Well, I agree with parts of a couple of paragraphs. Got you looking, though, didn’t it ?
Delingpole writes : “Copenhagen never really had anything to do with “Climate Change”. Rather it was a trough-fest at which all the world’s greediest pigs gathered to gobble up as much of your money and my money as they possibly could, under the righteous-sounding pretence that they were saving the planet.”
I think that he’s partially on the right track : for many, many people, Climate Change is something they can make money from. Creating a commodity from a previously unvalued polluting gas, creating positive value from a negative waste product, is only going to lead to the massive-est market on Earth. And we all know who’s going to gain from that Carbon Trade, don’t we ? Not you and me, that’s for sure.
How can James Delingpole be so incisive, so knowledgeable, so right ? Maybe he knows a banker or two and sees the inner working of their “muck to brass” minds.
However, I have to part company with “Dr Strangelove” as his weblogging colleague Will Heaven epithetises him, in this paragraph :-
“This nauseating piggery took two forms. First were the Third World kleptocracies – led by the likes of Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe – using “Global Warming” as an excuse to extort guilt-money from the Western nations.”
Actually, funds transfer from the Global North to the Global South is intended as a way to recognise some kind of responsibility on the part of the Global North for the ongoing and worsening Climate Change damages to the Global South environment and economies.
It’s not about stealing, it’s about demanding reparation on the basis of guilt. Some feel that that guilt should be made historical, and that the Global North should pay for the sins of the past. Others think the Global North did not know they were doing wrong so they can’t be held to blame for the sins of past emissions.
But anyway, this transfer of money from Global North to Global South is intended to be mostly through the letterbox of Carbon Trading – squeezing it through a market, in a kind of global offsetting program. Only a very small part of the funds transfered would come straight out of national budgets, and most likely a lot of it will have already been earmarked for Development Aid – something I feel James Delingpole would probably support with half an hour’s education on the subject of global trade imbalance and how the Global North feeds off the Global South for all its raw resources, pretty much.
James continues, more correctly : “Second, and much more dangerous, were the First World Corporatists who stand to make trillions of dollars using the Enron economics of carbon trading. Never mind all the talk of President Obama’s trifling $100 billion pledge. This is very small beer compared with the truly eye-watering sums that will be ransacked from our economies and our wallets over the next decades in the name of “carbon emissions reduction.””
Yes, the bankers are all lining/queuing up to have a hand in the till of the Global Carbon Exchange. They have consortia and contracts-in-principle. They give themselves fancy names like “BlueNext”. All leading up to the biggest speculative bubble since the dawn of financial dis-rectitude, or maybe the tulip mania of 1637.
James ramps up the anti : “…it was at Kyoto that the mechanisms for establishing a global carbon market were established. Carbon trading could not possibly exist without some form of agreement between all the world’s governments on emissions: the market would simply collapse. By keeping Kyoto alive, the sinister troughers of global corporatism have also kept their cash cow alive.”
Too spot on, mate ! Many reams of trees have been coated in ink to tell the story of how the Clean Development Mechanism, and its inherent acceptance of Carbon Trading, were slotted into the Kyoto Protocol, probably at 5.30am on the last day of the negotiations.
So, James, we find ourselves almost on the same hymn sheet. You disfavour corporate and market mechanisms to resolve the Climate Change treaty, and I don’t like them much either.
What could stop all this “big government” and “first world corporatism” and still allow for some kind of rational global deal ? Is there a way we could work together on this ? What platform could we share ?
Could it be this ? That we need to go cold turkey from Fossil Fuels at least by mid-this-Century. That’s mandatory, whether or not large numbers of the population believe in the Science of Global Warming.
Peak Oil means that the end of petrol and diesel will come. Thing is, Peak Coal won’t be far behind that, so we cannot rely on the hard black rock stuff to fill the gaps that sweet crude leaves behind.
Have you thought about the other environmental disbenefits from the global industry in the mining and transporting and refining of Fossil Fuels ? For the sake of glossy petrel birds everywhere, let’s can the crude trade; and for the sake of childhood lung function, let’s drop cars and coal. Let us have widely dispersed, secure supplies of indigenous Renewable Energy. Surely you can see the ultimate sense in that ?