Once again, we’re seeing the pronouncements, even in the background of Climategate and Al "I created the Internet" Gore’s (let’s see again, how big is his carbon footprint?) admission that his support for corn based ethanol was just pandering to farmers to bolster his run for President. Once again, it is easy to see what the real agenda is.
After all, all of us little people just don’t seem to understand all these really smart people that have a much bigger problem to solve than our petty little ones. And they are getting some uppity and upset that the vast majority of us just won’t listen to them. But the gaffes keep coming out anyways – what’s beyond the smoke and curtains.
From The Scotsman:
Mexican president Felipe Calderon called on climate negotiators to put national interests aside and act on behalf of all humanity to fight global warming.Opening a two-week conference in Cancun last night, Mr Calderon urged delegates to overcome the deep divide between rich and poor countries that has hampered efforts to negotiate a new climate treaty for three years.
"It would be a tragedy if our inability to see beyond our personal interests or national interests makes us fail," he said in a speech to delegates, businessmen and activists. "The atmosphere is indifferent to the sovereignty of states."
But the money transfers he wants are NOT indifferent to the sovereignty of national borders. A poor excuse of an argument and ‘victimization’ – and like many, his self-interest is to see that transfer goes into his country. Sorry, but my national self-interest comes into view here. 15,000 people? And that carbon footprint is so small, right? And frankly, any time I see anything like "indifferent to the sovereignty of states.", the fuzzy antenna go up and start wigging out.
Why? There was this from his fellow countryman:
"Climate change is the most serious challenge our society has ever confronted," said Mario Molina, a Mexican chemist who won the Nobel Prize in 1995 for his studies on the ozone layer.
Really? I would posit that…
..poor governance, as seen in your country (re: the Mexican drug cartels and the total lack of control and lawlessness on your Northern border), are a FAR more immediate and present danger than climate change. There is far more harm, damage, and death TODAY in the here and now, than what will happen IF it can be shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that man is absolutely positively the main driver of global warming climate change.
They admit is it about the money:
(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all…
(EDENHOFER): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. …
(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. …
(EDENHOFER): …But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore,
It is about controlling our life style (look at what I have bolded – is the second one a realizations that he "gaffed’ and is trying to paper it over?). From the UK Telegraph:
In one paper Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the only way to reduce global emissions enough, while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow, is to halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years.
This would mean a drastic change in lifestyles for many people in countries like Britain as everyone will have to buy less ‘carbon intensive’ goods and services such as long haul flights and fuel hungry cars.
Prof Anderson admitted it “would not be easy” to persuade people to reduce their consumption of goods
He said politicians should consider a rationing system similar to the one introduced during the last “time of crisis” in the 1930s and 40s.
This could mean a limit on electricity so people are forced to turn the heating down, turn off the lights and replace old electrical goods like huge fridges with more efficient models. Food that has travelled from abroad may be limited and goods that require a lot of energy to manufacture.
“The Second World War and the concept of rationing is something we need to seriously consider if we are to address the scale of the problem we face,” he said.
Prof Anderson insisted that halting growth in the rich world does not necessarily mean a recession or a worse lifestyle, it just means making adjustments in everyday life such as using public transport and wearing a sweater rather than turning on the heating.
Right – sure thing. Cutting electricity, hampering freedom of movement, restricting what foods we can eat – insignificant details! Acting like Jimmah Cahtah wanted us to worked just so well, didn’t it. Sorry but if we were to do what these nitwits want, such a severe reduction in carbon, our lifestyles WOULD be that similar to that of pre-civil war. Sorry, but rationing was done for a reason – the nation’s sovereignty was at stake. That is the single most important raison d’etre of a nation-state – to protect its populace and its way of life. Once again, we see an illogical argument used to justify their power grab. There is just no way that rationing can be justified on this single basis – this is not a war for survival – it is tilting at environment windmills.
And then this: since the little people won’t listen and won’t change their behavior, their lives, and that these petty "we’re sovereign countries" won’t just throw in the towel, there’s this demand from someone who is frustrated that everybody won’t believe him, that mere countries are ignoring him.
Given the failure of Copenhagen, I’m inclined to believe that semi-annual conferences are not the way to go. Instead, I’d like to see the United Nations assemble an international and permanent emergency session that is parliamentary in nature (i.e. representative and accountable) and dedicated to debating and acting on the problem of anthropogenic climate change (a sub-parliament, if you will). The decisions of this governing board would be binding and impact on all the nations of the world.
It’s hard enough to fight City Hall, the State Capital, or DC. And the UN Governance model has just been just a blazing success, right (the Oil for Food scandal, UN Peacekeepers failing their mandate (and terrorizing the local populace as well)). One more instance of "saving us from ourselves" will result in less freedoms and less self-government.
Imagine how little impact the average citizen serf would have on these self-appointed (for I see this working like the EU Commission – unelected and self-important bureaucrats blissfully blithering our lives away).
America, a sovereign nation? Such quaintness….
But that, indeed, is the aim.
Oh yeah – as Glenn Reynolds often says "I’ll believe it’s a crisis when our leaders start acting like it is one". From our friends at Americans for Prosperity:
