Hello Chris, Tom and all >well, i don't know who this stern guy is,
You should know that, the Stern Review was (is) a major event - I wouldn't say it's any less important than Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" (and a lot more substantial). >but it strikes me he may >full well have understood the implications of what he was doing. I don't think so. Well, I'm sure he understood the implications, but I doubt he foresaw the cynical way it's being used. >reading monbiot's description, i was reminded of the kind of actuarial >analysis that goes on all the time (though hidden from view for >obvious reasons) in the private sector. was this just one more >iteration for him? or was this new territory and, lacking the >imagination, or, perhaps, the moral fortitude (or, worse still, the >humanity) necessary, he decided to borrow from the robber barons' >playbook? I think you should read the Review. It's much concerned with the moral and ethical issues, several reports said it "highlights" the ethical issues. >well, maybe i'm not being totally fair to him, No. >chalk it up >to my poor choice of reading this at 7:30 in the morning. i guess i >should have gone out and shovelled that snow first! but the reason it >makes me so angry is that it's such a stark indicator of just how >profoundly (and pervertedly) undemocratic our world is today. global >warming is here. the scientific community has been for some time at a >consensus on this, and now, finally, if reluctantly, so is the world >community. but instead of "case closed," we're just getting more >bull. the so-called public debate, it would seem, is nothing more >than a debate between the elites: those who stand to take the biggest >hit if things get much warmer, and those who stand the most to gain. It's more than 20 years since James Hansen addressed the US Senate on climate change, 20 years wasted while all the little Neros fiddled to protect their bottom line and poured billions more tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. They haven't stopped fiddling yet (even though Rupert Murdoch bought a hybrid car last year). Here's another take on it: >But the false solution that I think >we need to pay particular attention to is the dominant solution in >terms of carbon trading. Because at the philosophical level, at the >world-view level, it's the second privatization of the atmospheric >commons. The first privatization was putting the pollution into the >atmosphere beyond the earth's recycling capacity. Now with carbon >trading, the rights to the earth's carbon cycling capacity are >gravitating exactly into the arms of the polluters. The environmental >principal used to be the polluter must pay. Carbon trading is >transforming that into the polluter gets paid. > >[Sir Nicholas] Stern, who did the Stern Review, has clearly said it >is an allocation of a full set of property rights to the atmosphere. >And PricewaterhouseCoopers -- who was very notorious in trying to >privatize, with the World Bank's help, Delhi's water supply, and we >defeated them two years ago in that project -- has said that trade in >carbon emissions is equated with the transfer of similar rights such >as copyrights, patents, licensing rights, commercial and industrial >standards. > >One of the things we have always said in [the International Forum on >Globalization] is that the enclosures of the commons is one of the >deep crises of resource depletion. Once resources move out of common >management and public care, they will get further degraded. And if >you really look at the clean development mechanism, it's all about >dirty industry; it's about HCFC plants being accelerated, new plants >being set up in China and India. The biggest recipients of CDM >credits in China and India are plants that are depleting the ozone >layer. Sponge iron plants coming up in the tribal belts of India, in >Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Orissa. And clean seems to have become >such a confusing word. We would have thought that we know what clean >is. And suddenly, everything dirty is clean. http://www.mail-archive.com/sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg71144.html How to Address Humanity's Global Crises? Challenge Corporate Power, Embrace True Democracy By Vandana Shiva, AlterNet Posted on October 1, 2007 >On 2/27/08, Thomas Irwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> By George Monbiot, Monbiot.com. Posted February 21, 2008. >> > > > > And the richer you are, the more yours is worth. > > > > Greetings all, > > >> This strikes me as being the business as usual model for governments and >> corporations to do anything they want whenever they want. It seems that >> everyone will pay for airport infrastucture but only the well to do will get >> the benefit by using it. Climate change only matters if it effects the >> bottom line. It disgusts me. A part of me wants the whole bloody thing to >> collapse so we can begin the task of actually building things right, by > > making the world life supporting. Yes! But it will take a hell of a lot of innocent people down with it. And I think it's a bad idea to force these people (?) into a corner, or we'll all end up as coppertops or something. Take heart from Chip: >Things are messed up. > Folks are working hard to make things better. > > there is hope. Best Keith > > Tom Irwin _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
