Friday, September 07, 2007

The Sydney Schmatz

How do you get an agreement signed , when you don't really agree ? The answer--You say something , but you say nothing. The leaders will be smiling when they finish , but people who care will wonder at what opportunity has been lost.
What arrows , amongst the many being fired, would have cut some mustard for the future ? Was this talkfest just the biggest load of hot air ever about hot air? And why didn't Australia take the opportunity of a lifetime to be credible about the environment , poverty and protection ? The answer : No consensus and no credible focus in this country for environmental risk assesssment. How can we encourage agreement outside this island when we have no agreement within it . Tell me i am wrong and why i am wrong!

No one it seems , should be happy with the Sydney agreement, whatever it finally says .( this post published on 8th sept at 8am )
The greens cynical use of "climate change" in recent months ( cf "global warming" and much better targeting ) has left the door wide open for the bigger horses to bolt . The result is everyone is smiling, except those who would like our most powerful leaders to tackle the problems of poverty and protection seriously .

Change doesn't come out of agreements drawn up in the heat of the moment , but on the basis of consensus and realistic ecological , scientific and economic facts . Despite the media hype , the content of this broad consensus is missing. This should not be so, when the west is so wealthly and the integrated problems of disaster , threat , rural poverty and environmental protection are matters of known praxis. Australians have led the way in the intellectual debate on earthcare .
Those who thought attendance in Sydney would bring forth new agreements in the context of controversy are not very realistic - the ground work in the above areas must be done and consensus built BEFORE it happens . Kyoto was bad enough, Sydney was quick fix ( where is the carbon trading consensus???) Sydney maybe be a turning point in being too weak to be believable . A turning back

Those who should be most worried about this loss of opportunity are the Greens and those of us who want the earth to be better used . The trouble with the " bucket of change for changes sake "is --it leaks. Grist are saying this and they are right . You can't win wars with all the money in the world . Mr Gore !Your arrows have to be sharp . You must support strong scientific debate and consensus building that comes from it - This could have been the real big " agreement" from Sydney , Australia in 2007 . not some self congratulatory statement that we have the physical resources and we are willing to share theme with you ! The big worry in this is ---the intellectual climate !
You can't change the agenda from global warming to climate change and back again with out opening the door to nuclear distraction.

Those of us who want realistic attention given to resource use need to support those who advise these leaders with informed comment on the above matters . There can be no international agreement out of SYDNEY if there is no internal agreement in Australia - support a forum for consensus .
Sydney will probably be noted for at least one major achievement - the biggest load of hot air about hot air ever .