Posts tagged with: united nations

In response to backlash from China for awarding the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo, one of the Middle Kingdom’s best-known democracy activists, Nobel Committee Chairman Thorbjorn Jagland penned a New York Times op-ed to defend the committee’s decision.  He begins:

“The Chinese authorities’ condemnation of the Nobel Committee’s selection of Liu Xiaobo, the jailed political activist, as the winner of the 2010 Peace Prize inadvertently illustrates why human rights are worth defending.”

So far, so good.  From scathing op-eds in government newspapers to cancellation of low-level meetings with Norway, China has not hesitated to express its fervent opposition to Liu’s newfound fame.  Through its hasty and abrasive response–which included a detention of Liu’s wife–China has vindicated the Nobel Committee in full.  Jagland continues:

“The authorities assert that no one has the right to interfere in China’s internal affairs.  But they are wrong: international human rights law and standards are above the nation-state, and the world community has a duty to ensure they are respected.

The idea of sovereignty changed…during the last century, as the world moved from nationalism to internationalism.  The United Nations, founded in the wake of two disastrous world wars, committed member states to resolve disputes by peaceful means and defined the fundamental rights of all people in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  The nation-state, the declaration said, would no longer have ultimate, unlimited power.”

Here Jagland’s argument begins to founder.  While the idea of an ultimately omnipotent world government is a tantalizing prospect to some, it is more the stuff of dreams than of reality.  Composing the ranks of United Nations leadership are Russia, which exercises ownership over more than half of all local newspapers and periodicals, Uganda, whose military dabbles in child-soldiering, and China, where administrative detention remains a potent weapon at the government’s disposal.  How is it that such countries are able to hold leadership posts within an organization premised on peace and progress?  Simple.  States have always been, and will foreseeably be, the primary units of the international system–hence ‘United Nations,’ denoting a unity (however tenuous) of various countries with disparate goals, priorities, and mores.  If human rights are to be promoted, the process must occur organically and locally, and not by international imposition.

Strangely absent from Jagland’s piece is a clear explanation as to why governments should respect their citizens’ rights.  At best, he seems to suggest that they should do so because, well, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights tells them to; and besides, it’s the right thing to do.  This, however, is a farce.  Oppressive governments are not going to pursue freedom because it is admirable or popular.  Rather, a higher purpose must prevail: the individual must be seen to possess dignity and worth that is divinely bestowed and eternally bound.  Finally, governments must be persuaded that genuine respect and freedom for the individual yields tremendous economic, political, and cultural fruit.  A more complex foundation is essential.

Freedom advocates like Mr. Jagland are without doubt our strategic partners in the great cause of liberty.  It is our duty, as those blessed with political and religious understanding, to communicate to them the true complexity of the battle we wage.

Robert Joustra, writing on the website of the Canadian think tank Cardus, has published a thoughtful review of Jordan Ballor’s Ecumenical Babel: Confusing Economic Ideology and the Church’s Social Witness. The reviewer understands that when,

… controversial social science infiltrates ecclesial confessions, twin dangers emerge: compromising the integrity of the Gospel, and splitting the church on political and economic issues. Ecumenical superstructures claiming to speak with ecclesial authority on technical matters worry me, even when technical experts are enlisted. The point is not just that expertise can be limited in these cases—it’s that different institutions have differing spheres of authority and competency.

How, then, should the church speak? Ballor provides good signposts by talking about churches preaching justice, rather than prescribing policy. The environment, for example, must be stewarded and protected, certainly. But does that specifically mean cap and trade or renewable energy investment? Should the church as denomination really have an opinion on these particular issues? Wouldn’t such an opinion violate its own sphere of authority and uncomfortably blur lines with the task of government and public policy? Accountability on principles is one thing; policy advocacy is quite another.

Joustra weighs in none too soon. Over the past few days, Christian ecumenical organizations have been busy issuing press releases and official statements in and around and following the UN summit on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which took place in New York on Sept. 20-22.

