'A non-binding agreement' that certain nations 'agree' that global warming should be kept to 2 degrees at the most in the coming years. Or something like that. All that money, carbon-emission and time for that?
This 'agreement' is akin to concluding that the sky should be a deeper shade of blue or it would be delightful, and even aesthetically pleasing, if the ocean had a greener tinge. With all the controversy surrounding the cause, and even the existence of global warming, how do the consenting nations propose to control climate change when there is no consensus on the cause and no practical steps to the stated end?
Apart from that, however, the 'agreement' itself is not even an agreement. It seems to be a mutual conclusion/observation that the world would be a nicer place if 2 degrees cooler. Now I understand why there are such vehement protests at these events - the event itself a massive waste of resources.
Obama, while a charismatic figure, is not bigger than the status quo, and if he tried to be he would undoubtedly go the way of all who truly opposed the status quo (no need to elaborate on the Ghandis, MLK or Sadat). His announcement of the 'meaningful' advances took him down a notch though, mainly because of the abject meaninglessness of that empty consensus. The descriptor 'meaningful' suggests a wilful denial of the obvious, disguised as diplomacy on Obama's part. Granted, he qualified his determination with the assertion that, 'we have much further to go' but when you haven't gone anywhere can't you can't 'go further'. Rather, you must go somewhere.
In the end it's been proven yet again that talking vigorously at a problem solves nothing. But it seems that the World is all about proving that as much as it can, as often as it can.
Posts
