What the World and humans, well, all living things, need at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December 2009, is a shoot out between all the nations against the biggest per capita polluter, the most resistant or intransigent and some would say the rogue, United States; a nation that acts like Wild Bill Hickok and Billy The Kid, when it comes to environment issues.
This essay has been on my back burner for about six weeks as I contemplate the very nature of the conference, that it will be a showdown in the most revolutionary way if the conference is to reaffirm Kyoto and thereby challenge the United States, who intends to gut COP15! To put it concisely, the U.S., in the Clinton, Bush II presidencies and now in the Obama administration, has been the major obstacle to establishing international limits on greenhouse gas emissions. And the U.S. objective at the conference is to rescind Kyoto for something even weaker.
The U.S. has unilaterally set its base year as 2005. All other nations use the 1990 baseline. So when the U.S. claims a 17% reduction using the 2005 date, the carbon reduction only amounts to 3% in 1990 measurements! However, when "Cap and Trade" agreements are calculated, the U.S. would contribute nothing (0%) to carbon mitigation! With about 4% of world population, having contributed 25% of the carbon emissions as an industrialized superpower, the U.S. needs to sign onto the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The Obama administration is instead trying to sidetrack Kyoto.
The two-degree celsius maximum average global temperature is too high! Some nations ask that 1.5-degree celsius be the maximum allowable. The small island countries state that the 1.5-degree level is to high and would lead to island extinctions. I am more comfortable with 1.0-degree top. Also, the 25-40% carbon reduction range by 2020, is too modest. I favor the 49% goal advocated by some. Currently, atmospheric carbon (CO2) is 390ppm, and there is already serious polar ice melting, and Africa is drying up. Maximum CO2 should be no more than 350ppm to avert increasing climate crises.
When it comes to reparations and the climate debt (the ecological debt), the industrialized nations, basically the U.S., Canada and the EU, have suggested $30 billion over three years for adaptation for developing nations--to cover the costs of climate change damage and adjustments. The EU speaks of $3.5 billion per year as its share. The actual costs of dealing with droughts, increased flooding and the like is probably $100 billion a year. The costs of moving to cleaner green technology immediately would be about $500-$600 billion a year! And then there is the matter of reparations for previous climate change destruction. The polluters will have to pay!
A temporary walkout occurred at COP15 early in the second week by the G77, (132 developing countries). A permanent walkout, like what happened in Barcelona by the African coalition during a preliminary conference to COP15, seems likely. The "Danish Text" has revealed the secret agenda by some developed nations to exclude the United Nations from all future international climate change oversight!
No one could argue against the fact that the status quo is preserved by the rich and powerful. No ruling institution will relinquish its prerogatives. Since corporations acquired the rights of personhood they have steadfastly built and maintain their dominion. Corporations rule! That is the status quo. And the industrial revolution that led to corporate rule was built on readily available and relatively cheap fossil fuels.
Corporate green washing, making profits from the climate crisis, is quite disgusting. The message seems to be that addressing the climate disaster is good business. There is money to be made. The corporations established great wealth in creating global pollution, and now they want to determine how energy will be used forevermore! The only obstacle is the G77.
The climate refugee is the face of the Twenty-First Century! We saw such refugees after Katrina--and the vast majority will never return to New Orleans! Global climate-caused migrations are already massive in scope.
Copenhagen is an ambush by the industrial giants, primary the U.S., Canada and the EU, against the developing nations. But, unlike the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and the 1997 Kyoto Summit, when the developing countries made far too many concessions to the demands of developed nations, at Copenhagen the G77 coalition is not going to be servilely obedient! This will be a shootout of epic proportions; for human existence is at issue.
The main reason the U.S. has not signed onto the Kyoto Protocol is because it requires developed nations to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (Canada signed Kyoto, but has ignored its emissions mitigation requirements.) Obama is in the pocket of mega corporations that rely on fossil fuels to produce profits: automobile complex, agribusiness, power producers and the oil industry. He is a Faustian tragedy, playing out his role. When it comes to climate issues, he is Nero Claudius. Obama will look the other way as Africa burns under increasing global temperatures. Desmond Tutu has suggested, in the Nobel Peace Prize context, that now Obama can become what he is.
Like the so-called Healthcare reform bill before the U.S. Senate, the best that can happen at the Copenhagen Summit (and in the Senate) is that no agreement is better than an ill-advised and compromised one.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Is Barak Obama A Man Of Peace?
President only since January 20, 2009, Mr. Barak Obama has done little or nothing to indicate that he qualifies, has earned by actions, serious consideration for the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009; yet, the Norwegian Nobel Committee, separate from the parent Swedish leadership, has awarded him the prize. The news came to me over National Public Radio while I was preparing breakfast at about 6 am, on October 9Th.
A gourmet omelet was in the making: sauteed shallots, cucumber and shitaki mushrooms with a flaming Madeira wine, using peanut and olive oils for fat, and corn starch for thickener. I was progressing quite smoothly and happily until I heard the announcement. It was lucky I was not making a souffle! My companion and I talked exclusively about the event, but we managed to savor the omelet; however, my anger over the delusional decision to award Mr. Obama, a johnny-come-lately to politics and already President of the largest military Empire in history, colored my perspectives throughout the entire day. Resentments still lie just beneath my skin, and I am doing what I can to temper my expressions as I write.
A week later, I am still trying to make sense of how the selection for the highest honor bestowed on any individual could conceivably go to Mr. Obama? But, try as I might, I can not find a logical framework. And the only rational explanation points to a hopelessly inadequate selection process grounded not on accomplishments, but instead on some fanciful notion of potentials as understood through a nominee's rhetoric, his or her mere words. My outrage over the savagery delivered to the prize itself, the cheapening of the honor, remains unabated.
Interestingly in that what follows is an important clue, presidential candidate Obama's election efforts led to his 2008 Marketer of the Year award by Advertising Age! (The 2007 winner was the video game system Nintendo.) This is prima facie evidence and a shocking reminder that hype and spin employed in advertising sells merchandise and candidates. Obviously, the Nobel selection committee was taken in by Obama's rhetorical and salesmanship skills. The only prizes left for Obama to capture are an Oscar and two literary awards, a Pulitzer and the Nobel Prize for Literature, and he is only in the first year of his presidency. Surely, lesser awards are forthcoming from Wall Street and the health insurance industry. An Obama statue in front of the New York Stock Exchange would be a major tourist attraction. And after he leaves office, he or his wife might become CEO at a major insurance corporation.
Later on October 9, 2009, in the same breath of the announcement of the Nobel award on Democracy Now, it was quickly noted that the Obama Nobel nomination occurred virtually simultaneously with his inauguration! He was sworn in as president on January 20, 2009; the deadline for Nobel nominations was February 1st. So, sometime in between this nomination was recorded, if not before. Note that there were some secret nominations not included on the regular list. Nominations, except the few that might be leaked, are sealed from public examination for fifty years! Is it possible that Obama was awarded the prize merely for being sworn into office and with that event there would come major world political changes? Or, as some observers have suggested that the award was given to Obama simply for not being George W. Bush? The only positive aspect of giving the prize to Obama, was that it represented an international slap in the face for Boy George, an inveterate isolationist and warlord for the Empire.
The Norwegian committees for the Nobel Peace Prize have made many other controversial selections. Henry Kissenger, an unindicted serial war monger, is perhaps the most egregious example of a miscalculation by a Nobel committee. Theodor Roosevelt was a war-maker of no little consequence. Woodrow Wilson forfeited the creditability of his Nobel Peace Prize by his late and disastrous entry into World War I. The Dalai Lama's award was a political slap in the face against China.
One of the high marks in Nobel Peace Prize selections was that of Linus Carl Pauling in 1962. His wife, Eva, was a pacifist who had a considerable influence on her companion. After Hiroshima, Pauling campaigned against above-ground nuclear testing and became a formidable anti-war activist. He had been awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1954. He is the only honoree to ever win two unshared Nobel prizes; and he narrowly missed another prize for his DNA molecular structure research, which eventually resulted in the discovery of it double helix configuration.
