we had those technologies today, then maybe we could take genuine action now. But, darn it, people, we don’t. We can’t grow the economy and be responsible stewards of the earth quite yet. We are close, though, so be patient already and stop with all those calls for mandatory regulation. Sheesh!”

On Thursday, the Justice Department dismissed Net neutrality, “the principle that all Internet sites should be equally accessible to any Web user,” and told the Federal Communications Commission, which is reviewing high-speed Internet practices” that “Internet service providers should be allowed to charge a fee for priority Web traffic.” The Department claimed that Net neutrality “could hamper development of the Internet and prevent service providers from upgrading or expanding their networks.”

In reality, rather than stifling economic development, Net neutrality has led to economic innovation and growth. According to Business Week, investment in free and open internet access “plays a vital role in stimulating economic growth and productivity–more so than money spent on roads, electricity, or even education.” High speed internet for all “makes it easier and cheaper for all kinds of workers to place orders, service customers, and drive up new business.”

The push to abolish Net neutrality is led by “the nation’s largest telephone and cable companies — including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner…They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data…[and] discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video — while slowing down or blocking their competitors.”

The Department’s decision would thus undermine small businesses, innovators, political advocates, bloggers, and non profit organizations who are financially unable to pay the fees for priority speeds. According to David Weinberger, a fellow with the Harvard University Law School’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society, “if the people who carry the packets, carry the bits, get to prefer certain ideas, whether they’re political or economic, then a useful principle of democracy is weakened.”

In fact, if the mainstream media is any indication, a two-tier pay-for-access Internet system would filter for unpopular political expression and favor conventional corporate wisdom.

The Justice Department must live up to its mission statement and “ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans,” not just the administration’s campaign contributors.