permaculture

[christophe mckeon gonzalez de leon <chromatophore@gmail.com>]

> We have to look at three aspects: social, economic, environmental.
> Firstly, the environment in which the science is being weighed is highly
> politicized and polarized. We have not really got all the cards on the
> table.

science itself is and always has been highly politicized. there's no
such thing as pure science. science today is funded and hence directed
by corporate, industry, and military/state interests. the fact that
despite that, it is still managing to make a clamour about AGW should
tell you something. if we sit around for all the cards to be on the
table, absolutely nothing will ever get done.

> There are many who stand to gain from proposed environmental measures, and

yes probably, and there are many more who stand to gain form not
having measures in place. your point is?

> evidence of tampering with scientific information is being highly censored
> rather than investigated through the press. This 'climate' does not, to me,
> seem like a conducive one in which to come up with environmental strategies.

again, scientific information is never pure. if you want evidence for
climate change, just go outside and have a look, or ask an inuit. it's
changing. quibbling over the data and it's provenance at this point is
almost farcical.

> They take away our rights and freedoms,

who's rights and freedoms? humanity's, or are you speaking about some
specific group?

> replacing national sovereignty with global inspectors.

what has national sovereignty to do with this question. what has
national sovereignty given you and the rest of humanity thus far?
i can think of a few things. artificial and impassable borders which
arbitrarily chop up biomes and cultures, militarization, exploitation
of one state by the ruling class of another, etc, etc..

> Who is at the helm here? And who are they answerable to?
> They are faceless, and they are non-representational.

presumably the assumption here, which imo is false, is that the
corporatist state is somehow representative and has somebody to answer
to, or else what's the difference.

> Most likely, the Copenhagen Treaty, were it
> passed, would be viewed in retrospect as a scuttling away of our right to
> elected representatives in the matters of government.

all of that said, and i think we can probably agree here, is that i
don't think a top down treaty can/will accomplish a great deal. i
support people who are fighting for such changes but i'm not holding
my breath. intensive, localized, bottom up, grass roots,
action is what is needed, and is what will necessarily happen as
things worsen. if through this process a genuine cultural change can
be arrived at, then all the better, but probably we are looking
forward to a very bumpy ride.

my 2¢