Copenhagen

…It seems logical to write about the Copenhagen Conference, which begins tomorrow!

…What do I think of Copenhagen? Well, word on the street is that the conference will promise emissions reduction targets insufficient to meet even the minimum requirements as recommended by experts such as the European Climate Foundation. The good news about Copenhagen is that heads of state and business are meeting, and they, along with the accompanying protesters, will bring valuable short-term focus on the undeniable issue of human-assisted climate change and pollution. Moreover, there are fairly firm commitments to reduce emissions and to focus on a world-wide cap and trade scheme. That’s the good news.

…And now for reality. Copenhagen is essentially a meeting of power players and a great big card game. All the major players seek to achieve an out-of-skew balance between commitment to emission reductions and financial gain. Unfortunately, financial gain is by far the greatest concern for those involved. No nation or business cartel wants to initiate costly emissions caps, retrofits, product recalls/replacements, redesigns, and full-on shifts to more sustainable energy, because to do so puts them at the mercy of their competitors. The world economy is a larger version of the corporate jungle, where it is kill or be killed, and nobody prefers death to power and riches.

…Yes, the conference exists to save face, is an attempt to quiet the confused masses who don’t really understand climate change but know somewhere in their brains that it’s probably bad. It enables leaders and businesses to make elaborate claims of striving for progress and change, helping the environment, being concerned etc., when in reality it is an expensive two-week conference where leaders, concubines (er bureaucrats), and CEOs do various lunches, discuss beneficial trade deals, and generally seek to improve the lot of their respective shareholders (which are, sadly, not the majority of people); over filet mignon and roasted sea bass.

…What about Cap and Trade, that will save us right? Come the fuck on. Anyone who thinks putting modest caps on emissions from certain sources, and then giving fabulously wealthy businesses the ability to buy and sell invisible ‘carbon credits’ will cut emissions enough is retarded or one of the aforementioned shareholders.

…Climate Change, and the accompanying and related pollution, habitat destruction, deforestation and general destruction of the planet is the greatest problem ever faced by humanity. We are an industrialized society living beyond our means, in a culture of excess and consumption, where television dulls our brains to reality, and where the most fun many of us have is buying products with abandon. The over-arching economic philosophy of the world is more = better, and this philosophy is utterly ridiculous in the context of the world having finite resources. In the face of indisputable evidence of human-assisted climate change, rampant deforestation, endless corruption and pollution, and extinct models of philosophy and economics – we need more than yet another Potemkin Village conference and a quick suckle from the proverbial breast of corrupt authority.
  
In my opinion, there are two solutions to the greatest problem ever faced by humanity:
 
1) Actual accelerated gradual change.

- This solution involves environmentally progressive political parties and policies taking precedence worldwide, massive educational activity to educate the masses, massive social activism to change the attitude of society, tremendous focus on researching, developing, and implementing so-called green technologies and renewable energy sources. This solution is very possible, the seeds are already there, but we need voters to support it.

At present, relying on this form of accelerated gradual change faces the surprising democratic reality of some nations, whereby voters really do vote against progressive policies because they are scared of paying taxes and are worried about the precious economy – despite the fact that greening the economy does not in any way have to equal its destruction
 
2) Radical change in the form of Environmental Dictatorship.

- With this solution, world states elect a dictator or dictatorial council to directly manage affairs, bypassing ‘democracy,’ and initiating radical and fundamental shifts in a rapid period of time. The leaders promise to rule only long enough to fix things, or for a prescribed period of time, and then go about dissolving and restructuring companies, recycling old cars by the boatful, putting people in prison for polluting etc. The plus side of this solution (and I am completely serious) is the potential for quick change, which will, in time alter the earth for the better and avert its destruction. The bad side is fairly obvious, with historical examples from Augustus to Stalin, Hitler, and Mao being prime ones.

…You cannot argue though: Dictators get things done. Is it really wrong to have a dictatorship with good intentions? Does absolute power really corrupt absolutely? Pffft

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

…What do I think will most likely happen? We will proceed as we have been, on a slow course to our own destruction, the human race will become extinct or live in a hellish world of cancer and poison, and we will deserve it for being unfit stewards and collective idiots. Environmental activism will remain a niche activity, will remain marginalized, and will be plagued by elitists, snobs, apathy, and the hopelessness of fighting such enormous forces. The conference isn’t even concerned with pollution in general! Hopefully, considering our tremendous power to permanently fuck up the earth, we don’t destroy it utterly, and the next species will, hopefully, have a world impact closer to that of the dinosaurs or amoebas and do better than us.

OR

…We will use Copenhagen as a launch pad and at least meet minimum targets *twirls finger*

…All rather realistic, but to end on a positive note, I want to reemphasize that the conference will generate debate, discussion, and, at least until the next ‘recession’ or h1n1 ‘scare,’ genuine concern for the planet.

Links:

• BBC Pre-Conference Report
• BBC Copenhagen Graphics and Figures
• BBC viewer comment section – find out what real people (and ‘real’ people) think about climate change and the conference
• The Nation’s take
• Even the heat generated by our industry/cars/cities is a climate changer
• Information on Climate Change from David Suzuki
• Official Stance of the Canadian Government
• European Union Stance and Information
• American Copenhagen Page
• Interesting American Study Claims Energy Conservation Increases Consumption
  • Though it does not consider the anti-pollution effects of conservation, and touts nuclear power, which I oppose
• CBC on Climate Change

What do you think?

The World is in Your Hands

Advertisement