The Nobel Peace Prize is so important in supporting beleaguered peace workers and peace organizations. Every missed opportunity to bestow the prize (and the $1.4 million cash award) on the deserving is a serious blow to the world peace movement. A commentator suggested that the Norwegian Nobel Committee was premature in honoring President Obama and that the award in 2010, provided Obama matched his rhetoric with action, would make more sense all round.
Another commentator posed the question that in accepting the prize Obama was taking a "poisoned chalice". Tariq Ali whimsically offered the names of Mumia Abu Jamal and Noam Chomsky as deserving candidates. As matters stand, the least qualified of 205 nominees is the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize honoree!
Opinion from the Progressive field coalesced instantly: Obama, even by October 9Th had accomplished nothing of note in the peace movement. In fact, Obama is still in Iraq, with no stated exit date. At the very moment of the announcement, Obama is deliberating on how many more troops to send to Afghanistan as a "surge". Obama is expanding that invasion into Pakistan. Obama is ratcheting his sanction threats against Iran, as he grabs the trophy. Yet, this alleged man of peace has done nothing to aid the Palestinians! (And any mild criticism of Israeli actions he might gently express is not followed through.) Obama could instantly bring the Honduran coup to an end by cutting off military assistance; but he will not! Obama is creating in Guam a military operation that will equal or surpass those in Okinawa and Diego Garcia! Obama has pledged to reduce world stockpiles of nuclear weapons. But, at the same time the Obama administration quietly announced that the US stockpile would be increased by a new generation of weapons.
To Obama's credit, but hardly worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize, he has, at least for the moment, backed away from establishing a so-called missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic (allegedly against hypothetical Iranian attacks, but, considered an offensive threat against Russia). But, he did so only after meeting with Putin, who probably put the knuckles to Mr. Obama over the matter.
I would maintain that solely on Obama's failure to put pressure on Israel and forcibly condemn the Israeli attack against Gazan Palestinians (that ended on schedule when Obama was sworn into office) is prima facie evidence that Obama is not a man of peace and not deserving of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize! This is further confirmed with Obama's efforts to squash the balanced and highly acclaimed Goldstone Report, at the very moment he was accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. Also, George Mitchell seems to be wandering in the desert playing charades with himself. As long as Israel demands that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state and as long as "settlements" (read "colonies") expand and multiply, there will be no peace in Palestine! And Barak Obama knows this!
My concluding remark is actually a question: Why didn't President Obama decline the honor until possibly another year, by which time he might have earned it?
A gourmet omelet was in the making: sauteed shallots, cucumber and shitaki mushrooms with a flaming Madeira wine, using peanut and olive oils for fat, and corn starch for thickener. I was progressing quite smoothly and happily until I heard the announcement. It was lucky I was not making a souffle! My companion and I talked exclusively about the event, but we managed to savor the omelet; however, my anger over the delusional decision to award Mr. Obama, a johnny-come-lately to politics and already President of the largest military Empire in history, colored my perspectives throughout the entire day. Resentments still lie just beneath my skin, and I am doing what I can to temper my expressions as I write.
A week later, I am still trying to make sense of how the selection for the highest honor bestowed on any individual could conceivably go to Mr. Obama? But, try as I might, I can not find a logical framework. And the only rational explanation points to a hopelessly inadequate selection process grounded not on accomplishments, but instead on some fanciful notion of potentials as understood through a nominee's rhetoric, his or her mere words. My outrage over the savagery delivered to the prize itself, the cheapening of the honor, remains unabated.
Interestingly in that what follows is an important clue, presidential candidate Obama's election efforts led to his 2008 Marketer of the Year award by Advertising Age! (The 2007 winner was the video game system Nintendo.) This is prima facie evidence and a shocking reminder that hype and spin employed in advertising sells merchandise and candidates. Obviously, the Nobel selection committee was taken in by Obama's rhetorical and salesmanship skills. The only prizes left for Obama to capture are an Oscar and two literary awards, a Pulitzer and the Nobel Prize for Literature, and he is only in the first year of his presidency. Surely, lesser awards are forthcoming from Wall Street and the health insurance industry. An Obama statue in front of the New York Stock Exchange would be a major tourist attraction. And after he leaves office, he or his wife might become CEO at a major insurance corporation.
