Deal or No Deal?

First there was Kyoto, with all its predictions of destruction that would transpire if the world didn’t buy in.  Those prophecies did not come to pass.  Now we have the Copenhagen Summit, with similar forcasts of global meltdown, albeit that the conference looks like ending without agreement.  It’s hardly surprising, as there has yet to be a single example of successful global political collaboration on any issue.  However there are suggestions that what sits behind this conference is far more than a change in temperature.    Is the concern aimed at saving humans from destroying the world just a front for a change to the political climate instead?  I’m not a complete conspiracist, but there is something about what we are currently seeing that makes me feel more than slightly uneasy about a contrived means to end, albeit not the same end we are being led to believe.

Like most Australian’s I don’t know too much about scientific side of Climate Change, only what I pick up from the media and casual conversation.  It’s also a topic that is not keeping me awake at night or fearful of the future of humanity.

Truth be known, if Kevin Rudd was accused by “the believers” of the “Church of Global Warming” of being a Climate Change Sceptic, then I’d hate to think of what they think of me.  My layman’s view is that there probably is too much carbon floating into the atmosphere each day.  But I don’t think that even if we stopped producing emissions from cars, planes and burning coal that it would make any difference.  Take the large breathing population of the world, the cows farting into the air, and all the other sources of naturally produced forms of carbon, and you may get closer to the source of atmospheric change.   

I was contemplating just how evangelic we have all become about Climate Change at a principle level, knowing full well that only when the mooted changes start to impact our lifestyle, consumption and wealth that viewpoints will change.  Most of us seem fairly ambivelent and apathetic to what it is that is currently being represented in our name at Copenhagen, even if Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong are being kicked around by all sides like Punch and Judy.  Somebody should tell them that if you stand in the middle of the road you risk getting run over by traffic from either direction.

I do not mind doing my bit for environmental sustainability, and I see no problem with low emission manfacturing, energy conservation and recycling.  However taxing the air I breath is another matter altogether, and essentially that is what emissions trading seems to be all about.

It is all the more alarming when it falls out of the ultimate control of the Austrlaian voter.  It was this interview by Alan Jones with Lord Monkton of England that set alarm bells ringing for me.  To hear the view that the treaty itself mandates a move towards global Government, and that wealth transfer is part of the agenda, is indeed something that we should be hearing more about. 

A draft of the treaty can be read here.  Page 18: Section 38 of the “Share vision for long-term cooperation action plan” contains the text for forming the new government. Page 44-45: Section 46 “Objectives, scope, and guiding principles” contains the text for enforcement and establishment of the rule of law.

The media itself do not seem to be running any indepth analysis of both sides of the story, as Thomas Fuller so articulately notes.

I was asked today what the “Jewish position” was on climate change.  A quick consultation with Rabbi Google showed me that there are many Jewish arguements to support climate change legislation, and just as many Jewish arguements not to support it.  There are a range of sources that focus on the physical care and protection of the earth, but ultimately I don’t believe the modern climate change debate is one that can have a single “Jewish position” attached to it. 

It is more an exercise in politics than religion.  We need to take care not to transform the politics into religion, albeit that it may be too late already for many of the climate change zealots who have already burnt their emissions travelling to Copenhagen.  Here in Australia the ironic consequence of the climate change debate to date is that it has fractured the opposition before it has fractured the Government.  Perhaps the conclusion of Tony Abbot’s successful leadership challenge is a strong signal that on this issue the Australian population is looking to the Liberal Party to oppose instead of compromise.

It occurs to me that no amount of monetary exchange is going to force atmospheric change to the extent that our planet will be saved.  There are better ways to proactively lower pollution.  

Call me a cynic, but I wonder if the wise politicians in Copenhagen agreed to a new global solution that for one day a week (Saturday for example), nobody in the world used their cars, and no factories operated, travel was suspended, and everybody refrained from energy consumption, that this would have a far more positive effect on the world’s climate than a new tax regime.  Maybe there is a Jewish position on climate change after all?