European Tea Party Movement. It's happening!

Tea bags are being dumped in European waters too. The Washington Times made a call for such a movement to start. In fact it had already started in various countries, including in the UK! I am aware of two events taking place in London and Portsmouth last November (below Portsmouth, pre-Flopenhagen ).

Tea Partiers have started to mobilise across the continent and on the net (a Facebook group and a Euro-Tea Party website). How far this will go is unclear but as the debt crisis in Greece deepens and more bad news appears every day (UK's debt could surpass Greece's. Daily Telegraph), anger is brewing... Time for a cuppa! In England everything starts with a cup of tea. What could be more British than a tea party as Daniel Hannan MEP puts it!
.
Previous post on tea partying. Let them eat cake. Or dump tea!

Atlas Shrugged Europe?

The article appears in Un Monde Libre - blog post -, African Liberty and Hürriyet Daily News.
.
With the financial crisis hitting the American real economy and government’s spending (and debt) reaching unprecedented levels, sales of “Atlas Shrugged”, the 1957 novel by Russian-born author Ayn Rand have surged (1). In welfare Europe, this hymn to individualism and laissez-faire capitalism has mostly been dismissed by the intellectual class as Anglo-Saxon “rant” or just “fantasy”. Looking at Greece’s fiscal turmoil, mounting sovereign debt, near-zero growth rates across the bloc and the risk of social unrest spreading, one has to wonder if the prophecy described in the novel has not come true.
.
Cato scholar and economist Daniel J. Mitchell argues convincingly that Greece may well have turned into the real-world version of Atlas Shrugged. The burden of the public sector on the economy is such that “the job creators and wealth generators have given up and/or moved their money out of the country”(http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/02/10/maybe-greece-should-go-bankrupt/).The public sector and interest groups like farmers have grown so powerful that reforms of the bloated civil service (1/4 of labour force) have never seriously been contemplated by successive governments. But it is time for reckoning for the Hellenic Republic has ironically turned into the sick man of Europe (debt of 125% of GDP). In the meantime Turkey’s economy while also experiencing hardtimes, is expected to grow by 3 to 5% this year. Furthermore its public finances have been brought under control and now meet theMaastricht criteria (2009, debt of 40% of GDP).
.
The problem for the Union is that its waiting room is full of patients. Every new election brings renewed promises of reform of big government but rhetoric rarely translates into the kind of bold action necessary to address the problem. In France which also runs a record deficit (€1,500 billion) and whose debt is estimated at 80% of GDP (and rising), reformist agendas are hampered by unions prepared tofight to the bitter end to keep their privileges. President Sarkozy’s mediatized support to Premier Papandreou and his austerity plan was truly a case of the “sick aiding the sick”. Of course no-one wants to see the Balkan state - and other patients of the PIIGS club - descend into full-blown economic collapse but rewarding it for its failings with a bail-out could be equally damaging. The European leadership is naturally cautious and jittery. And so are the markets hardly reassured by the vagueness of political statements and the lack of details on a possible rescue package (2).
.
To the relief of most politicians, the debate in the mainstream media has shifted from Greece’s blatant lies and evident responsibility in this mess to accusations of “immoral” speculation against the Euro. The market - capitalism - has once again become the “convenient”culprit. Commenting on the US, Stephen Moore opined that "The current economic strategy is right out of Atlas Shrugged. The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you" (Wall Street Journal, Jan. 9, 2010). Well, the Franco-German directoire is mulling over the idea of experimenting along those lines with an “incompetent” member state. It is a dangerous precedent and raises issues of legality.
.
It is widely acknowledged that public opinions are against the idea of bearing the burden of risks. The Brussels-based think tank Open Europe asked the "inconvenient" question (June 2009) and found that “70 percent of German voters were opposed to using taxpayer funds to bailout countries in financial difficulties such as Ireland or Greece.” (3) Its recent study - A Greek bail-out: is it legally possible and what will it cost taxpayers. Feb. 2010 - warns that “a bailout would involve massive political and economic risks. To try to convince taxpayers in one country of the need for them to pay for the mistakes of a government in another country – which they cannot vote out of office – is a massively difficult task. For most people it is simply unreasonable and fundamentally undemocratic to make taxpayers liable in this way.” In other words, the sounder option would be for Greece to sort its problems by itself, even if it means defaulting.
.
Greece has been on the receiving end of a lot of solidarity (EU funds). In 2010, it apparently expects more as a “right”. For a majority of the Greek demos, the European budget is a - German - cow to be milked. But let’s be honest, they are not alone. Paraphrasing 19th Century French liberal economist Frédéric Bastiat, most people see the EU - like the state - as "a great fiction through which everyone is trying to live at the expense of everyone else". The comment made by a demonstrator in Athens sums it up. “We gave the world democracy” said the civil servant “and we expect the European Union to support us” (IHT February 11, 2010). The truth is that some taxpayers on the giving end of solidarity are starting to ask themselves a more relevant question. What has Greece done for them since 1981? For now the "tragedy" of lies and irresponsibility and its risks for the Union remain theoretical. But time is running out, and the Hellenes' legacy to Europe for the 21st Century could ultimately be one of less prosperity and a lot of bitterness.
.
For the proponents of bigger EU government, the current crisis is an“opportunity” to push for more centralised powers and more regulations. In the new presidents-top-heavy institutional architecture, the most enthusiastic is Herman Van Rompuy who would like to see the European Council as the seat of economic governance. The “EU 2020 strategy” is starting to look like a blueprint for the establishment of a centrally-planned economy. Will the Commission be its Gosplan?
.
Fed up with the mounting cost of the “ever-closer union”, many Eurocitizens may be tempted to “do a John Galt” like the hero of Atlas Shrugged. Rebelling against the imposition of more sacrifice in the name of European solidarity might be the only choice left to them.
.
(1) The Guardian, March 10, 2009
(2) Daily Telegraph, Feb.12, 2010
(3) http://www.openeurope.org.uk/media-entre/pressrelease.aspx?pressreleaseid=117

