The Climate Summit and the Challenge of Governing a Planet: Le Figaro, France
Dec 17th, 2009 | 5 responses
How should one judge the Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen? While the event has another day to run, few believe a major overhaul of how humans conduct their affairs on this planet is in the offing, and almost no one is satisfied.
Reflecting Europe’s general consensus that more and better global governance is inevitable, Le Figaro’s Pierre Rousselin writes, “That the climate conference has aroused such interest is in itself immense progress.” But he adds that this is far from enough given our predicament:
“The fact that questions of such complexity are being discussed in a forum as large and disorganized as this shows how much progress is needed to improve global governance. … As the world has grown more complicated, negotiations have become more difficult. With the emergence of China, India and Brazil, there are no longer the rich on one side and the poor on the other. There’s no longer the West on one side and the rest of the world on the other. The era in which a nation or group of nations could impose their will on the entire planet is past. Going from the G7 to the G20 was a step in this process, and Copenhagen is another. … Whether there is an agreement in Copenhagen or not, the creation of a global organization to oversee the environment is required.”
By Pierre Rousselin
Translated By Philippe Guittard
December 16, 2009
France – Le Figaro – Original Article (French)
It’s in a state of great confusion that the Copenhagen Conference enters its decisive phase. It can hardly be otherwise with 190 countries directly negotiating over questions as crucial as those related to the survival of the planet and that involves, in every nation, strategic choices.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
5 Responses to “The Climate Summit and the Challenge of Governing a Planet: Le Figaro, France”
Copenhagen will be a bust – no shock there.
We already are at the will of China economically. As long as they continue to built coal-fired power plants DAILY, any regulation against 1st World nations is futile.
The “carbon” argument needs to be abandoned. We need to, instead, focus on renewable energy. Not only would this silence the liberal left who tout false science to back up there claims, but it would silence the conservative right by improving our national security via less dependence on foreign oil.
As I've said…. I'm all for green energy. I am a “closet” environmentalist, but I refuse to be lied to by the left concerning the “global warming” myth. Most people are behind renewable energy, but don't pee on them and say it's raining.
I second JeffersonDavis. As long as other agendas aren't mixed in, I know that a lot of people would be open to encouraging energy independence, especially since it can be done on an individual basis (such as home solar panels). Forget Copenhagen, we can get started now.
Governing the planet? rofl, who promoted these dunderheads to such a lofty perch?
Thus far this farce has produced riots in the streets, an immense carbon footprint from around the world, demands for a hundred billion dollars a year for a world welfare fund, and screaming chants to end capitalism in response to some fat little thug from an oil exporting nation. The entire premise of the conference has been revealed by multiple sources to rest on cooked data, fouled peer review, and junk science.
The Comintern thought they were going to “Govern the Planet”. So do those in pursuit of the World Caliphate and Sharia for All. As I recall the Third Reich had similiar ambitions.
How do you make old fashioned Imperialism look good? Have the UN stage a World Governance conference. This is vaudeville in need of a stage hook. And we are paying through the nose for it. Sorry Mr Mugabe, how thoughtless of us to run up a “climate debt” while developing every technology that makes the world a better place from high yield agriculture to modern medicine to the Hubble telescope. Here, we'll borrow billions of dollars more from our grandchildren to pay you to “adapt to Global Warming”. Now please tell us how to run our society and what kind of bulbs we can use to light our home.
Copenhagen is at best a bad joke, and at worst a fraudulent attempt to empower global tyranny. The credibility of the leaders in this kabuki theatre is waning fast, and the revolt against the idiocy is springing up as we speak.
Global governance? More like Theatre of the Absurd.
Copenhagen was already a bust, even before it started. That fact is independent of the e-mail scandal (exposing some of what has long been obvious), as well as the economic situation, that makes even the more silly, naive children in the West glum and less excited about engaging in climate-politics stupidity.
“Global government”? ** SNICKER **
Speaking of important things, and including global governance and bigness…
” As long as other agendas aren't mixed in, I know that a lot of people would be open to encouraging energy independence”
Don't forget combatting and curbing real — again, real — pollution as well as reducing waste (not perversely insisting on self-deprivation or self-crippling, but again, reducing waste, including energy over-consumption).
Sadly, the real issues have long been cast aside from the lefties in favor of their worse political goals.
That they're often illogical and hypocritical as well as destructive, or defective, is no surprise. I was amused last night to hear the babbling from a far lefty about food and Evil Corporations, dabbling (while she was babbling) with one of the most hypocritical features of so much far-lefty silliness. Other than when it's PC, the far left remains anti-tech and anti-progress, and anti-big, and this fool was going on and on about the need not only for inefficient and uneconomical silly food-fad “local” food production and food supplies (transporting things great distances is the Evil SUV equivalent of Big Corporate logistics, it seems) and she blathered on and on about the need for decentralized, local dealings with everything as much as possible on the nearest, smallest scale possible …
yet these hypocritical cretins remain insistent on centralizing and expanding government, wanting the federal government to absorb as much as possible of government functions and the rest of our lives and our humanity in addition, and these same people largely decry and abhor nations and nationalism (as long as it's not PC) and actually believe in and want super-national and global governance. (At least, insofar as it suppresses and subjects the Evil USA and to a lesser extent, the rest of the PC-deficient West.) Where's “small as beautiful” and Local Control where it matters the most, authority and being ruled?