Although one yearns for global warming to indeed not exceed 2 degrees Celsius (or less, as African countries demand), the take-home message from the Copenhagen COP meeting is that polluters and growth mongers, large and small, will not let up. This is because they are not being forced to -- whether by their own peoples or by natural forces such as ecological or economic collapse. Most diabolical is the intention to switch energy as the main strategy for climate protection, when it will not work.
What has happened in Copenhagen -- is it really a matter of degree and the lack of strong measures? Or is it a matter of kind? Most technofixers are clever enough not to call for endless growth, but they may as well say there's unlimited, infinite growth through resource exploitation somehow made "green." Here's the revealing part of World Resources Institute's statement trumpeting the pathetically inadequate COP climate deal:
Why should a few more months of negotiating do anything but buy some time for those who refuse to "get it"? Ongoing failure will continue to be dressed up as good-faith efforts within the vicissitudes of statecraft.
The real state of affairs is truly, "It's up to us." From personal lifestyle change that's openly shared and publicized, to concerted and individual direct action, to local initiatives toward weakening corporate power including via boycott, it's all up to us. Nations and global institutions have failed to honor life itself, and they're taking us down -- not unlike the uncounted species going extinct daily. It's hard to face our true challenge when it's easier to wait until the next election and pretend again that one is doing one's bit.
As long as any climate deal or eventual treaty is in reality a realignment of industrial investment, toward the renewable-energy Holy Grail regardless of oil reality, then the accepted story is a fraud:
Take the poor countries' situation: their main root problems include cash crops and associated damage, and infrastructure boondoggles that resulted in major debt and concessions to privatization. Meanwhile these societies' strengths -- local indigenous knowledge and strength of community in acceptance of nature -- are being eroded by the transnational corporations and their lackey international lenders and "developed"-nation governments.
Therefore, money for the "developing nations" is not the real answer. It would be nice if it happened, if it went for the right things such as environmental restoration (e.g., tree planting = jobs and food plus carbon sequestration). But the intended big money -- assuming it happens when redistribution of wealth normally doesn't come about without revolution -- will be wasted to a great extent on corruption, cronyism, and the belief in industrial progress. A modern myth is that energy technologies and fuels are all the same -- just "energy" -- and can be somehow maximized and interchanged for continued "growth." Not to completely dismiss energy-technology aid, the distribution of some community solar panels for shared refrigeration and shared computer access, for example, would be helpful. But an unprecedented mass movement to slash emissions is what has to happen.
Let's be real: "$100 billion (€69.5 billion) annually for developing countries by 2020" is just talk, and is not going to happen with any more certainty than the world's population can go up and up indefinitely. The global economy cannot be sustained, let alone grow, with the loss of cheaply extracted petroleum that has already hit. Crash has begun, including petrocollapse, and the great unravelling is in motion.
There's very little evidence that President Obama gets much of this. Post Carbon Institute's Asher Miller's statement on Obama's Copenhagen contribution says it well: "US President Barack Obama has chosen political expediency over truth and justice." One might go further and wonder why one should have expected much from someone who turned out to be another war-machine Uncle Tom.
It is appealing that Chancellor Merkel says ""We have to change our lifestyles," but does this mean what it should: sharing appliances, ceasing commutes, establishing local economics to the exclusion of corporatism? Or does she mean "greener cars" and flicking switches in every home that burn a different form of energy than at present?
A culture change is overdue. It is underway, but it must become everyone's life purpose.
Read more...
What has happened in Copenhagen -- is it really a matter of degree and the lack of strong measures? Or is it a matter of kind? Most technofixers are clever enough not to call for endless growth, but they may as well say there's unlimited, infinite growth through resource exploitation somehow made "green." Here's the revealing part of World Resources Institute's statement trumpeting the pathetically inadequate COP climate deal:
The political agreement struck today has immediate operational effect, including the mobilization of finance to build the clean energy economy in developing countries... The dealt "does provide the framework for countries to move forward with ambitious national action. Action that will build clean energy markets, create jobs, enhance energy security..."These ideas are admissions of the determined business-as-usual reformist wing of the industrial elite to preserve, if they can, mass consumerism that feeds megaprofits.
Why should a few more months of negotiating do anything but buy some time for those who refuse to "get it"? Ongoing failure will continue to be dressed up as good-faith efforts within the vicissitudes of statecraft.
The real state of affairs is truly, "It's up to us." From personal lifestyle change that's openly shared and publicized, to concerted and individual direct action, to local initiatives toward weakening corporate power including via boycott, it's all up to us. Nations and global institutions have failed to honor life itself, and they're taking us down -- not unlike the uncounted species going extinct daily. It's hard to face our true challenge when it's easier to wait until the next election and pretend again that one is doing one's bit.
As long as any climate deal or eventual treaty is in reality a realignment of industrial investment, toward the renewable-energy Holy Grail regardless of oil reality, then the accepted story is a fraud:
This constitutes a fraud in terms of slashing emissions, when the "energy market" programs and budgets mainly exist for still more funding, as opposed to immediate action that the Earth's crisis demands.
"billions in financial commitments from rich countries to the developing world to help in the fight against climate change. It is hoped that all countries will agree to a control mechanism -- meaning that each country agrees to allow its progress toward emissions reduction targets to be internationally verified." [Spiegel, Dec. 18 -- 'The Search for a Deal']
Take the poor countries' situation: their main root problems include cash crops and associated damage, and infrastructure boondoggles that resulted in major debt and concessions to privatization. Meanwhile these societies' strengths -- local indigenous knowledge and strength of community in acceptance of nature -- are being eroded by the transnational corporations and their lackey international lenders and "developed"-nation governments.
Therefore, money for the "developing nations" is not the real answer. It would be nice if it happened, if it went for the right things such as environmental restoration (e.g., tree planting = jobs and food plus carbon sequestration). But the intended big money -- assuming it happens when redistribution of wealth normally doesn't come about without revolution -- will be wasted to a great extent on corruption, cronyism, and the belief in industrial progress. A modern myth is that energy technologies and fuels are all the same -- just "energy" -- and can be somehow maximized and interchanged for continued "growth." Not to completely dismiss energy-technology aid, the distribution of some community solar panels for shared refrigeration and shared computer access, for example, would be helpful. But an unprecedented mass movement to slash emissions is what has to happen.
Let's be real: "$100 billion (€69.5 billion) annually for developing countries by 2020" is just talk, and is not going to happen with any more certainty than the world's population can go up and up indefinitely. The global economy cannot be sustained, let alone grow, with the loss of cheaply extracted petroleum that has already hit. Crash has begun, including petrocollapse, and the great unravelling is in motion.
There's very little evidence that President Obama gets much of this. Post Carbon Institute's Asher Miller's statement on Obama's Copenhagen contribution says it well: "US President Barack Obama has chosen political expediency over truth and justice." One might go further and wonder why one should have expected much from someone who turned out to be another war-machine Uncle Tom.
It is appealing that Chancellor Merkel says ""We have to change our lifestyles," but does this mean what it should: sharing appliances, ceasing commutes, establishing local economics to the exclusion of corporatism? Or does she mean "greener cars" and flicking switches in every home that burn a different form of energy than at present?
A culture change is overdue. It is underway, but it must become everyone's life purpose.