From Brussels with more fudge of the theatrical kind

The new Europe is marching or, to be more precise, it is now “hearing”. Reference is made to the on-going hearing proceedings of commissioner-designates before the European Parliament. Having passed the written “test” (reply to some basic questions), nominees have been invited to take their "grand oral" (confirmation oral exam). Auditions can be watched on Europarl TV, the C-Span à la EU that no-one really watches - except EU watchers. Quid these proceedings? Democratic and transparent or just more fudge?
.
Eurobarometers, no-votes and low elections turn-outs have consistently indicated that the two actors (Commission and Parliament) now involved in the proceedings do not enjoy a high level of trust among the peoples. The failure of the ratification of the Constitution (2005) and its reappearance in the form of the Lisbon Treaty (a near identical document) without direct public consultation (except Ireland) further exposed a bureaucratic and political élite united in deep mistrust of the citizenry. As Professor Ian Ward put it in no uncertain terms; “the new Europe is fundamentally undemocratic” (1). Short on legitimacy and popular support, the élite needs to create its own legitimazing processes. Hence the mediatized “accountability” play now being performed between Brussels and Strasbourg with a script written by EU élite for the EU élite. A popular audience is not essential. Besides the populace has the Eurovision song contest.
.
Indeed for those with a taste for the theatrical, the "Barroso II" play has all the necessary ingredients. High flying rhetoric of values to be upheld and goodness to be bequeathed on citizens, twists in the plot and surprises. The latter came from Stefan Füle, the Czech nominee for enlargement and neighbourhood policy, with his stance in support of Turkey’s membership. In a bloc led by a Franco-German directoire, his honourable opinion on a sensitive issue will not influence policy-making a bit. Yes, in the EU size does matter. As the polity becomes more centralised, some member states are seemingly becoming “more equal”. A little drama was provided with two commissioner-designates (Lithuania and Bulgaria) flunking their audition. Tension, tit-for-tat exchanges between political groups and accusations of “witch hunt” ensued. Gripping. For the internal market portfolio Michel Barnier's solemn declaration to the MEPs that he would not take orders from Paris was so, well, moving.
.
After the politburo-esque appointments of the European Council president and foreign policy chief, few are happy in fortress EU. Behind the wall (the other Europe), the Kremlin is probably satisfied. Quizzed on the Ukraine-Russia gas crises, Baroness Ashton stated her determination to “put pressure” to ensure that the Moscow leadership saw “these issues in an economic way not a political one”. By its very nature, the “siloviki regime” (2) can only see it as both. The “securocrats” in charge have repeatedly demonstrated that they have little time for EU moralising, Sakharov prize winners (arrest of Lyudmila Alexeyeva of NGO Memorial), and that territorial integrity in its “near-abroad” (EU neighbourhood) is to be determined on its own terms. In the final analysis, a google search will yield more information on the bloc's foreign policy than the hearing. Type: “quiet diplomacy”, "soft power" or "energy dependency".
.
Most pundits have dismissed the process as largely ceremonial. It is also incredibly dull. The formula chosen for the proceedings has a lot to do with it. The “one minute for questioning” and “two for answers” format reflects the utterly “managed” nature of debates taking place in the European Parliament. A more adversarial process like the one used in the US Congress committee hearings might have given the publics a chance to experience the frisson of politics. But that is not the EU way of governance. Add to the equation, uninspiring orators (the quangocrat kind), technical subjects and interpretation, you have a recipe for boredom. Furtermore it is clear that the nominees’ grasp of issues pertaining to their portfolios cannot be seriously tested within such contraints. On the positive side, it provides EU watchers with a window to discover the candidates from nations other than theirs.
.
European citizens have not bothered to watch the carefully choreographed proceedings. Who can blame them? Some observers have dismissed the whole affair as a “stitch-up” between member states governments and the EP. Indeed nominees were carefully chosen to appease the main political groups. And so, for that matter, are the words chosen by the Commissioner-designates. Everything had to be "regulated", "greened" and "socialised". In truth, the hearings are a façade, a show for "public" consumption. No-one is trying very hard to dismiss this evidence. Yet few would admit that the real drama is taking place in the “behind-closed-doors" (wherever that is) so characteristic of the EU supranational decision and policy-making process. Thus rest assured that the consensus-building machine is now busy at work in that "public-free zone" where since the onset of European integration, a culture of “secrecy” has prevailed despite the rhetoric of "transparency”.
.
The more powerful Parliament is flexing its muscles. Will it seize this occasion to block the Commission and risk a political crisis after the Lisbon ratification saga? The final act will be played in Strasbourg. Whatever the dénouement, for the euroligarchy the full Lisbon-isation of Europe cannot come a moment too soon. Commissioners "designated" can therefore start looking forward to a mandate of hard work but also a lifestyle of privileges and high salaries (€20,000 monthly+ allowances) (3). Living in the EU bubble, they will enjoy the kind of isolation from the publics once experienced by the top echelon of the Soviet nomenklatura.
.
In times of crisis, eurocrats love to pontificate ad nauseam about the principle of solidarity (4). Let us see if the new "vanguard" can lead by example and show some towards the toiling masses by tightening their belts (dropping the controversial 3.7% pay-rise). But as the former Marxist activist and new foreign policy chief said, idealism is for the young.
.
(1) Ward Ian. A Critical Introduction to European Law, p. 19
(2) Illarionov Andrei. “The siloviki in charge”, Journal of Democracy, April 2009, Vol. 20, No 2
(3) Regulation No 422/67 EEC
(4) TEU, amended by Lisbon Treaty, consolidated version, preamble paragraph 6

