With a deal about to be closed in Copenhagen, I wanted to point readers to two rather important posts by EU Referendum about the actual meaning of the politics of AGW, the goal of Copenhagen and any deal that may (or may not) be closed there. And of the rather sleazy role the UNs chief
climatologist railway engineer Rajendra Pachauri and the Tata Group play in all of this.
The first is Global warming: an economic war. In this post Richard North argues that AGW is the field of battle in an economic war between Western and Asian countries. One in which current Western governments are all too eager to quickly surrender. It also highlights the mode of operation of the Tata Group, the company which gave us the UNs chief
climatologist railway engineer Rajendra Pachauri. Rather not surprisingly, the Tata Group is worse then the worst excesses of the biggest industrial conglomerations of the west, to wit:
Its history is marked by trail of human rights, labour and environmental abuses. It stands accused of genocide against indigenous tribes, fomenting civil war to achieve commercial ends, and dictatorial behaviour in the only private city in India, the steel city of Jamshedpur, where democracy has never existed and local elections are unknown.
In the troubled states where it operates, a state of civil war exists which the government is losing. In the majority of the districts, writ of government no longer prevails as the rebels capitalise on the extreme poverty. To obscure their popular origins, indigenous fighters are branded as “Marxists” and hunted down by company and state-financed militias, some recruited from the ranks of criminals, their barbarism and ferocity facilitated by rigorous media control and censorship, where Western journalists are not welcome.
The unrest is used by the company and its other corporate allies as an excuse to clear out tribal villages and forcibly resettle populations on a massive scale, fuelling tribal tensions and exacerbating the violence.
Tata in particular has a vice-like grip over the weak and corrupt national and state governments and, with mining and metals enterprises, effectively controls the State Pollution Control Board, which consistently acts against the interests of the people and the environment. Gross pollution is rampant, with unchecked deforestation.
Collectively, the corporates have enough power and economic clout to frame their own laws and weaken existing laws on human rights, investment, corporate liabilities and labour relations. Yet the “business-friendly” outward face presented to Western investors is a sham. The Corporatocracy, as represented by Tata, is a ruthless predator, bent only on enhancing its own power and wealth, regardless of the cost to others, plundering Western capital and assets.
The second is Climate justice. This one illustrates how AGW is used to ruthlessly play on ‘white guilt’ and is nothing more then a means to extort many, many more (tax) funds from western countries to prop up dysfunctional regimes in Africa and elsewhere. The central issue starts with a quote from the South African Times Live (partly given below): bb
Climategate clearly highlights what author and analyst Naomi Klein has called a class war. In an interview during the summit, she said: “This conversation that has started here [is] about the real face of environmentalism, as a class war that is being waged by the rich against the poor.”
Class warfare? Where did we hear that before? Didn’t we get rid of such muddled thinking back in 1989-1990?
Mr. North responds:
That is the beast naked in tooth and claw. “Global warming” has become the totemic issue, the cause over which the “white man” can be brought to “justice” and atone for his sins. That these representatives of the developing countries believe in global warming is because they want to believe it – not for what it is, but for what it represents. (…)
Global warming is not about science – it is an article of faith and it does represent the political fault-line between developing nations and the West. No amount of debunking of the flawed science is going to change that. (…)
This presents an intriguing if not alarming conundrum. Global warming advocates have released their own, rather more powerful genie and that too is going to be hard to put back in its bottle. We might win the scientific argument – at least in the Western media. But that means nothing if the real fight is the “class war” – or economic war, as I would have it.
That is one of the most profound effects of the ‘Green Agenda’. It pitted developing nations against the developed world by providing the former with the idee-fixe that all of their woes are the ‘white man’s fault and they are entitled to huge wads of cash for the Wstern ‘sin’ of being successful. That ‘class struggle’ will be with us for quite some time to come. And given the lack of backbone in our current government elites, we in the West will all be paying dearly for years to come. And lose our independence in the process.
This is nothing less then imposing global communism on us. And don’t kid yourself: In this particular play, we in the West are the Romanovs.
[UPDATE001] Here‘s EURefs take on the tentative (?) Copenhagen deal.
As for the rest, cheap electricity is a vital part of a competitive economy. Yet here we are burdening our own electricity suppliers with additional costs, some of which funds are then sent to our competitors in undeveloped countries, giving them an even cheaper cost base and even greater competitive advantage. No wonder we are going broke.
[UPDATE002] There is a deal, and while generally hailed as an abject failure (which ould be good news, James Delingpole sees it differently: Climategate: we won the battle, but at Copenhagen we just lost the war.
This nauseating piggery took two forms. First were the Third World kleptocracies – led by the likes of Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe – using “Global Warming” as an excuse to extort guilt-money from the Western nations.
Second, and much more dangerous, were the First World Corporatists who stand to make trillions of dollars using the Enron economics of carbon trading. Never mind all the talk of President Obama’s trifling $100 billion pledge. This is very small beer compared with the truly eye-watering sums that will be ransacked from our economies and our wallets over the next decades in the name of “carbon emissions reduction.”(…)
[Saving the Kyoto treaty] matters because it was at Kyoto that the mechanisms for establishing a global carbon market were established. Carbon trading could not possibly exist without some form of agreement between all the world’s governments on emissions: the market would simply collapse. By keeping Kyoto alive, the sinister troughers of global corporatism have also kept their cash cow alive.