Typical of the language employed by the ecumenical-industrial complex (Jordan’s apt phrase) are these lines from a letter sent by World Council of Churches general secretary Rev. Dr Olav Fykse Tveit to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon:

In pursuit of just trade, churches have specifically called for international regulations to end agricultural import dumping which has displaced and impoverished millions of small farmers. Just trade also means addressing declining terms of trade faced by developing countries by establishing international commodity agreements setting stable base prices for products.

[ ... ]

Insofar as nation-states have the responsibility for upholding peoples’ economic, social and cultural rights, the MDG Review Summit must put in place binding mechanisms and accountability frameworks to ensure that commitments are met and the maximum of resources are made available for the MDGs.

You would think from reading this that ending global poverty was simply a matter of the UN master minds “regulating” the global economy and dumping more money into the MDG programs. Fortunately, no such power is vested in the UN.

Read the Joustra review. He warns that “a tyrannizing ecumenical agenda fashioned from all-too-controversial political and economic assumptions stands to do more harm than good.” Is it too much to hope that Ecumenical Babel gets a reading at the UN or WCC?

The front page of a recent issue of the Vatican daily L’Osservatore Romano read like an Italian “Help Wanted” listing: “Lavori per Giovani Cercasi” (cf. Aug. 13 2010).

Unfortunately, this eye-catching headline was not a classified ad targeting young professionals for job openings at the Holy See’s many curial and administrative offices – the prized “stable” positions that would have Roman youth queuing in lines much longer those to enter Sunday Mass at St. Peter’s Basilica!

Rather, the Vatican newspaper summarized alarming statistics on worldwide youth unemployment released by the United Nations International Labor Office (ILO) in its detailed 87-page Global Employment Trends for Youth. In its special report the ILO confirmed global unemployment rates for young men and women (ages 15-24) are caught in a dangerous tailspin.

In only a two-year span between 2007 and 2009, an estimated 81 million out of 620 million youth have lost jobs –the unfortunate fall out from the massive lay-offs, non-renewed contracts, and start up bankruptcies during the Great Recession. That’s an average 13% unemployment rate for a young generation whose lives are on pause at critical stages of their vocational and financial development.

Some naysayers claim we are witnessing a veritable free fall into what may be a very long and bitter winter for job seekers, further extended by inevitable “double dip” periods of recession. So pessimistic are they, that we hear them quip: the currently frozen jobs market has activated a financial Ice Age. They argue that world’s unemployed youth are stuck in a very long-term socio-economic downturn in which many of them may never fulfill their basic dreams without stable jobs. Hence they can forget about plans for marriage, having children, purchasing homes, and saving for proper retirement.

Well short of claiming that the sky is falling, in the very least we can agree wit the ILO report: rising unemployment among youth will surely “lead to socio-economic instability and political unrest.”

NEETs and Nullafacenti

A 13% youth unemployment rate would be a “dream figure” for some industrialized countries, like Italy where I live and work. Here average unemployment for the same age bracket hovers regularly above 20% and drastically worsens when counting those young adults older than 25 who are not counted in most official unemployment figures.

Those young Italians who procrastinate entry into the workforce by not graduating university on time or who are still stuck in the starting blocks of their career by taking on un-paid company apprenticeships are typically not counted as unemployed. When we include them in the unemployment statistics, some estimates rise to well over 30%.

Finally, there is the most worrying segment of the young jobless population: the so-called NEETs (Not in Employment or Education or Training). In Italy, NEETs have now reached two million and account for over 21% of the country’s unemployed youth. NEETs are often tarred and feathered as the nation’s nullafacenti (“do nothings”), who help Italy maintain the number one EU position for this ever-growing detriment to society. They invest absolutely nothing in themselves to find traditional jobs or create entrepreneurial business opportunities – a financial and social welfare time bomb just waiting to explode.

To prove my point, just watch this TV5 clip (see minutes 12.20-13:50). Last week on Italian national television, reporters covered the shocking story of a 25 year-old NEET male (living at home in a city near Rome) who violently threatened his parents, extorted them, and even locked them out of their own house as he demanded more “allowance” money to satisfy his various material caprices. Eventually local police had to intervene to subdue the nullafacente and “restore” the official property rights of his parents own home.