In defense of the Turkish Ministry of Environment

Below find my letter to the editor of the Hurriyet Daily News in response to an article by Dr. Cengiz Aktar who has been consistantly criticizing the Turkish Ministry of Environment for not doing enough in Copenhagen. In the EU accession process, Turkey has just opened the environmental chapter and will need to incorporate all the "green acquis". The cost for Turkish taxpayers is estimated at €59 million. The chances of the EU letting Turkey in? Pretty slim indeed....
.
Here is my letter (more like an Op-ed given its length).
.
With reference to the “Response to the Ministry of Environment” (Dec. 31, 2009), I believe the Turkish government is absolutely right to have kept a low key and pragmatic approach in Copenhagen. The performance by the French delegation (governmental and civil society) led by our now “hyper-green” president, Nicolas Sarkozy, was less than impressive. In fact, it was embarrassing and ended in failure – in my humble view, a blessing in fact.
.
Given that prior to the summit, the “Académie des Sciences” declared that there was no “scientific consensus” on climate change, this frantic push for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, agenda to control the climate (the 2 degree objective) by reducing CO2 emissions appeared all the more disconnected with reality.
.
For those who wanted to see, there was indeed something rotten in the Kingdom of Denmark. Many high profile politicians, activists and UN climate luminaries were so engulfed in their apocalypse rhetoric that they looked more like the high priests of a cult than the cool-headed deciders we need to address environmental issues in a sensible way. The inconvenient truth for experts is that the silent majority was relieved that the hysterically vocal green minority did not get its way at the conference.
.
Of course not everything about the climate change agenda is bad. But the more important question is whether “Climate warmism” (or change-ism) is really about science. Like the “response” to the Ministry of the Environment which makes some valid points, in the final analysis, it aims to support the establishment of a new order with globalized environmental economic “dirigisme.”
.
The cult of Gaïa, this not-so-new mysticism, is just a tool for the new collectivists. The letter further illustrates that there is never a shortage of “red-green,” profoundly anti-liberal leftist French intellectuals whose “deep thoughts” can always be mustered to fight capitalism.
In an interview to the newspaper Libération (Dec. 8, 2009), philosopher Michel Serre lamented that the “Biogée” – earth and life merged into one concept – had not been invited to the summit. We can all agree for the need to discuss measures to protect the environment but should “Gaïa” – or the “Biogée thing” – also sit at the negotiations table and add to the chaos of global governance?!
.
Not surprisingly, both the French and Turkish pro-climate press – the overwhelming majority – have chosen to ignore "inconvenient" news. In a recently-released study, Russian scientists (Institute for Economic Analysis) assert that the already compromised Hadley Centre and Climate Research Unit (University of East Anglia) “cherry-picked” temperature data from the vast Russian territory (only 25% of data used).
.
The report calls for the IPCC to recalculate temperature increase. This is not “flat-earthing” or a “skeptic’s rant” but what science should be about; reason, questioning, transparency, free and open debate. Unfortunately the UN “machin” will do the “climatically correct” thing, i.e. nothing.
.
In France the book by Jean-Michel Belouve (La servitude climatique; changement climatique, business et politique) is attracting more and more attention in spite of the media. It tells the tale of what the proponents of the global warming thesis do not want the general public to know. The “dirty” side of the lofty climate ideology in other words.

Economic development and a measured approach to environmental issues is what will make Turkey a better place to live in for its citizens. Following the incantations of environmentalist gurus and green-red "warriors" as our government in France is doing is a sure recipe for less prosperity and freedom. Copenhagen has failed but it is not the end of the world. Mutlu Yıllar without eco-Armageddon!

Bloavezh Mad!

A new year with less servitude and lots of happiness! As we say in Breizh (Bretagne), Bloavezh Mad!
.

