Yes, I was naive.
But since that time I've become much more politically aware and informed. By no means is my political education complete but I have learned much in the six years since that conversation with my friend.
At one time I was a member of the Reform Party in Canada. Then there was a time when I voted for the NDP in several elections. Not an insignificant shift in viewpoint. I remember talking with a friend and telling him that I was once a "card carrying member of the Reform Party." At first he thought I was joking. When I assured him that I wasn't he was flabbergasted by the notion. I remember numerous discussions with a libertarian friend during which I defended the notion of wealth re-distribution and empowered national governments.
Another positional change that has occurred during this time is my stance on the role of the United Nations. During the same period I was speaking naively about the American motives and actions concerning Iraq, I was arguing that the UN should have the power to directly intervene in international conflicts. Of course this position was taken for humane reasons, arguing that it would benefit millions around the globe, especially in places such as Rwanda, Darfur, Somalia and the Balkans. Now I loathe the concept.
Over the past decade I have gone from a rather unthinking conservative to a questioning quasi-liberal to what I like to think of as a form of anarchism.
The idea of the individual is a rather modern notion whose roots I believe begin in the Protestant Reformation begun by Martin Luther. Until that point the idea that one person was as important or perhaps more important than the community was rare if not unknown. Now certainly it was a developing idea that took time to come to be clearly articulated, but I see its roots in the Reformation (I could go on further with this subject, talking about its perceived effects on society and comparing modern western individualistic culture with the more traditional but changing Confucius based culture of SE Asia and Korea in particular where I presently live but that is not the focus of this missive). Through this concept we have gained many things as individuals and it is the basis for many of the rights that many in the west now enjoy.
Despite this I think that for many there is a disconnect between the notions of political liberalism/conservatism and social liberalism/conservatism. I obviously can't speak for everyone or even that many, but of those that I have spoken to over the years social issues seem to be the main determining factor in choosing who to vote for. When people would ask me who they should vote for my advice is to identify what in their opinion is the top 3-5 issues facing them or society and then see how each of the political parties address those issues. Once you've done the research base your vote on the party that addresses those issues the best in their opinion. Those issues will change for each individual but in the end I think that many people vote based on social issues more so than political or international issues.
One of the issues in recent memory that has bypassed this idea has been the Iraq war. This was an international issue that motivated millions to cast their votes one way or the other; and not only in the US either. People in Canada, Britain, Spain, Australia, etc. voted based on their desire to see their countries involved or not in this war.
Another motivating issue over the past decade, and one that is growing in scope and influence is the idea of global warming. Now for many this is seen as a mixture of social and political issues. Many look to the social impact of such a notion as the basis for political action. In Canada this has seen an increase in support for the Green Party (not enough to gain a seat in the House of Commons but that is due more to our antiquated and dysfunctional electoral system than actual support for the party or its policies but again that is not the focus of this post).
Ever since Al Gore's Oscar winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth came out, global warming has been a mainstay of the 24 hour news cycle. A very simplistic and narrow summary of the stance is that human activity through mass farming and industrial activity has exponentially raised the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leading to a warming of the global climate that could/will have tremendously negative impacts upon the planet and humanity. These impacts are a runaway greenhouse gas effect that would melt off the polar ice caps and raise sea levels world wide destroying the habitat for hundreds of millions of people world wide. The ultimate doomsday scenario in this scheme is that we end up like our sister planet in the cosmos, Venus, whose climate is controlled by a runaway greenhouse effect resulting in air temperatures of 800C. Obviously this would have a detrimental impact on humanity and ultimately the earth.
Al Gore brought this issue to the fore of public consciousness in 2006 where it has remained ever since. In fact I would argue that it is the considered to be the foremost issue in the minds of people worldwide; well if you listened to the media anyways. Recently a Pew Research Center for the People & the Press poll, conducted Jan. 7-11, 2009 sees global warming as being ranked 20th out of 20 by Americans.
The 15-point decline in the percentage calling environmental protection a top priority this year is steep, but not unprecedented given the broader shift in public priorities. Between January 2001 and January 2002, the proportion rating environmental protection as a top priority fell by a similar amount (from 63% to 44%); a number of domestic priorities declined in importance following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. By January 2003, just 39% called environmental protection a top priority – comparable to today’s 41% – before resurging as a priority from 2006 to 2008, only to fall again this year.
However what is not talked about much or at least with much seriousness is the idea that there really is no scientific consensus concerning the theory of global climate change or more specifically that such a change is caused by humanity. It seems that whenever someone stands up to question what is presented in the media (and lets be honest the media is virtually the only window into what is going on in the world for a significant portion of the world's population) they are usually shouted down as crackpots. In fact such influential public personalities as David Suzuki (recently voted as the most trusted person in Canada in a Reader's Digest poll) claim that:
And so, even though the scientific proof for human-caused global warming is undeniable, we have the coal and oil industries funding massive campaigns to cast doubt on the science and we have politicians implying that the world’s scientists are involved in some sinister plot – all so we can continue to rely on diminishing supplies of polluting fuels instead of creating jobs and wealth through a greener economy that may save us from catastrophe.
