The EU and 'Binding' greenhouse gas cuts

I'm unsure if I'm more upset with the EU politicians or with the news organizations that are reporting on them.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=1e812c5b-a431-4b78-abd6-714585cbce3e&k=60485

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070309/sc_nm/energy_eu_dc_16

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL0436578520070309

http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-20/0703094163195906.htm

http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2007/03/09/afx3501709.html

http://www.euractiv.com/en/energy/eu-bold-commitment-climate-renewables/article-162373

I've obviously read several articles and here's my take:
1. They all appear to be the SAME article. Right down to the verbage and the quotes.
In fact most were written by Ingrid Melander and Jeff Mason. The Forbes article appears to be slightly different...but not by much.

2. All of the articles discuss the 'breaktrough' and how this is 'historic' agreement is being 'hailed' by the environmental groups. What NONE of them mention is how the deal is, in any way, binding. Binding implies that you are going to do what is asked of you...and if you don't, there is some repercussion.

3. Given that this is a quote coming out of the session: "...developed countries [ of Europe ] are urged to 'commit themselves to comparable emissions reductions', with 'advanced developing nations' contributing 'adequately'." This doesn't seem to imply binding anyone to do anything.

So...two questions for you:
- How much weight do you think that the leaders of the EU actually give to the issue of CO2 reduction if all they are willing to do is 'urge' their nations to hit the 'goals' laid out on paper?

- What reporter would ever think about allowing a title that uses words like 'commit' and 'binding' without asking (and printing the response to the question), "Well, what happens if they don't reach the goals?"