Tokyo "Rainbow bridge" from Shinagawa

Vœux de nouvel an climatiquement incorrects

Le Télégramme de Brest, Le Petit Bleu, Le Pays Malouin, Le Ouest France
.
Monsieur le Rédacteur en Chef,
.
De retour au pays pour les fêtes de Noël, je constate que notre classe politique toutes tendances confondues analyse Copenhague en termes négatifs. Dans les journaux tout le monde est d'accord et répète le même message comme au temps de la Pravda des Soviets. La charmante capitale danoise, une des villes les plus eco-friendly de la planète, serait en passe de devenir synonyme de fiasco, de honte, de débâcle. En bref de Bérézina. Comme la bataille du même nom (une rivière en Russie) pour la Grande Armée (1812), le souvenir de la conférence restera graver dans les esprits des écologistes comme un traumatisme. Le parallèle me parait intéressant car la défaite des uns est toujours la victoire des autres. En ce début d'année 2010, je me sens profondément russe si l'on peut dire, et me réjouie de la déroute de l'idéologie réchauffiste !
.
Parler de “gavage” climatique en période de ripailles est un peu facile. C'est surtout politiquement incorrect. Outre-Manche où je réside comme ici, la vérité qui dérange le plus c'est que la fin du sommet et de sa «surmédiatisation » ont été accueilli avec soulagement par la majorité silencieuse. Le catastrophisme écologique n'a pas marché. Les citoyens restent dubitatifs alors que les politiques continuent de jouer les passionarias du climat. L'eurodéputée Corinne Lepage se lamente de l'échec de l'Europe et fustige dirigeants politiques et économiques (Le Monde, 23 décembre 2009). Comment prendre de tels propos au sérieux lorsque l'intéressée qui critique les “méchants” lobbies commerciaux, se fait la porte-parole du “gentil” lobby écologique de l'économie dirigiste verte que Bruxelles souhaite tant imposer! La solution préconisée (plus de pouvoirs aux institutions européennes) reviendrait à agrandir le trou déjà béant du déficit démocratique européen. Réjouissons nous plutôt que l'UE ait raté son premier test de l’aire de Lisbonne et que les appels à plus de « supranationalité » soient restés lettre morte.
.
Les idéologues anticapitalistes camouflés en vert ont raté leur coup d'état dans le bunker gris comme le remarque avec esprit l'essayiste Guy Sorman. La pyramide climatique renversée qui repose en fait sur une poignée de fonctionnaires onusiens et de scientifiques (une cinquantaine) est apparue bien fragile à Copenhague. Il y avait bien quelque chose de pourri dans le Royaume du Danemark - la conférence elle-même avec son bilan carbone record ! En fait, c'est l'ensemble de l'édifice climatique construit par quelques hommes dont les intérêts vont bien au delà de ceux des "générations futures" qui doit être revu. Le réchauffisme n'a pas rapporté que des images au gourou du GIEC, le Dr. Pachauri ainsi qu'à son compère américain Al Gore, "the green millionnaire". Il serait grand temps d'ouvrir la matriochka climatique onusienne. On y trouvera certainement autre chose que de l'altruisme et des bons sentiments. Pour mieux comprendre les enjeux, lire absolument "La servitude climatique : changement climatique, business et politique" de Jean-Michel Belouve.
.
Nos hommes politiques et ONGs menés par notre président sauveur-généralissime tous unis sous l'étendard de la "vertitude" étaient donc partis va-t-en-guerre contre le réchauffement de la planète pour assurer la survie de l'humanité. Comme la Grande Armée de Napoléon, ils sont rentrés au pays dans le froid sans gloire. Personne n'a remarqué lors de cette retraite en ordre dispersé que l’étude de l'institut de recherche moscovite, l’Institute of Economic Analysis, révélait que les centres britanniques Hadley et CRU déjà impliqués dans le « climategate » (le scandale des courriels) n'auraient en fait utilisé que 25% des données de température du vaste territoire russe. Tiens un autre bidouillage ? Inutile d'attendre que le GIEC refasse ses calculs. Tout le monde l’a compris maintenant, le brouhaha climatique c'est avant tout une histoire de gros sous et de politique. La grande perdante c'est la science, la vraie, celle qui demande transparence, scepticisme, débat et liberté d'expression.
