I’ve been thinking of Copenhagen and a supposed failure of the world to do what is right. I have been thinking fo the interests involved and find it surprising that many heavy weights are launched behind environmentalism. This does not make them our allies, beloved friends, remember who they are and what interests they present.
Remember Al Gore and his niche as political saviour all the while touting the establishment of a mechanism that distorts the flow of money from development to God knows where. I am referring here to the $4.3bn that was raised for $100 bn of on the ground projects.
And this before the fact we consider the hypocrisy of using a market to cure something that is essentially market-created.
The trading of carbon of done because it is easy to measure and has diffrentials of output around the world. If we’re going to get environmental, let’s a make a fast buck of it. Or else, create labyrinthine structures so obscure no one knows who wins. I pick Gore because he was one of the chief proponents. I am sure he’s not alone: this is a mechanism bigger than any he could propose.
What happens in a carbon market is that the those with excess supply of carbon (equiliberally defined) and excess demand for carbon will not win. The market creators will. The financiers, and traders and advisers on policy who…
just happen to have funded the election of Barack Obama. His creation by the people is a myth. His record on small sum donations was worse than George Bush.
Barack Obama had no interest in forcing through a deal at Copenhagen, even if the US Senate had granted him the privilege. The goodwill generated by Copenhagen, though temporarily thwarted, will be used to take the next best (though first best for his funders) route: carbon trading.
As George W. Bush made a party for his friends in Iraq, so will Barack in the upper echelons of high finance, with marginal benefits for the environment.
I don’t blame Barack for this, he’s doing as any president has done in the past and most in the future will but let’s clear the bubble of expectation if it has not already popped. His interests are not yours, not are they aligned to the common good of humanity.
What interests will do, however, is align and group with others when the cause suits them. The coalitions clamouring for change at Copenhagen were from a remarkably diverse field. Disillusioned scientists, passionate idealists, anti-capitalists, carbon traders, vote paraders and the people who wish to make Barack rich.
To underline my point, the Yemenis are receiving his special forces help. Overtly it’s for training the army of the near to failed state but likely they’ll be cooking up some juice of their own.
And why? This is part of the Pentagon’s Long War. No brain child of Obama’s but published by the Pentagon in 2006. Rahm Emmanuel, Obama’s Chief of Staff, did however devote a whole book in favour of the topic. It is the 21st century’s equivalent of the Project for the New American Century, but in place of Shock and Awe they have Stealth and wealth.
By providing security to many vulnerbale countries, Barack will have them in his pocket and his markets under his belt. By reiterating the myth of the war on terror the scene is set for an endless war against an unseen enemy. And special forces escalations in supossedly vulnerable countries will create a fast-reaction network of awesome power and incredible global reach.
It’s the ultimate zeitgeist – out of sight and everywhere – and the man’s still being praised to high heaven because we don’t know where else to put our hope.
It’s not that I want to create fury, just to dispel a lie and I am sick to the hind teeth of people making excuses for a charlatan with big words.
Wake up for yourselves, change your selves, transform your communities. Don’t waste years clinging on to the hope of another idle dictator and use your inspiration to benefit each other not the short-termist ambitions of another desperate emperor.
China too has been in the news, on Western front pages for the lock up of a human rights activist who was too outspoken about political freedoms in China. The issue of Len X__ is not an issue, but the way it is reported is.
Of the west’s remaining ideals, democracy is unquestionable. It does not matter how contrived, how influenced or how much it is controlled, we are able to trot out the doctrine that democracy is best. At risk of sounding like Churchill, it probably is, but not with the dismal levels of engagement, participation and transparency we currently enjoy. However, the Times can get haughty about it and don’t forget those free voters are free consumers and freer markets can be overtaken as surely as day becomes night.
It is a universal truth, the desire to be free, and no doubt China will one day open its doors to another grade of governance that better expresses the will of its people. But it enrages me to think of a haughty Western press, lazily comatose in their superior vision of the world, thinking that our system is free from control. It is deep and embedded in constructs just outside of your vision to make you think you’re making a decision. In the large part it will be happy, but repetitive so collectively we choose to be over-entertained and underwhelmed by the lack of what is important. The real wealth: conditions for a good life, so its peaceful happy accidents can happen. This is the business of governments but the psychic deluge we’re subjected to is nothing more than to comfort us with an uneasy peace. And cloak us from what’s really going on. Which is…
more than I am succinctly able to say or understand. Whenever I’ve gone down that track I find myself embedded in folk-lore and at straws to explain gross conundrums. David Icke and his kin give much food for thought and occupy space the other outlets ignore. But in as much as they inspire us to question that what is presented is unlikely to be what is going on, I am happy to go no further, just relay my impression of the tide of forces as I see them.
I’ll try not to be so political next time.