User Rating: 0 / 5

Star inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactive
 

A Good TreatySince December 12th there is a big hoopla in all MSM (Main Stream Media) -this would be TV, radio, written press and the Internet- about the so-called "Paris Agreement" dealing with Global Warming. Tadaaaaaa!

THE CIRCUS IN TOWN

Ladies and gentlemen of the public. Welcome, welcome! You have come to this palace of joy with the intention of being amused, of being amazed. Yes, you may go to see the bearded lady or the strong man. You may want to take the scariest ride of your life or you may even want to tray your psychic abilities with Madam LeRouge. But I can guarantee you that you have seen nuthin, nuthin at all until you have seen an international treaty! That's right, ladies and gentlemen, only here you will be able to see one of those alive and in person. Yes, it is bad, it is threatening, it is ferocious, but we have it contained. You may watch it behind those bars but for your own sake, don't come too close, if you value your life!

WHAT IS THIS STUFF ANYWAYS?

This stuff about global warming has been going on for quite some time now, and not everything has been elucidated yet. Allow us to give you the summary:

  • Yes, earth's temperature is rising.
  • Yes, there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than before.
  • Yes, carbon dioxide produces the "greenhouse" effect.
  • Yes, it is possible that all that CO2 is due to human activity.
  • Yes, we are royally screwed, even if the temperature raises one measly degree Centigrade.
  • And finally, yes, there may be other causes at play here that we don't know (or so says the geological record).

So… basically… the main suspect is CO2 but we are not 100% sure?

You got it.

And we are running out of time?

Not really. If the CO2 is indeed the problem, we have run out of time twenty or so years ago. Now it's too late.

But… this won't stop politicians? Precisely! Let it never be said that reality ever interfered with a good story!

AND NOW WHAT?

Now comes the political show. Many would-be eco-meetings and eco-gatherings and eco-summits and eco-whatever came and went… all by the wayside. And do you know why this is so? Because the reality is that we depend from fossil fuels. The reality is that without fossil fuels we would be starving while freezing to death in the darkness. And this is as polite as it gets. Because, you know, "geopolitical" forces have been battling for fossil resources since oil was first discovered. But now is "for the greater good" that we invade countries, sponsor revolutions, buy tin-pot dictators or steamroll land owners.

Sounds familiar?

Gooooooood!

THE NEW CIRCUS

As part of this show we have a new circus in town. It is actually an old circus that has been having bad luck since about 2008, when it all started (approximately). However, since Dec 12, 2015 this new circus has "caught" the "imagination" of the entire world. It is a "landmark agreement", a "decisive agreement" an "unprecedented breakthrough" that succeeded where Kyoto (1997) and Copenhagen (2009) failed. Hurrrrraaaahhhh!!! For the human race!

Really?

No. Not really. What did you think?

THE FINE PRINT OR LACK OF THEREOF

Typically treaties and contracts have the nefarious tendencies to have fine prints and codicils and appendices which make them pretty much useless. This one, the "Paris Agreement" is a breakthrough in diplomatic sincerity. The agreement itself is meaningless. That's right! Why bother with fine print and codicils if we can put into Arial 12 points all the meaningless content right there and spare a great deal of politicians and apparatchiks having to talk to their lawyers and spin doctors to weasel out of it!

A dream come true!

A global warming treaty that treats nothing! A global warming agreement that agrees to nothing being done! A global contract forcing signatory parties to deliver zilch! All the while allowing politicians to save face. Perfect!

REALLY?

Yes. Really. Let's take a quick look at the print. The following points point out only few of the pointlesness of the pointed agreement. See also our translation in italics.

Countries will commit to keep the rise in temperature to 2 degrees Celsius by 2100.

We don't give a Rattus norvegicus' maximus gluteus. Which means that we are screwed, because even 1 degree Celsius is really, really bad.

Countries will "endeavour to limit" the rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius also by 2100.

Did we mentioned that even 1 degree Celsius is really, really bad? And that we don't give a Rattus norvegicus' maximus gluteus? Thought so.

Countries will limit the emission of CO2 to the naturally absorbable levels at some point between 2050 and 2100.

Maybe. At some point. Far away from the new election. Let the last sucker sitting on the "seat of power" deal with the disaster. Whatchagonado anyways? What? You mean that on top of being screwed, we have to lose our posh jobs as "public servants"? Not fair. We are here to screw the voters, not us!

Leeway for "developing" countries.

NO. NOOOOOO. We won't do anything. But we still want to look nice in the photo-op!

Global greenhouse emissions should start falling "as soon as possible".

Unless it is in our best interest to get elected in the next election. And the next one. And the next one. What's the problem? We'll blame it on ecologists and weather men. Yeah… that sounds like a plan!

Wealthy nations are "encouraged" to continue to provide support for poor nations suffering damages due to "climate change" - but it won't provide any "basis for any liability or compensation"

No legally binding emissions targets

No legally binding financial targets

We get to do whatever we want without any consequences at all.!!! WOOHOO!!! That's definitively a treaty we can all get behind. In a Sodom and Gomorrah Biblical sense… of course!

These are, of course, only few of the "key" points of the agreement that was achieved through the use of "masterful diplomacy" by France. Whatever…

Look, this is simple. If you agree with a friend of yours to do nothing, nothing at all, is that an agreement that you would be interesting in signing? Probably not. Waste of time. But what would happen if that very same agreement would have a bombastic name such as the "Universal Treaty of Being Nice To Cuddly Animals" and your fiancé -being a cuddly animal nuts- would promise you a night you would never forget for doing so? Would you sign? Of freaking course you would sign! In blood of necessary. It would take you the amount of time a thought takes to jump from one neuron to the next… if not less!

Daaaaaaa!!!!

Note: please see the Glossary if you are unfamiliar with certain words.

Comments | Add yours
  • No comments found
English French German Italian Portuguese Russian Spanish
FacebookMySpaceTwitterDiggDeliciousStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditNewsvineTechnoratiLinkedinMixxRSS FeedPinterest
Pin It