.
Quelle insulte pour l'humanité toute entière qui n'a eu cesse de maîtriser la nature et de s'adapter que de vouloir faire croire qu’une augmentation de température de deux degrés puisse conduire à la fin du monde, l’éco-Armageddon ! Quel gaspillage aussi. Les ressources disponibles devraient être utilisées pour résoudre les problèmes environnementaux existants. Pourtant c'est une bulle financière qui est en train d'être gonflée (celle du carbon trading) et l’Europe prêche le protectionnisme vert mettant en danger le développement des pays pauvres. Tout ceci est absurde et dangereux. A Copenhague on l’a échappé belle. Des mesures contraignantes - un traité - auraient sonné le glas du progrès et de la liberté. Les historiens français ont du se battre contre les lois mémorielles liberticides. Les scientifiques et les citoyens devront eux aussi se défendre contre la clique écolo-politico-climatique qui ne recule devant rien pour imposer sa vérité. La liberté pour la science c'est la liberté pour tous!
.
Le vrai danger n’est donc pas le climat qui change depuis 4 milliards d'années sans que les hommes de sciences n'en comprennent encore toutes les causes mais la prise de pouvoir par une minorité au nom d'une idéologie et moralité environnementaliste. Selon notre gourou national Nicolas Hulot, à Copenhague c'est la démocratie qui aurait échouée (Journal du Dimanche, 20 décembre 2009). Sur ce point il est en parfait accord avec le grand "démocrate" Hugo Chavez. Si la fin - la révolution environnementalisme - justifie les moyens, on peut craindre le pire. Méfions-nous donc des tendances totalitaires de notre intelligentsia rouge devenue verte et des journalistes qui n'osent plus la critique. Et la taxe carbone dans tout ça, une autre bérézina? Dans sa grande sagesse, le Conseil constitutionnel l’a annulée et tant pis si cette décision a laissé au vice-président du GIEC, Jean Jouzel, "un arrière goût de déception" (Le Télégramme, 30 décembre 2009). Qu'une majorité de français s'y oppose n'interpelle malheureusement personne dans les hautes sphères politico-climatiques. Cette entente pragmatique entre le gouvernement qui a besoin de remplir les caisses vides de l’Etat et la minorité écologiste qui veut imposer son diktat vert à la majorité est une grande fourberie.
.
Mes résolutions pour la nouvelle année sont donc climatiquement incorrectes puisqu'elles sont raisonnables. Soutenir le développement économique moteur de la prospérité et d’un environnement plus propre. Continuer à protéger la nature avec des gestes "verts" dictés par ma conscience. Refuser d'être réduite à une empreinte carbone. Ne pas me soumettre au règne du climatiquement correct. Dire «niet » à l'"oppression climatique" par la peur, au dirigisme écologique et au culte sacrificiel de la déesse Gaia (la terre mère), ce «nouveau» collectivisme mystique. Jamais les paroles de l'écrivain et philosophe russe Ayn Rand n'ont eu autant de pertinence aussi je lui laisse le mot de la fin: “Il va sans dire que lorsqu’on évoque un sacrifice, il y a toujours quelqu’un pour récolter les offrandes sacrificielles… L’homme qui vous parle de sacrifice parle d’esclaves et de maîtres, et il a l’intention d’être le maître”.
.
Sur la Côte d’Emeraude en 2010 soyons heureux et libre. Bloavezh Mad!
.
Veuillez agréer, Monsieur le Rédacteur en Chef, l'expression de ma plus haute considération.

Copenhagen failed but it is not the end of the world.

University of Portsmouth (UK) students newspaper
.

Do we need more “climate summiteering"? If Copenhagen is a barometer of where global governance is at, the answer is obvious. The conference was shambolic. Too much global hubris was bound to lead to nowhere. It did with global-esque proportions and we have now "climate conflict" to add to the long list of climate issues. The "climate bubble" has burst, or at least deflated, leaving the world more disunited than before. As conference garbage is being recycled, polar bears costumes put away for the inevitable next climate pow-wow, it is time to cool it and reflect. It is also time to be positive because it is not the end of the world.
.
Pointing fingers at the hosts for poor management is hypocritical. The eco-friendly Nordic nation took upon itself to organise a planetary event with the most fatuous of aim; saving humanity from eco-Armageddon. The bar was set so high that mundane issues of accreditation cards and queuing up in freezing temperatures were bound to heat up excited minds. In fairness to the organisers, theirs was a mammoth task. 192 official delegations, thousands of lawyers, lobbyists, activists, journalists and climate tourists had descended upon the capital. Everybody who was a “climate somebody” - famous or anonymous - was there, eager to be seen, filmed and heard. Handling the “touch-and-go” influx of world leaders on tight schedules, inflated egos and diverging agendas while keeping an eye on climate warriors, hooded trouble-makers, benevolent demonstrators and, the far more sinister potential threat of terrorism, was never going to be easy. The problem is elsewhere.
.
Reporting live from Copenhagen, a French radio correspondent was critical of the “Danish government's agenda”. The summit could be best described as a “clash of agendas”. Green millionnaire Al Gore came with his carbon trading agenda while poor countries came with "climate justice". Greenpeace with a lot of "climate banners". Behind the world leaders' "climate zeal" lies the naked truth of national interests. To explain President Sarkozy's newly found “vertitude” (green attitude), one needs to look at his many agendas. Hugging Brazilian trees and President Lula da Silva before the conference was primarily a trade-agenda stunt. In the declared war on fossil fuel-generated power, the state-sponsored nuclear industry stands to win a lot. But until lucrative deals are signed, something needs to be done about the state deficit (€1,500 billion). "Climate taxation" is the government's weapon of choice. Some analysts put his eagerness down to resurgent Gallic anti-Americanism, and an attempt at re-invigorating French clout in Africa now wallowing in Obamania. A lot of the "hyper-climatehood" is meant for home consumption too. With upcoming regional elections, the ruling party (UMP) needs to be in a position to counter the rise of the "climate left" (red gone green).
.
Predictably after weeks of "climate overload", most people are experiencing “climate fatigue”. In the absence of CO2 propaganda, one is strangely left with the realization that for two weeks, “Big Climate brother” had been watching and intruding into our lives. Indeed escaping the eco-moralising disseminated from the moral heights of the summit's bunker and relayed by cheerleading media, was simply impossible. Putting the kettle on for a hot brew suddenly felt like a crime. "Thou shall feel guilty" was the message. According to British journalist Christopher Booker, this is precisely the point. Scaring the populace with "climate alarmism" is how a few can impose their diktat on the rest - and naturally profit from it. Hungarian-born education expert Frank Furedi warns that governments are going down the road of turning kids into "Orwellian eco-spies" (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7830/). The fine line between raising environmental consciousness and indoctrination through fear has been crossed.