Adverse vs. Difficult Conditions

All this is going on while the 2010-11 forecast for economic growth in Europe appears dim, as the Old Continent sputters along a very trepid economic recovery.

In Euro-zone countries official reports for the first quarter of 2010 were modest at best and downright dismal in economies of its weakest Mediterranean partners, like Italy, Spain and Greece. Second quarter reports released on August 13 by Euro Stat were not inspiring either, with average Euro-zone GDP growth rates up by a mere 1%.

When studying conditions in impoverished and developing countries, our heartstrings are tugged by the increasing impossibility for young people to succeed while paralyzed by a most vicious circle of economic, political and social turmoil (no fault of their own!). These include massive obstacles such as absolute tyranny, decades of civil war and genocide, widespread corruption, little or now rule of law, no direct foreign investment, no regular lines of credit, devastating droughts and famines, deathly outbreaks of easily treatable diseases, faulty telecommunications, et al.

Now these are what I call adverse conditions. These are conditions which all but crush any chances youth have to find and create new work, despite their high ambitions, inventive strategies, and sincere vocations in their line of business. Their odds will improve only if radical changes and revolutions occur in their societies.

Yet, we cannot say the same about the chances of youth finding and creating work while living in the world’s largest but struggling industrialized economies, like Italy. Comparatively speaking, this is still a land in which youth can make it in life. Here some of the world’s most creative and unrelenting businessmen achieve success, even despite suffocating regional and national tax structures, turf wars with mafioso thugs, and a near bankrupt social welfare state in times of austerity. Believe it or not, it is still possible for enterprising youth to make it in Italy. It may be very difficult to succeed here, but not impossible as in, say, Cuba or North Korea. Far from it.

Too Much Dolce Vita?

Some stats claim an amazing 70 percent of Italian single men and women (both employed and unemployed) live at home until their mid-to-late 30s. Some critics from hardworking cultures typically say this population group lives the “sweet life”, a.k.a. the dolce vita. Others defend the socio-economic phenomenon, claiming this is the only way youth can save for a future home and a car down payment or to help keep their parents’ household afloat. In either case, they enjoy the benefits of a secure and relatively struggle-free home environment. In Italy no 15-24 year-olds starve or sleep on the street.

However they view themselves, Italian youth usually fail to appreciate that living at home provides a tremendous financial opportunity for them. Unlike others living own their own and barely making ends meet, they can save up small amounts capital over time to try their luck in entrepreneurial ventures on their own or in partnership with others who share their same business concept. This is what I think the Vatican newspaper meant to inspire, when it said youth should live up to their potential as the “forza motrice” (driving force) of the world’s teetering economy.

After all, in addition to being able to save a little venture capital, they have assets and resources that impoverished and developing nations would fight tooth over nail for. They are private owners of smart phones and wireless lap taps, have 24/7 internet access, enjoy affordable higher education (and cheap advanced education), have efficient and very inexpensive transport around the European Union (God Bless Ryan Air!), and can easily request small start up business loans – typically up to €5000 (with their parents as guarantors) to secure a little more investment capital.

And yet so many bitter young Italians sit idle in their beautiful piazzas with nothing better to do.

Ironically these historic squares were not built for modern day-dreamers, but to host and encourage vibrant hubs of entrepreneurial trading during Renaissance times –the very period that gave inspiration to the free market as we know it.

Notwithstanding, Italian youth know not their past nor perceive well their futures. They blame everyone from Berlusconi to the Madonna (not the pop-star!) for having no opportunities.

Parents Should Be Furious

The Vatican news piece of two weeks ago (written on Friday the 13th, another reason to blame the bad stats!) should have been dedicated to a story on inspiring young business leadership in the recession market. They should have interviewed a young Italian entrepreneur, a friend of mine, whose marketing agency was built on less than €1000 start up capital. It now approaches six figures in annual revenue and the business owner is now attempting to purchase his own home, get married and is considering hiring other young collaborators to help take his venture to the next level (yes he is about to create new jobs!).