Later on October 9, 2009, in the same breath of the announcement of the Nobel award on Democracy Now, it was quickly noted that the Obama Nobel nomination occurred virtually simultaneously with his inauguration! He was sworn in as president on January 20, 2009; the deadline for Nobel nominations was February 1st. So, sometime in between this nomination was recorded, if not before. Note that there were some secret nominations not included on the regular list. Nominations, except the few that might be leaked, are sealed from public examination for fifty years! Is it possible that Obama was awarded the prize merely for being sworn into office and with that event there would come major world political changes? Or, as some observers have suggested that the award was given to Obama simply for not being George W. Bush? The only positive aspect of giving the prize to Obama, was that it represented an international slap in the face for Boy George, an inveterate isolationist and warlord for the Empire.
The Norwegian committees for the Nobel Peace Prize have made many other controversial selections. Henry Kissenger, an unindicted serial war monger, is perhaps the most egregious example of a miscalculation by a Nobel committee. Theodor Roosevelt was a war-maker of no little consequence. Woodrow Wilson forfeited the creditability of his Nobel Peace Prize by his late and disastrous entry into World War I. The Dalai Lama's award was a political slap in the face against China.
One of the high marks in Nobel Peace Prize selections was that of Linus Carl Pauling in 1962. His wife, Eva, was a pacifist who had a considerable influence on her companion. After Hiroshima, Pauling campaigned against above-ground nuclear testing and became a formidable anti-war activist. He had been awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1954. He is the only honoree to ever win two unshared Nobel prizes; and he narrowly missed another prize for his DNA molecular structure research, which eventually resulted in the discovery of it double helix configuration.
The Nobel Peace Prize is so important in supporting beleaguered peace workers and peace organizations. Every missed opportunity to bestow the prize (and the $1.4 million cash award) on the deserving is a serious blow to the world peace movement. A commentator suggested that the Norwegian Nobel Committee was premature in honoring President Obama and that the award in 2010, provided Obama matched his rhetoric with action, would make more sense all round.
Another commentator posed the question that in accepting the prize Obama was taking a "poisoned chalice". Tariq Ali whimsically offered the names of Mumia Abu Jamal and Noam Chomsky as deserving candidates. As matters stand, the least qualified of 205 nominees is the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize honoree!
Opinion from the Progressive field coalesced instantly: Obama, even by October 9Th had accomplished nothing of note in the peace movement. In fact, Obama is still in Iraq, with no stated exit date. At the very moment of the announcement, Obama is deliberating on how many more troops to send to Afghanistan as a "surge". Obama is expanding that invasion into Pakistan. Obama is ratcheting his sanction threats against Iran, as he grabs the trophy. Yet, this alleged man of peace has done nothing to aid the Palestinians! (And any mild criticism of Israeli actions he might gently express is not followed through.) Obama could instantly bring the Honduran coup to an end by cutting off military assistance; but he will not! Obama is creating in Guam a military operation that will equal or surpass those in Okinawa and Diego Garcia! Obama has pledged to reduce world stockpiles of nuclear weapons. But, at the same time the Obama administration quietly announced that the US stockpile would be increased by a new generation of weapons.
To Obama's credit, but hardly worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize, he has, at least for the moment, backed away from establishing a so-called missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic (allegedly against hypothetical Iranian attacks, but, considered an offensive threat against Russia). But, he did so only after meeting with Putin, who probably put the knuckles to Mr. Obama over the matter.
I would maintain that solely on Obama's failure to put pressure on Israel and forcibly condemn the Israeli attack against Gazan Palestinians (that ended on schedule when Obama was sworn into office) is prima facie evidence that Obama is not a man of peace and not deserving of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize! This is further confirmed with Obama's efforts to squash the balanced and highly acclaimed Goldstone Report, at the very moment he was accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. Also, George Mitchell seems to be wandering in the desert playing charades with himself. As long as Israel demands that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state and as long as "settlements" (read "colonies") expand and multiply, there will be no peace in Palestine! And Barak Obama knows this!
My concluding remark is actually a question: Why didn't President Obama decline the honor until possibly another year, by which time he might have earned it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)