.
At times, politicians, activists and UN climate luminaries appeared so engulfed in their apocalypse rhetoric that they looked more like the high priests of a cult than the cool-headed deciders we need to address environmental issues in a sensible way. The UN "climate machin" is an unstoppable train, busy justifying its existence, hiding its "climate tricks" and fittingly driven by a railways engineer Dr. K. Pachauri. Unfortunately bad ideas never die and "climate hype" is now big business. While "climate chaos" was making the headlines, the outcome of the big bang summit was eventually decided by a few leaders. What was the background show (conference) all about one might ask? Outside the bunker in the EU, sovereign debt is mounting, economies stagnating and societies are more fragmented than ever. The prospect of social unrest is very real but leaders keep on pledging money they do not have.
.
Emerging economies need more development and freer trade, not hand-outs. Europe proposes protectionism of the green kind. "A disastrous idea" says the London-based International Policy Network (IPN) as it will hit poor countries the hardest. Failed international aid is to be revisited into a vague "climate fund". For corrupt recipient governments, this is heart-warming news because the cash will keep coming. For disappointed young activists, a word of comfort. Even with a non-binding agreement, there will be enough jobs for the "climate boys". Why worry then? “Climate crime”, warns Europol, is rising and already costing taxpayers dearly. Soon it will cost lives and those deaths will not be caused by the climate changing - it has been doing so for 4 billion years - but by decisions taken by a handful of people. The list of bad ideas goes on. The British PM with his "meilleur ami" from across the Channel now wants to turn the Union into a global "climate police" (post-conference proposal for a new agency equipped to "snitch" on countries suspected of non-compliance). Soon perhaps UN "climate-enforcing" operations...
.
Finally there is the central but clearly inconvenient question of the science upon which decisions are being taken. IPCC truth followers and opportunist politicians accuse “other thinkers” - scientists, economists, ordinary folks who dissent - of endangering the survival of humanity. In short of being heretics. This is profoundly disturbing. Yet hope is not completely lost that reason and science may prevail. The French “Academie des Sciences” quietly announced before the summit that there is no scientific consensus on global warming. More voices of reason continue to rise above the politically correct climate brouhaha. The Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) suggests that the British climate research institutes (HadleyCRUT and CRU) have “cherry-picked” (Again?!) temperature data of the vast Russian territory. Given that 75% of available data was not used, the report calls for the IPCC to recalculate temperature increase. This is not “flat-earthing” or “sceptic rant” but what science should be about; reason, questioning, transparency, free and open debate.
.
To end on a note of optimism, the failure of Copenhagen is in fact a blessing. By putting themselves under the spotlight, the proponents of warmism stood with no clothes for the whole world to see. The climate change agenda is all about high politics and (carbon) money dressed in a lofty moral garb. Is it essentially anti-freedom and anti-progress. Predictably the IPCC will blame politicians for the failed talks and hope to pursue its illiberal agenda unchallenged. We have seen it all before. When the UN fails it huffs and puffs. Then nothing. Or rather business as usual. It too must be held to account, and "climate resignations" should be tendered. The world is not short of talent and new thinking is clearly needed. In the meantime, we can now all get on with life on earth and look forward to the new year without eco-Armageddon.