Perhaps it’s time to call a spade a spade on climate change action. Call me a pessimist, a simpleton or both. But here’s how it looks from my kitchen table …
There are really just two parties. Party ‘A’ – the parliamentarians; and Party ‘B’ – us voters. (The latter includes all sectors and interest groups.) Now for the analysis: Of party ‘A’, numbering 226, about half think action is vital in theory but electorally hazardous. The latter angst is fuelled by party ‘B’, numbering 18 million (aged 15+), about half of whom want action in theory, but not if it encroaches on our wallets or lifestyles. Not in my back pocket, thank you!
Likely outcome? Perpetual stalemate. Winner? Well certainly not the planet.
A “broad church”, led by an Abbott and a Bishop, cloistered from reality, preaching to the choir, praying for a miracle.
Global climate change treaty looking doubtful? Well not to worry. The seas will eventually reclaim all the world’s industrial sites, and then it won’t matter. But Copenhagen needn’t go down as another week of happy snaps and silly clothes. I propose an alternate agenda:
- sport: some swimming lessons wouldn’t go astray. And how about a water polo world cup?
- trade: a global exchange in rubber life rafts, fishing rods and mosquito repellant.
- construction: relocate UN headquarters to Quito, Ecuador (altitude 2850 m)
- military: strengthen naval defences. 3 or 4 life rafts per continent should do it.
Or failing agreement:
- a new age of discovery: if NASA get their skates on maybe we can find another planet somewhere and start again. (Yeah I know – we’ll wreck that one too, but at least it buys us some time … )