.. democracy = of, by, for the people ...
.. IF covenant broken ...
.. THEN no right
Preamble: The world stands at a fork in the track; one path is labelled "Save the planet," and the other "More of the same." Some (well-formed) estimates tell us that our atmosphere has already passed the 'critical CO2 content' and that destructive climate-change is actually underway. Some (milder) 'opposition' to this argument contends that the science is unclear; some (rabid) 'opposition' contends that there is no problem at all. There is incontrovertible proof that some sort of climate change is happening, namely net melting of the polar ice. The rabid response is "Not CO2!" - this in the face of measurable and significant CO2 increase. The scientific consensus is a) that CO2 is a critical greenhouse gas and b) that ever more CO2 will cause increasing greenhouse effect. The proper name for doubt-free climate-change nay-sayers is not sceptic but denialist.
IF the polar ice continues to melt (beginnings already visible) THEN the flooding will eventually be catastrophic. Most rational observers say things like "Better safe than sorry," a paraphrasing of the precautionary principle.
IF atmospheric CO2 content is rising (it is) THEN the world is burning too much (fossil) carbon.
IF we wish to reduce CO2 emissions (we, or at least the EU *must*) THEN the world must (soonest!) reduce coal mining and/or oil pumping.
To end the preamble, this: A working morality can be based on "Do unto others ..." with the corollary "Do no harm." IF excess-CO2 caused climate-change threatens life & limb (it does) THEN it's at least immoral and probably illegal - for doing actual harm, namely grave ecosphere disturbance leading to many people dying as a result. One of man's strongest principals is (biblical phrasing *devoid* of all religious overtones): "Thou shalt not kill!" Any killing not strictly self-defence is usually termed murder. Continuing to produce vast excesses of CO2 can now be termed murder if (when!) death results - and we, the sheople/voters may legitimately attempt to protect ourselves from such murderous attack.
Democracy: 'They,' those who simultaneously inform and mislead us (like the AusBC, say, either quoting criminals or actively contributing crooked content), they allege that we the (US, UK, Aus & IL) sheople live in so-called 'democracies.'
Examining 'democracy = of, by, for the people;'
Q: How are we doing?
A: Not too well:
Of implies that our candidates are 'people like us' - but basically only from the two parties likely to govern. When those two parties (in Aus, Lib/Lab pug-ugly twins) offer either no effective difference or outright bipartisanship, our choice varies between "Hobson's" (take it or leave it) and "Catch-22" (all choices yield equivalent, often undesirable, results.)
By implies that we vote - and we do. But, we are neither honestly nor fully informed (in actual fact often propagandised); it means that any vote we may make cannot be 'well-founded.'
For implies that our so-called 'representatives' actually work *for* us, as opposed to working for someone else ('big end of town,' say) - and therefore actively *against* us.
In this specific case, we the sheople/voters in Aus need protection and relief from destructive climate-change. What we do not need is for coal-extracting entities (then the consequent down-stream burning) to be allowed to further foul our once jewel-like planet's ecosphere; coal mining and oil pumping *must* be reduced.
IF we do not get protection and relief THEN our leaders will (again; recall Iraq; illegal invasion thereof) - have proven themselves both traitors and tyrants, this time for all practical time - many scientists predict no recovery may be possible, once some critical 'tipping-point' (i.e. CO2 concentration) is passed.
ETS vs. tax vs. ???
In Aus, Lab had an ETS (Emissions Trading System) proposal 'on the table;' Turnbull's Libs had agreed to pass it - with their amendments. The Greens said that those Lib amendments added $Au7bio in (unwarranted) 'exceptions,' $Au5bio of which would be born directly by the sheople (that's us, we the voters.) The Greens refused to support Lab's ETS - then Abbott's rabble 'spat the dummy.' Abbott and similar misleader/deceivers started calling Lab's ETS 'a tax' - but only to scare the sheople. Current stand: No Aus ETS. Now try this:
Top climate scientist hopes Copenhagen fails
By Europe correspondent Emma Alberici for AM
Posted December 4, 2009 08:06:00
«The scientist who convinced the world that global warming was a looming danger says the planet will be better off if next week's Copenhagen climate change summit ends in collapse.
