I like saying my opinion. You, readers dear, might have realized this by now. I like saying my opinion, but I don't care for politics; it is always a philosophical crisis when I want to give my opinion on something, but it that something is political. But seeing as there is only one day left in Copenhagen and it is looking doubtful any substantial decisions will be reached, I think it an appropriate time to open my mouth.
Really, world? Really? Was there a one who honestly thought that there would be overwhelming consent among 200 nations to accept new environmental measures? Particularly - is there any particular reason why developing countries (like China, India, etc.) who are now enjoying extraordinary growth of their economies (record-breaking GDP growth, etc.) but are exempt under the Kyoto Protocols - is there any particular reason why such countries would say: "Yes, let's take these new measures! Let's hinder ourselves for the good of the whole world!"
This, when "developed First World" countries (I know of a Certain World Leader in the Western Hempisphere guilty of this...) themselves do not all uphold the Kyoto Protocols.
Of course not! Copenhagen, in my mind, is a (hopefully one of the last) holdover(s) of the Great White European Man driving history and politics. This Great White Man says: "Um. We've kind of messed up, what with the Industrial Revolution and all. Would you mind, Construct-of-a-Person-Shaded-by-Exotic-Orientalism, helping us out?" He phrases it as a question because that's how he's been raised, but his true position is: "Agree with me or I will start another Opium War."
The overriding factor that is undermining attempts to save the world through ecopolitics is this idea that we need all nations, at once, to sign on to the same measures. Understanding the rationale behind that need is the crux - we want everyone in the same frying pan because we perceive pursuing eco-friendly measures as economically detrimental.
This is stupid. This is tantamount to any politician, sincerely desiring climate change, shooting his or her own kneecap.
Instead, I've come up with two options. I address them to the two bipolar powers of the twentieth century, as these options might spur some much-needed competition (instead of 'helpful' colonialism that the Certain World Leader in the Western Hemisphere I mentioned earlier is practicing):
1. Dear Russia. I read in the newspaper today that you are stylizing yourself as a leader in geo- and ecopolitics. Beautiful. This is how you can market it: pour money into a major constructive effort that rapidly develops the key infrastructure surrounding Moscow -- say, in a radius roughly the size of the Golden Ring. Put all of your crack teams of possibly-illegal workers into this, use all of the latest technologies, and for once ensure that there's no corruption and that you're using good building materials and techniques. Talk to the professors at MARKhI if you need some help figuring out what either of those are.
All of a sudden you'll find that you'll have a substructure that, in and of itself, encourages green activity. The way you will need to sell it is that a) you are saving the beautiful Russian climate b) you are positioning Russia as a world power c) if this does not happen the foxes and minxes and baby seals etc. etc. will all die out and then where will Russian women get their fur coats? We will thus play into the "shchedrost'" [generosity] of the (mythic) Russian soul, pretensions at world power, and fashion. Combine and conquer.
2. Dear US of A. Remember all of those billions of bail-out program dollars that Congress signed off on? Why not for to pour all of it into research and development and construction of top-of-the-line ecologically-friendly structures and mechanisms. Instead of following our current m.o. - which is kind of like how the Russian Empire kept sending troop support of cavalry units to the front during the Great War (we remember that WWI was trench warfare and gas warfare and bomb warfare...) - we can change our strategy to what we pursued during WWII and come up with a new technology that is a lovely trump card.
Except this time let's not come up with something that's denounced by every scientist who ever theorized or worked on it, shall we? Let's.
Because the bottom line is that whatever country realizes that going completely green and develops a technology that allows them to do this will suddenly hold a bargaining chip in world poltics far more powerful than guns, germs, or steel.
1 month ago