Italian parents should furious, just like the master in Christ’s Parable of the Talents, whose timid servant had simply buried the meager capital he had received. The risk aversion is the same for Italian upper and middle class youth who do nothing worthwhile, even with a generous €200 paghetto (monthly allowance) that some of them receive. Worse still, they blow it at bars, movie theaters and cell phone shops. Did they know that some successful internet businesses humbly start with that very same amount?

Perhaps it boils down to a question of values – values instilled in youth by an overly cautious post-war generation of parents who insist their offspring find the golden fleece of work (i.e. un posto fisso or permanent union-protected job). Their encouragement has done little but create false hopes in youth.

Sadly, this values system is broken. In Italy, we can no longer use the same macroeconomic and political “excuses” to define the youth’s scapegoats, like we still can in developing and impoverished countries or in 1940s post-World War II Europe. In modern industrialized, but often struggling countries like Italy, the forza motrice must be the the current generation of enterprising youth, whether they like it or not. To do so, they need to finally switch gears and overcome their aversion to risk, discover their special callings in life, invest their talents in worthwhile projects, and once again prove they are one of the most creative and resilient cultures on earth.

For those among us who do not follow the particularities of United Nations programs and declarations, apart from birthdays and anniversaries June 5 might pass every year without much special notice. But every year since 1972, the United Nations Environment Programme has set aside June 5 to observe World Environment Day (WED), designed to be “one of the principal vehicles through which the United Nations stimulates worldwide awareness of the environment and enhances political attention and action.”

On this WED, we pause to look at another vehicle for promotion of the environmental worldview, the recent remake of the film The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008). In last year’s iteration of the 1951 sci-fi classic, Keanu Reeves stars as Klaatu, an alien visitor who takes on the body of a human being in order to determine the best way to engage the situation on planet Earth. [Spoilers after the jump...]


(more…)

In this week’s Acton Commentary, I explore the differing mainstream cultural views of gun rights and abortion in the United States and Europe. The point of departure is last month’s Supreme Court decision in DC v. Heller (07-290) striking down the District’s handgun ban (SCOTUSblog round-up on the decision here).

In “Guns, Foreign Courts, and the Moral Consensus of the International Community,” I write that the “tendency to invoke foreign jurisprudence is becoming more troubling as it becomes clearer that the moral consensus that once united Western nations has almost entirely broken down.”

As Paul J. Cella commented on a number of related stories at home and abroad, “We are only a tendentious opinion from one of the Liberal Usurpers on the Court, or their creature Kennedy, under the spell of the New York-DC elite adulation — one tendentious opinion citing foreign law, or sweet mystery of life, or mystical evolving standards, away from the same tyranny that would send the homeowner who defends his wife against thugs to jail, while showering the thugs with sympathy.”

At the same time the Court was deciding Heller, it ruled “that imposing the death penalty for child rape violates the Eight Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.” La Shawn Barber has details on the difficulties surrounding that decision, but in relation to the topic of my commentary I want to point out that the EU Constitution in its original form as circulated for ratification in 2004, under Article II-62, titled “Right to life,” held in part, “No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.” At the same time this article made no explicit or special mention of abortion.

For more insight into the disconnect between the UN/EU on the one side and the US on the other over gun rights, see Kenneth Anderson’s illuminating post, “International Gun Control Efforts?” (HT: The Volokh Conspiracy).

As Mike Huckabee was wont to say, we wouldn’t have the First Amendment without the Second. And if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have knives (that explode?!).

The U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) hosted 183 governments at a three day summit in Rome, from June 3-5. World leaders tried to find possible solutions in order to tackle the recent food crisis which has already caused hunger and civil unrest in several developing countries. Jacques Diouf Director General of FAO asked for $30 billion a year in extra financing to the United Nations needed to address world hunger threatening 862 million people.

Despite international efforts and estimates, the situation appears to be far more complex and certainly requires more than just a call for greater funding and a return to discredited subsistence economies. There is an alarming “silence” on what has contributed to this crisis and on what possible solutions already exist and can be found in Catholic social teaching.

The market economy, for instance, should not be looked upon with suspicion of greed and pure self-interest. Instead, the market economy has defeated poverty and paved the way for democracy, the promotion of human dignity, all important values of Christian social thought. It should, therefore, be considered as a resource used to fight corruption and misgovernment part of many developing countries affected by this crisis.

