By: Rafael Dominic Oslé
Diario El Mundo (Madrid)
The issue of anthropogenic climate change has far exceeded the barrier of the scientist to enter fully into the Politically, if not criminal, as highlighted in the recent case of Climategate.
At this point, global warming is already scientific evidence, corroborated by two waves of icy cold American winter. However, there are sufficient data to suspect that, behind armed with climate change, hide geopolitical, economic and financial short, medium and long term. Who see war as a simple conflict between two opposing parties, captures, of course, the essence of it, but does not see the ocean of political overtones, diplomatic and economic problems that cause them and, at times, unnecessarily prolonged. Something similar could happen with climate change. It is undoubtedly a common reality that threatens us with huge ramifications and consequences. Not surprisingly, therefore, in this first stage of globalization anarchic, a cryptocracy desired financial instrumentalize warming for maximum political benefit and economical as possible.
I am not fond of conspiracies. Nevertheless, I was convinced the media and political manipulation that is being global warming reading a suggestive interview Freeman Dyson, an eminent scientist from the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, published last year in the weekly magazine New York Times . Dyson, a man of liberal disposition and exquisite simplicity, defined its position on global warming, politically incorrect, of course, using three terse sentences: "All the fuss over global warming is terribly exaggerated ":" Global warming is the first article of faith for a global secular religion, "and, to top it off, a touch," The fact that the warmer weather does not scare me at all. "
These days, an excellent story of Julien Eilperin and David A. Fahrenthold appeared in The Washington Post of February 15, 2010, I was put back on track. In it, the well-known American journalists warned openly of errors contained in the seminal report on global warming, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. The IPCC is formed by a group of experts under the auspices of the Organization World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Programme on Environment, analyzes in depth the scientific, technical and socio more relevant information about the risks of climate change caused by human activities and potential impacts.
Without a scientific and political interests
Recent tests on the errors in the IPCC report not only undermine confidence in the group, but also of their own political strategy on the issue. "There is an impression that something is rotten in the IPCC," said Richard H. Moss, a scientist at the University of Maryland, who has worked on the IPCC a few years. Jeffrey Kargel, a professor at the University of Arizona, also complains that "it is really painful to witness what has happened." The report notes that the massive glaciers of the Himalayas could disappear by 2035. However, Kargel argues that it is "physically impossible to thaw the ice so fast." Apparently, the cause of errors could be because the group of UN experts cited a report by an activist group, not a scientific study under review.
The controversial report this week has warmed the atmosphere of the Senate of the United States. If not, they should ask Republican senators James M. Inhofe and John Barrasso, ready to use all means at its disposal, including the blunders of the report, to block binding limits on emissions of greenhouse gases. Otherwise, do not forget that the money of the powerful energy lobby is primarily to GOP coffers (over 75%) and no Democrat (around 25%).
is impossible to know the total energy interests, financiers and politicians who hide behind global warming, but some envision. The global warming is a good policy instrument for increasing state protectionism, and with it the tax, is a strong argument for investing in alternative energy companies could become the beginning of the end of the rule of traditional energy lobby. But there is more, much more. In my opinion, at the international level, behind the hysteria caused global warming is hiding a plan to take a step forward, as strong as undemocratic, in the establishment of world government. Very timely
This new World Government, which is so much talk in recent years, beginning with the de facto creation of the first global institution that could make binding rules for States on climate change and would economically controlled by powerful magnates of the Anglo-American empire (with capitals in New York and London). Work well the model would be established similar to other global institutions to solve all problems affecting humanity as a whole (international terrorism, poverty, nuclear weapons, etc.).
There is reason to believe that climate is the fact and no other giving rise to the first global institution. First, because international standards and regulatory organizations of climate change are very diverse nature and contents having been established at very different times and different countries. There is not, even remotely, a hierarchy legislation to integrate and harmonize the variety of provisions in the matter, but is rather a fragmented and complex system that encompasses from multilateral treaties such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, subsidiary agreements as the Kyoto Protocol the political agreement in Copenhagen, through the Montreal Protocol, to bilateral initiatives (between Russia and India or China and the United Kingdom, for example). There are also specialized UN agencies, clubs (like the G-20). Second, because global warming affects all human beings equally regardless of race, religion, social status or language. This facilitates a lot of things because it avoids ideological tensions, which are sometimes the most difficult to overcome.
With a global law
Under the direction of Obama, global warming would be the best tool to Americanize the globalization process, promoting a change in foreign policy in the United States in order to ensure U.S. world leadership in the coming years, always in the hands of China, which became, not a mere economic ally, but in the geopolitical and strategic partner par excellence. The creation of a global institution of these characteristics was not possible in Copenhagen, but this does not means that you will not be in the relatively near future.
'm a staunch defender of global law of necessity and of its possibilities. Sleep with him, as at the time we did so many of a united Europe. So I think that without a global law that the order, new global institutions are highly dangerous as easily be slaves to their beadle. At the UN, the tiresome mole, I refer. I think the strategy has to be different: drafts, first, a comprehensive urban plan, then, if possible, build the houses and skyscrapers, ie the institutions. Another way to proceed is to start building the house from the roof, allowing a global level, imposing a fait accompli, at the mercy of a ruthless plutocracy. If we fall into their hands, absolutely everything could be lost.
0 comments:
Post a Comment