Whatever we may or may not think (or believe or disbelieve) about the role humans may or may not have played in the warming the Earth has experienced, or the rise in carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, we should all learn all we can about the Copenhagen Treaty.
Because if it is signed, what it says will become the ‘top law’ in the countries that sign it. (Even if it is not signed – that it got ‘this close’ means that its content is significant – and likely to come up again in another form.)
In a democratic country, passing a new law is a long and arduous process: there are all kinds of checks and balances in place in order to make sure that the lawmakers (and the people they represent – and who can vote them out if they misbehave) know what the law says and how it will impact society.
Typically, ‘a bill’ (a proposed law) has to pass a number of public readings (transparency – so ‘everyone’, in theory, is aware of what it says), where the different elected representatives are supposed to examine all its aspects in a thorough and objective (ideally) way, point out any of its potential pitfalls or shortcomings, take account of the public debate about it, suggest amendments and all that. Only after this long process (which OUGHT NOT be shortened, for any reason, not even if Obama says so), if most of the elected representatives think that supporting it is more likely to get them re-elected than not (i.e. the will of ‘the people’) does this ‘bill’ become a ‘law’.
This is really, really important.
Yes, it is annoying and tedious, but important because it is the only mechanism through which the citizens of a democratic can assert their will on what laws govern their land. (Legally, that is…)
Contrast that with the ‘Copenhagen Treaty’.
It is a whole set of laws, rules and regulations which we are told are necessary to ‘slow down the build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere’.
Because the atmosphere is shared by all the people on Earth, any rules or regulations to effectively deal with problems with it must be global. Makes sense, when put that way…
So, the rules and regulations in the Copenhagen Treaty over-rule any laws or constitutions of the countries that sign it. Because these are now ‘global rules’, and take precedence over ‘national laws’.
A country may not opt out (once in), unless the majority of the signatory countries agree to let them.
So, what exactly ARE these laws, rules and regulation?
Unlike the process for passing laws in democratic countries which I described above, a system where the content of a proposed law is open for examination and subject to public debate and scrutiny, we don’t really know the details of this whole set of powerful rules and regulations!
Yesterday, some leaked bits of it showed that it would permit ‘developed’ nations to emit something like twice the CO2 per person than ‘developing’ nations: in other words, ‘developing’ nations would have their development arrested!
They would NOT be allowed to develop! To provide medicine to their people! To build up their civilizations and raise their people’s standard of living!
People in the ‘developed nations’ would have to pay huge amounts of money in taxes. These taxes would then be used to keep ‘developing nations’ in a state of perpetual poverty and dependence on the ‘developed nations’!
In other words, the Copenhagen Treaty would force them to be the new slave-class.
So poor, they will be grateful for the little bit of medicine, they’ll readily agree to be part of a new vaccination or new medication study.
So hungry, they will accept any crop-seed – happy to get it and let the agro-businesses collect decades of data on its safety.
And – as horrible as this proposition is – it is just the tip of the proverbial ice-berg.
The even bigger issue is that the only way all the representatives found out about it was THROUGH A LEAK!!!
And, we do NOT KNOW what ELSE is there, that was not leaked…
In other words, the Copenhagen Treaty is a pig-in-a-poke - a pig-in-a-poke that will have the power to over-ride our Constitution and any rights and freedoms it guarantees us.
Regardless of your views on Global Warming: is this a good idea?
Do the ends ever justify the means?