New solutions are, likewise, urgently required. Archbishop Silvano Tommasi, head of the Holy See’s office to the U.N. in Geneva, clearly pointed this out in an interview with the Vatican Radio. He also stressed the need to support local entrepreneurs and small farmers, encouraging them not to abandon the agricultural market.

Pope Benedict XVI in his address to the FAO summit also called for new solutions, defining this crisis as “unacceptable.” Highlighted by Zenit, the Pope underlined the need for “political action which, inspired by those principles of natural law written in man’s heart, protects the dignity of the individual.” He also underlined the need to “increase the availability of food by rewarding small farmers’ hard work and guarantee them market access; too often in fact, small farmers are penalized domestically by industrial farming and internationally by protectionist policies and practices,” as recalled by Asia News.

Diverse solutions have also been proposed by humanitarian NGOs who are following the FAO Summit, such as Oxfam, Medecins Sans Frontiers, and Care, who are condemning traditional financial aid, specifying the need to, once again, eliminate bio-fuels, protectionists regimes, VAT on food and the need to cultivate nutrient-rich food.

Unfortunately, Catholic NGOs such as Caritas Europa, FOCSIV, and Sant’egidio still do not seem to have an opinion on the matter. It is a great loss to the creativity needed for solving this crisis. These Catholic NGOs have field projects in several developing countries and surely with their longstanding experience could develop new perspectives to this situation in the light of Catholic social teaching.

Blog author: jcouretas
posted by on Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Nearly two years ago, in “Who Will Protect Kosovo’s Christians?” I wrote:

Dozens of churches, monasteries and shrines have been destroyed or damaged since 1999 in Kosovo, the cradle of Orthodox Christianity in Serbia. The Serbian Orthodox Church lists nearly 150 attacks on holy places, which often involve desecration of altars, vandalism of icons and the ripping of crosses from Church rooftops. A March 2004 rampage by Albanian mobs targeted Serbs and 19 people, including eight Kosovo Serbs, were killed and more than 900 injured, according Agence France Press. The UN mission in Kosovo, AFP said, reported that 800 houses and 29 Serb Orthodox churches and monasteries – some of them dating to the 14th century — were torched during the fighting. NATO had to rush 2,000 extra troops to the province to stop the destruction.

All this happened despite the presence of UN peacekeeping forces. According to news reports posted by the American Council for Kosovo, Albanian separatists are opposing the expansion of military protection of Christian holy sites by UN forces. A main concern of Christians is the fate of the Visoki Decani Monastery – Kosovo’s only UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Now that Albanian separatists have declared the Serbian province of Kosovo to be an independent nation — and won backing from President Bush — a chain of events has been put in place that EU lawmakers are already describing as a Pandora’s Box.

Why? Because the secessionist move in Serbia is likely to kindle others in places like Georgia, Moldova and Russia (which now much entertain similar aspirations from places like Abkhazia, South Ossetia, or Transdniester). This explains Russia’s opposition to the Kosovo breakaway, but it’s not alone. Spain, which has contended with Basque, Catalan and Galician separatist movements for decades, refused to recognize an independent Kosovo, saying the move was illegal. Then there’s Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and Cyprus. Some Asian countries also view the Kosovo split as a dangerous precedent. Sri Lanka said the move was a violation of the UN Charter. Canada has officially remained mum on the question so far.

For a good balanced look ahead for Kosovo, see “After Kosovo’s Secession,” by Lee Hudson Teslik on the Council of Foreign Relations Web site, and the online debate between Marshall F. Harris, Senior Policy Advisor, Alston + Bird, and Alan J. Kuperman, Assistant Professor, University of Texas, LBJ School of Public Affairs.

But I am a skeptic, in case you were wondering. (more…)

Blog author: amanda.pawloski
posted by on Monday, February 18, 2008

“The challenge of climate change is at once individual, local, national and global. Accordingly, it urges a multilevel coordinated response, with mitigation and adaptation programs simultaneously individual, local, national and global in their vision and scope”, stated Archbishop Celestino Migliore, representative of the Holy See, at the 62nd session of the U.N. General Assembly, which took place earlier this month. The theme of the session was “Addressing Climate Change: The United Nations and the World at Work.”

