These are excerpts from recent editorials in newspapers from around the world that may be of interest to Royal Gazette readers:

Orlando (Florida) Sentinel, on global warming (June 8):

The new report on global warming shows the need to reduce fossil fuels.

Shed those sweaters, buy a new umbrella and think twice about getting into the water. Like to dive some of Florida's world-renowned reefs? Well, you might want to consider a new hobby.

Those basically are the conclusions of a new report prepared by the Bush administration on the very real consequences of global warming in Florida and the rest of the nation. Oh, the encyclopaedic report acknowledges for the first time that fossil fuels consumed by humans largely are responsible for global warming.

And granted, that's a big step for the president. An oilman by trade, his domestic-energy agenda relies heavily on the continued production of fossil fuels instead of renewable-energy production and conservation measures.

That said, it's hardly surprising that the report fails to recommend a dramatic reduction in pollutants that contribute to global warming. Mr. Bush instead proposes voluntary reductions in industrial emissions. That's no solution.The Independent, London, on the "dirty bomber" (June 12):

The indications are that, as often in the past, the Bush Administration is overselling its latest intelligence coup in the war against terror. There still seems only the sketchiest of circumstantial evidence to link Abdullah al-Muhajir, the alleged "dirty bomber", with a terrorist atrocity in the United States.

After he had spent almost a month in custody, the US authorities, it would seem, found themselves unable to charge him with any offence, and so have simply decided to detain him indefinitely under the catch-all category of being an "enemy combatant," effectively a prisoner of war.

But even if Mr. al-Muhajir had been caught red-handed leaving a suitcase containing Semtex and rods of cobalt 50 outside the White House, even that would not justify the denial of basic human liberties that we have witnessed in this case.

The Dallas Morning News, on church abuse reform (June 6):

"Our beloved church is experiencing a crisis without precedent in our times."

With those anguished words, the US Catholic bishops begin their draft proposal for protecting children from sexually abusive priests. ...

But the bishops must do more than atone for their nonfeasance. They must establish effective mechanisms for culling the priesthood of sexual predators.

The draft "charter for the protection of children and young people" makes a good start. ...

However, the draft goes wobbly on past abuse cases, establishing no automatic penalties. Priests who committed no more than one act of sexual abuse and who were "not diagnosed as paedophiles" would be allowed to remain as long as a review board composed mostly of laymen concurs. At the very least, priests who fit this definition should be forbidden to mingle with or minister to children.

Although the draft is appropriately tough on rank-and-file priests, it fails completely to spell out penalties for bishops who fail to carry out its prescriptions regarding the alerting of civil authorities and the segregation of suspected abusers. It contains no mechanism for holding the bishops accountable. The bishops should address this disappointing oversight.