James Hansen, considered the most distinguished climate scientist, says any agreement to emerge from the meeting will be so flawed that it would be better to start again from scratch.»
Then this (previously cited):
Wong not buying draft Copenhagen deal
Posted December 12, 2009 13:36:00
«Australia is set to lose out under the draft agreement, which, if approved, will require countries to meet their greenhouse targets though action in their own country.
The Federal Government was planning on achieving its goals by paying developing countries to reduce their emissions, then including the savings against Australia's target.»
Comment: "Put a sock in it!" - is one proposed modus operandi; blame and load-shifting another. Just like trying to stop bulls**t by putting a cork in it, or bribing a cow to stop f**ting. Won't work; looks very much like ETSs were a) a scam, b) an attempt to offload the problem and c) possibly proposed as a way of skimming us (we the sheople/voters) even more. No extra costs (or taxes) need be envisioned, nor even any job-losses. 'Cap and trade' simply can't work - far too much corruption, far too few honest cops. And it's attacking the problem at the arse, i.e. the wrong end.
Proposal: There's little practical point in complaining without suggesting some 'way out,' so here is one: stop increasing coal/oil output! All sheople currently employed in coal/oil extraction, from the source to the sink, stay where they are. As 'natural attrition' removes workers, no replacements. No new digging or drilling (possible exception, to *replace* exhausted sources). No new infrastructure, no new shipping; quite clearly at the moment, everyone is getting enough. And now, daaarlings, with the polar/glacier ice starting to melt, enough has gotta be enough - and no bloody more.
Having (easily) stopped increasing, then start decreasing. Keep decreasing - until the CO2 content of our air drops below the 'life-preserving' target (actually lower than current).
Q: "Please, Sir, may I have some more?"
A: No! (Idiot.)
Fazit: No more more!
PS Oh, yeah: stop importing people into high-carbon wasting economies - like Aus, the world's highest per capita CO2 polluter.
[*] Update; this *looks* hot:
Australia accused of cooking carbon books
By Gregg Borschmann for Radio National - exclusive
Posted December 14, 2009 07:00:00
«"What's going on here is that there is a suggestion that you can use Land Use Land Use Change and Forestry and the creative accounting around that without the robust figures in place," Christine Milne said.
"And you can use that to offset your emissions reduction targets, especially in your fossil fuel sector.
"It is very clear that you need to reduce your emissions from fossil fuels and you need to sequester carbon in the landscape and you need to protect your forests as carbon stores, but that isn't happening," she continued.
"What we are seeing is attempts to be offset and quite dishonest systems so that we are going to end up with something that doesn't actually save the climate."»
But be warned: « ... source told Radio National Breakfast that there were huge problems trying to account for carbon in rural landscapes.» Preliminary conclusion: *Looks* as if the Labs are trying to swindle Copenhagen'09, just as Howard swindled Kyoto. What was that about Lib/Lab pug-ugly twins? More as/when time allows.
PPS IF the climate 'goes down,' aka polar/glacier ice melts and oceans flood - THEN we'll know who to hang for it.
 sceptic n. (US skeptic) 1 person inclined to doubt accepted opinions. [POD]
 denial n. 1 denying the truth or existence of a thing. 2 refusal of a request or wish. 3 disavowal of a leader etc. [ibid.]
 Precautionary principle:
«... is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action... The principle implies that there is a responsibility to intervene and protect the public from exposure to harm where scientific investigation discovers a plausible risk in the course of having screened for other suspected causes. The protections that mitigate suspected risks can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that more robustly support an alternative explanation.
 In some legal systems, as in the law of the European Union, the precautionary principle is also a general and compulsory principle of law.»
 traitor n. (fem. traitress) (often foll. by to) person who is treacherous or disloyal, esp. to his or her country. traitorous adj. [Latin traditor: related to *tradition] [POD]
 tyrant n. 1 oppressive or cruel ruler. 2 person exercising power arbitrarily or cruelly. [Greek turannos] [ibid.]
our malevolent rulers - unjust tyrants (melting ice)
Posted by IDHolm at 10:43