Now Mr. Suzuki is a well respected and very informed person, especially concerning environmental matters. However I can't help but notice how he too couches the criticism of human caused global warming terms of money grubbing conspiracies rather than accepting that there are scientists out there that question what the public is being told. People are being scared into the notion of environmental armageddon in our lifetime (or at least the lifetime of our children and grandchildren) and being told that if drastic steps aren't taken NOW that all is lost.
However the question still remains, is it truly undeniable?
One person who questions the notion of undeniability is author Ian Wishart who wrote the bestselling book Air Con: The Seriously Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming. One of the questions that Mr. Wishart asks in his book is who benefits from these global scare tactics? One would think that the obvious answer is: humanity. That may truly be the answer if in fact global warming is an undeniable reality. If it isn't as more and more people are beginning to believe one still has to ask who benefits from all this global political action? In line of Woodward and Bernstein one should follow the money.
One of the proposed measures to mitigate the release of more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is the idea of carbon trading schemes, which are to be discussed at the upcoming Copenhagen conference. In a recent interview Wishart aks:
If you look at the economic prize at stake, consider this. We currently have gold markets, but you are not forced to buy and sell gold and only a tiny percentage of the community are active in the gold markets. The financial markets are larger, but even then most of us are not forced to buy and sell shares or trade forex, and only a minority of us actually do so. But if carbon trading becomes compulsory worldwide, effectively every single one of us will be forced to buy and sell through this scheme. No one will be able to go through their daily lives without being represented directly or indirectly in the carbon markets. Those who control the carbon markets will effectively control the world.The magazine Investigate goes a few steps further in following the money and the potential consequences and realities of such a scenario. In their July 13, 2009 article "Global Governance on Climate Agenda" they discuss the roll of the UN as an emergent world governing body in some rather stark terms:
If we are going to cede that kind of control, and money, for a claimed crisis of planetary proportions, shouldn’t we first be absolutely certain that the crisis is real?
This is where things come back to my previous comments on individualism and social issue voting motivations. Many look to the US for leadership on international issues and many were devastated and bewildered by the America's refusal to sign the Kyoto Accord. Even Barack Obama voted against it when he had the opportunity to do so as a Illinois state Senator. Now the US is facing immense pressure to sign on to these new carbon trading schemes being proposed. If the US signs many others will follow suit. Obama is now POTUS and was elected on numerous social issues and putting an end to the war in Iraq. Now he has the opportunity to accept or decline the protocols being presented and it looks like he will sign. The conference is still a few months away so we will have to wait to see if he does so, but if the US signs then other nations who might be questioning their stance will fall into line knowing that they won't have the US to back them and as such they are too weak to stand alone; unlike the US.By now you should be beginning to appreciate how the new world order will work. The UN Security Council will become stacked with members undoubtedly approved by Socialist International, and the USA will lose its power of veto, substantially or even entirely. Because of new funding streams from carbon taxes and a global financial transaction tax, the UN will have its own revenue and be capable of putting its own “peacekeeping” military force into action. Meanwhile, the new Sustainable Development Council will have the same draconian powers to direct how the world economy should develop and how resources should be collected and spent. Countries wishing to dispute would get a hearing in the UN General Assembly, but if they didn’t have the political support they could be ordered to tow the line or face increasingly harsh sanctions from the UN community.
Voting rights on the new Sustainability Council would be based on “three main criteria: a country’s share in world population, GDP and contributions to the UN global goods budget.”
In other words, the more you contribute to the UN, the more say you have in governing the affairs of other countries.
If this comes to pass then the rights of the individual will be more severely trampled than many can imagine. If we look to history for what happens when governments gain more and more power we see an alarming trend. In the 20th century the most obvious examples of overly powerful governments are the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Kampuchea (better known as the Khmer Rouge led Cambodia under Pol Pot in the late 1970s), and the Government Junta of Chile led by Augusto Pinochet to name but a few. The end result of each of these was not pretty and a direct result of the people giving up power to growing minority of people.
So what makes anyone think that placing power over themselves in the hands of foreign peoples or governments is a good idea?
I have no problem with greener energy technologies or conservation but I loathe the idea of people being scared into something as drastic as what is being called for by world leaders.
I can't say definitively that global warming is happening or not; human caused or not.
What I can say is that each of us owes it to ourselves to investigate the issue to the best of our ability. Discuss it with others and not only those with those who agree with us. We should not be afraid to hear a dissenting opinion. Then when we have a handle on the facts and can speak about the issue with some intelligence we can seek action.
Just as people shouldn't have been scared and manipulated into a war in Iraq, we should not be scared and manipulated into potentially stripping ourselves of our rights and freedoms.
Fighting against a conservative New World Order only to walk into a liberal New World Order will only end in the subservience of the individual.
Do the research.
Make up your own mind.
I leave you with a brief tidbit from Ian Wishart:
