Thursday, November 01, 2007

Don't Make Carbon Commodity

I have already taken the Seminar on The Environment class on the former 4th semester. To put it simple, too many lessons and discourses had fulfill my class and on another corner of my interest, they didn’t really catch the right purpose, which was to bring and to increase awareness on environmental issues as soon. There were two failed class projects and ignored individual projects or another thingy called the seminar itself. However, there are still some things to grab on. I feel that the theories were relevant with the recent tendency on international politics, which has been considered as low politics stuffs and brings you no harm if you let go off it.

Back then, the politics constantly changes and dynamically stands still as a mere movement. Eventually, ignoring environmental issues seems to humiliate the meaning of being a political actor, because they forget where they take advantage. States and political leaders are busy on handling the issues of hard politics and leaving the environment for granted. On the analysis of sustainable development, there should be a balance statue of the human factor, economic factor, and environment factor. When it’s going to get hotter, the politicians finally awake from the dream of wars.

Reconstructing the environment costs us lots of things. Establishing eco-friendly stuffs really tiring us and needs bunch of money to pay for. Moreover, awareness of most guys are low-asses. Because they are poor. Because they are industrialist bourgeoisie. And because they don’t care.
On the next summit of UNFCCC on Bali next December, 3-14, they are going to talk about carbon trading [once again and again]. As the meetings would not let the US guards off from industrial interests, it would be a hard negotiation as always. Carbon trade is an ignorance towards the Kyoto Protocol to limit your greenhouse gases emission. Plus, it allows you to spread carbon more than any states because you are more developed ones. For those who already understand, the US and the blocs are intended not to limit theirs, mainly because it will restrain their industrial activities. The US sees the smoke as a commodity, and it’s the thing that has to be changed on the paradigm. When you buy the right of the developing states to emit more smoke until it gets on the cap, it means that you are buying their right of them to produce more on the factory [which emit gases also, dumb]. In the end, the economic activities, especially the production, will easily being hampered by those carbon traders.

The leaders seemingly start to understand how important this deal is, and should be prepared for a rejection towards the carbon trades. Rather than keeping eye on a trade of smoke, I believe there should be an effort to reconstruct our nature first. It should be that way due to the basics of life. It would be a huge risk on the future of a climate change. The world now needs recovery so badly on reconstructing what’s broken from our surroundings. Unfortunately, the WTO and World Bank had spread claims and discourses that the plan of reducing carbon trade mechanism would find it edges if it doesn’t fit the world trade’s interest of free trade. How lame. Hello, smoke trade isn’t fair to be called such commodity!! It’s undoubtedly the same old song that WTO always meets the deadlocks of farming issues on their every summit, and finally it had come to Hong Kong and failed again. So why are we still defending their bloody wish up to this time? See, it has been coming to be a hard, tough politics to begin with.

They just don’t realize it sucks and would destroy the economy on the future. If we wanted to crumble US down, the carbon trades should be off from the surface of the trading activities, for the sake of themselves also. Not to mention that the global economy is now at its worst level. Adding the matter of carbon trade will not solve the problem of climate change. Let’s begin with saving the energy, and no regret to those who are stupid, because soon… soon they would follow after us.

No comments: