Despite all the political hype about 'saving the planet' - or words to that effect - the Copenhagen conference is already dead in the water.

And its been effectively torpedoed by the very same political leaders who, in the next few days, will be appearing on our television screens expressing their concerns about the future of the planet. What monumental hypocrisy.

The self-serving rhetoric will not be able to conceal the fact that nothing that is decided at Copenhagen will be binding and there will be so many get-out clauses contained in the 'deal' to render it entirely meaningless anyway.

We, the citizens of this planet, are being sold down the river by political' leaders' who claim to represent us.

In theory the question of a binding agreement will reappear on the agenda again next year but the problem is the United States. While Barack Obama might be briefly attending the Copenhagen conference, another motivational speech from the US President won't alter the fact that the US Senate remains openly hostile to a binding agreement.

The Democrats and The Republicans are merely the two political wings of big business interests and many US senators owe their political careers to corporate backing. They won't be biting the hand that feeds them anytime soon.

A few day ago a leading climate change expert launched a blistering attack on the politicians that will be wasting our money and time at the Copenhagen conference.

NASA's James Hansen told a British newspaper:

'The fraudulence of the Copenhagen approach — ‘goals’ for emission reductions, ‘offsets’ that render ironclad goals almost meaningless, the ineffectual ‘cap-and-trade’ mechanism — must be exposed

We must rebel against such politics as usual. Science reveals that the climate is close to tipping points. It is a dead certainty that continued high emissions will create a chaotic dynamic situation for young people, with deteriorating climate conditions out of their control.'

Unfortunately I think Hansen's message will get drowned out in the torrent of spin and hype that will be generated by the conference - aided and abetted by an uncritical corporate media.

Copenhagen will will be a talkfest and that's all. I will lay odds that a resolution will be passed to reconvene talks at a future date - as if we have the luxury of scheduling yet more talks at some stage in the future.

I see that Samantha Hayes, TV3's Nightline presenter, has been assigned the role of reporter on all things environmental, and in particular, on climate change. She is off to Copenhagen which will make a pleasant change of pace for the fashion-conscious Ms Hayes.

Will we get some incisive analysis from Ms Hayes or will she, as is more likely, dutifully report the meaningless rhetoric of the various political 'leaders' and remain blissfully oblivious to what is really going on at this Scandinavian talkfest?

We cannot be confident that Samantha Hayes will not uncritically parrot the words of the politicians and their officials. She did, after all, support the con job that was 'Earth Hour'. Indeed, according to the NZ Herald, she 'spent an hour in the dark, thinking about the impact of her lifestyle on the climate.'

Samantha Hayes has found time in her busy schedule to write two short two hundred word blog posts on the TV3 News website.

Frankly, they are inept. Hayes seems transfixed by the spectacle of the Copenhagen charade.

She seems to be labouring under the impression that the Copenhagen conference will actually achieve something but she never actually outlines what that 'something' might be.

More worryingly, like most mainstream journalists these days, she believes that the politicians are on our side. The entire geo-political dimension of the Copenhagen conference and the demands of capitalism have not occupied her intellect at all.

In one blog post she reports that Obama is going to attend the Copenhagen conference - as if its a big deal.

Samantha informs us: 'Sadly Obama will be there in the first week only. I'm going for all the action in the second week when a plan will be hatched, or not.'

Plan? What plan will or will not be 'hatched' Samantha? It would be too much to ask for Samantha to offer some analysis at this point but she then concludes that 'Obama might help galvanise proceedings'. How exactly will he do that since the United States is opposed to a binding agreement?

I don't mean to be harsh but, I'm sorry, Ms Hayes simply doesn't know what she's talking about.


Post a Comment

Comments are moderated.