“I don’t think you should be so critical”, the young NGO drone chided me in a public meeting.
And I thought I had the right to express my opinions – I think the Kyoto Protocol was a deeply flawed global compromise with deliberately low ambitions and compromised policy and framework proposals.
Enforce a market in a negative commodity ? How ridiculous !
Why am I not permitted to say it was a failure, right from its inception ? Why was this young android of the non-revolution so concerned that Kyoto should not be ditched ? Why protect it ?
“Well, it was a good start, something to build on”, sounded the appeasement.
Well, actually, no. It was not a solid foundation on which to work, and it has delayed real progress for over a decade.
“But we really need a legally binding global treaty”, came the protest.
Do you know where that expression came from ? It came from the economists, including Nicholas Stern. Insisting on a legally binding global treaty is the way that the industrialised countries want to lock in their wealth advantage before the poorer nations realise there’s no goodies left for them from the Carbon cake.
The international, multi-national, transnational corporations and companies want to cement their rights to continue to emit at everyone else’s expense, literally.
The Son-of-Kyoto treaty, whether that’s the Copenhagen Accord or some other fry-up, mash-up, wash-out, will create Carbon Credits for the large trading organisations, to sell Carbon Capture “solutions” to China for the Coal problem; sell Clean Energy technology to the rest of the World for the Energy access problem; create investment opportunities for rich companies to steal land to grow Carbon Credit trees all over the world.
“…so we want to continue to campaign for an X percent reduction in Carbon Dioxide emissions by 20XX…”
Why, I want to know, are the NGOs continuing to do target-setting ? What good has target-setting achieved so far, apart from nothing ?
Why are the NGOs continuing to have private talks with the Government to scope the limits of political possibilities, then sell the idea of a “campaign” for those very limits to the population, who naively believe they are being mobilised to challenge the Government, when actually it was the Government’s idea all the time ?
Why are the NGOs continuing to deceive people into thinking they are adding pressure on the Government by joining the NGO “campaigns” ? It’s wasting all our time and energy.
The Government itself asked for support for its targets, and asks the NGOs to do the communication of these targets. This is the height of State-sanctioned propaganda.
Of course the general public are suspicious of “campaigns” – they recognise the cognitive dissonance in the messaging of the young, attractive minions, the “apparatchicks”, of the charities and Non-Governmental Organisations.
The Climate Change Act of 2008 is a hollow shell, with no serious measures to enforce the Carbon Budgets.
“But there’s the Carbon Reduction Commitment, starting this year”.
Yes, and how many companies will dodge their real responsibilities under the CRC, and pay to emit instead of cutting their emissions ?
There’s no substitute for actual emissions reductions.
There was criticism of the United States of America : saying that they would commit to a 17% cut in emissions, but moving the goalposts so it really only equates to 4% real cuts. I said, at least they’re being honest about what they can achieve.
And anyway, the Recession, I mean Permanent Downturn from the imploded Economy, will probably drop that 4% in emissions quite naturally.
I explained, I’m doing my own little bit to contract the Economy further. I’m buying as little stuff as possible, and I fully intend not to borrow any more money, or invest in anything that makes a return by wasting Energy.
And I fully intend to continue to be as negative as I like about false solutions being sold to me.
Don’t buy it. Just stop shopping. Join me.