HopenHagen the land of the confused
What in the world is going on, Copenhagen will end up the
laughing stock of the world, there are some 30,000 delegates trying to make
sense of hundreds of ongoing news conferences and different meetings, with the
uneducated hope of saving the world in one foul swoop.
The draft treaty which I have just tried to read for the
forth time, is a repetitive mumble of what could be seen as to many cooks
trying to stir the pot, with the goal being to keep Co2 at below 400ppm with
the hope of limiting the global temperature from rising any further than 2 % on
today’s estimated emissions.
The Treaty goes on to blame drought, lack of food production
and the like to Co2 emissions, why have they not considered huge population
growth, land clearing and the diversion of food crops towards the production of
fuels in the debate astounds me.
Plant growth and tolerance to lower water usage increase
along with higher co2 concentrations, yet we are trying to reduce co2 output,
makes no sense to me, and with huge population growth how can we divert our
inadequate crop production to meet the green fuel agenda let alone ignorance of
increased water storage and power production.
Sections of the treaty are reliant on the developing nations
receiving financial support from the more industrialized nations like the USA
and Australia, on top of that we are expected to reduce emissions by 15 to 20%
over the next decade at a huge cost to our economy, while developing nations
are free to increase their emissions up until 2020.
The Treaty reads more like a communist style attempt to
equally share all our good fortunes with very little actual reduction in global
co2 production in the short term.
We lower our emissions while others can increase theirs and
we pay a high price to boot, estimated at between 150 and 400 billion dollars,
somewhat akin to doubling the GST.
Important issues that seem not to be addresses include who
and how do they access any countries Co2 production and associated reductions,
the effects to that of our economy, stock markets, retirement and super savings
and the like.
Handing over billions of our hard earned dollars in such
hard economic times is one thing, but whom we hand it to and where it ends up
are just as important, and I have yet to even address the fact that Co2 caused
warming is not based on fact, but rather speculation.
I dare not bring up my skepticism of the cause of warming or
whether in fact warming is actually occurring, as I will be disenfranchised as
a denier or intolerant of my worlds future, but that is irrelevant, I do
support lowering pollution, putting in place measures to address future
disasters and investment in clean energy, but only if we do so in an informed
and sustainable manner.
To blindly follow in the wake of the information before me,
would be a crime in itself, to allow others to determine my country’s future
with out regard to our expected democratic processes are in excusable in any
ones language.
Trying to holt population growth and deforestation seem of
the agenda, increased water storage and collection also seem unimportant to the
Copenhagen agenda, helping poorer nations secure adequate food, power and water
resources is also not mentioned, all I have seen is the redistribution of money,
increased powers over democratic society’s and huge profits for those whom run
the system.
The treaty must be read over and over by our political
representatives so they make any future decisions based on fact rather than
spin and assumptions, I have heard over and over that our green future will
create jobs, yet the treaty is clear that all advances in scientific and
agricultural findings must be shared equally, so any money we pour into
research will not provide much of a financial benefit to our own industries.
Being told by a non elected power to dramatically increase
our cost of living and to provide billions of dollars to developing nations,
with out any input into how it is spent, while at the same time being forced to
survive on around half of what we were used to, based of debatable science is a
very stupid move in anyone’s eyes.
Spending our hard earned taxes on increased supply’s of
potable water, clean power generation, sustainable and self reliant food
production, would be my first step, a simple but effective way to curb
pollution is to introduce a variable rate tax system to reward initiative in
the manufacturing sector.
We should expose the myth that population growth is the only
way to increase our economic growth and work towards a sustainable future with
out the un wanted spin of greedy multinational interests, and then only then
can we put our sights on increasing our support of the worlds developing
nations, lead by example rather then follow those who might just be headed in
the wrong direction.