Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Lettre ouverte: M. Putine muselle les libertés
Lettre ouverte dans Le Monde de citoyens russes.
.
Dans les capitales européennes, des dirigeants épris de liberté annoncent fièrement une nouvelle ère de coopération avec la Russie. A Berlin, on se vante d'une "relation spéciale" avec Moscou tout en progressant sur de gigantesques projets énergétiques avec le monopole gazier Gazprom. A Rome, Silvio berlusconi rentre d'un voyage à Saint-Pétersbourg, où il a fêté le 59e anniversaire de son "ami"Vladimir Poutine. Et, à Paris, les négociations avancent sur la vente de navires de classe Mistral, porte-hélicoptères ultramodernes..... More.
.
In the field of cutlure, the year of Russia in France and of France in Russia (en russe).
The "mistral" is a strong southerly thermal wind blowing in the south of France. Quite unpredictable and treacherous for sailors.
.
Dans les capitales européennes, des dirigeants épris de liberté annoncent fièrement une nouvelle ère de coopération avec la Russie. A Berlin, on se vante d'une "relation spéciale" avec Moscou tout en progressant sur de gigantesques projets énergétiques avec le monopole gazier Gazprom. A Rome, Silvio berlusconi rentre d'un voyage à Saint-Pétersbourg, où il a fêté le 59e anniversaire de son "ami"Vladimir Poutine. Et, à Paris, les négociations avancent sur la vente de navires de classe Mistral, porte-hélicoptères ultramodernes..... More.
.
In the field of cutlure, the year of Russia in France and of France in Russia (en russe).
The "mistral" is a strong southerly thermal wind blowing in the south of France. Quite unpredictable and treacherous for sailors.
Friday, February 19, 2010
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!
Monday, February 15, 2010
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
.
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
Saturday, January 16, 2010
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
.
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
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
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!
.
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!
Saturday, January 2, 2010
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
