Friday, December 18, 2009

One Post to Save the World

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.


Justin said...

"Alright so. Here's the deal, guys. Our economy is in the tank right now. We can probably force it back up to a decent level, but it should also be noted that we don't actually produce any goods, we are falling behind in the production of technology and our banking and investment industry, the one thing other countries were still coming to us for, was just shown to be full of shit. Now, we have an out-of-work industrial labor force, and still enough capital and technological superiority to become the world leader in producing all that 'green' technology the world is clamoring for. And the best part is that it is exactly what the people want. We've even been given billions of dollars that we could use to start it all up."

"Yeah, but I hit a pot-hole today. Let's build us some more roads! Woooo!"

Kaytee said...

See, I feel like all of this would require People (aka World Leaders in the Western Hemisphere (like the caps, Andrew)) to admit that the political and economic system they their forefathers and them spent the last 150 years building was epic fail. Yes, they've admitted it verbally so that means that at some point it had to flit through their *heads* that the system didn't work but they haven't said it in their *hearts*.

This is their problem. They still love the old system. They've been dumped and they don't quite know how to communicate with other girls yet. Especially hippy, petouli wearing girls. Their ex-girlfriend never would've approved. She made fun of those girls. So, what do they do? They try to convince everyone to help them win the ex-girlfriend back. And, everyone's been there, or is currently dating her, so they are easily persuaded or have stories about how great it is.

The thing is that deep down they know that ex-girlfriend was really a bitch and that hippy girl is in it for the long haul. But switching all the stuff around takes so much effort while in embarrassed denial. Ironically, maybe as much effort as throwing giant conferences, dealing with protestors, and making rhetorical, pontifications...but it still lets them think about ex-girlfriend.