Much attention is being given to climate change in the wake of EU President Jose Manuel Barroso’s new climate control plan. President Barroso’s proposal, released in January, intends to control greenhouse gas emissions through heavy legislation. The “20/20/20 by 2020” goals are ambitious; cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20%, produce 20% of its energy from renewable sources, and increase energy efficiency by 20% no later than the year 2020. The EU intends to lead the way in implementing greener energy systems, despite the heavy criticism it has drawn from some of its chief member states, namely France and Germany.

Big business is getting in on the renewable energy bandwagon. General Motors, for example, has announced plans to design at least half their vehicles to run on ethanol.

Meanwhile, in the media reports keep coming concerning the uncertainty that biofuel hype is going to have the desired long-term effect for global warming. Experts argue that the production of biofuels may give off cleaner emissions, but will require more energy to manufacture. Economists are eyeing rising food prices -especially corn- with worry. Demonstrations over the price of staple foods in Mexico and Indonesia last summer were attributed to the U.S. trial in promoting ethanol at the gas pump.

The Vatican repeatedly affirms that man is responsible for the environment. “Consumers must be aware that their consumption patterns have direct impact on the health of the environment,” Archbishop Migliore said at the U.N. “Thus through interdependence, solidarity and accountability, individuals and nations together will be more able to balance the needs of sustainable development with those of good stewardship at every level.”

Nevertheless, responsibility towards the environment does not usurp responsibility towards one’s fellow man, and this is implicit in Archbishop Migliore’s address. While President Barroso and the EU, worry themselves about what to do with climate change, poor countries may be watching their daily bread disappear into gas tanks and industrial energy due to ill-advised legislation and propaganda. Lack of regard for scientific input and global economic effects is contemptible, no matter how officials may applaud their green conscience.

It’s not uncommon for those of us who find ourselves on the skeptical side of the great climate change debate to be accused of deliberately shading or outright misrepresenting scientific research in order to obscure the dire nature of the crisis at hand. We do this, our accusers claim, out of pure greed – either we are bought off by corporations who stand to become much less profitable should strong action be taken on this issue, we personally stand to lose money because of our investments in said corporations, or something else along those lines.

The reality of the situation is almost 180° opposite. For example, let’s take the world’s most popular climate alarmist, Al Gore. The standard story on Gore is that he functions as a modern prophet, bravely speaking scientific truth to the masses out of nothing but genuine concern for our dear planet which faces an unprecedented crisis; his science is unimpeachable, and therefore it would be beneath him to engage his critics, who will one day be revealed as the idiots that they truly are, and are thus to be pitied rather than feared.

This man is not being honest with you.

Reality check: Gore is already making a significant amount of money off of global warming hysteria, and stands to pocket a whole lot more if governments adopt his “solutions” to the “crisis.”

And what of that crisis that Gore warns us about? Is it really a crisis? Does Al Gore even believe it’s a crisis? Based on his own words, I’m not so sure. Check out this little gem of a quote, from an interview with Gore published in May of 2006 in Grist Magazine:

Q: There’s a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What’s the right mix?

A: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience’s head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the reality of the crisis, there’s going to be much more receptivity to a full-blown discussion of the solutions.

Here’s the honest translation of that statement:

  • In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality: I have been unable to convince my fellow citizens and their elected representatives of the rightness of my position because they are either thick headed or beholden to corporate interests, not because they don’t believe my science adds up.
  • And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions: There can be no legitimate opposition to my position on the climate change issue. Critics of my position are either ignorant and bamboozled by corporate spin or perfidious and a party to crimes against the environment.
  • Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem.: At this point, the only way to get my way is to cause a panic.
  • Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are: It is totally appropriate for me to lie in order to force my agenda forward.

Did you catch that? Gore is claiming for himself the right to lie – to “over-represent” the facts – in order to move public opinion toward his radical vision of the environmental future. Now, if I were a cynical person, I’d look at that statement and think that perhaps Al Gore might not be living up to his spin. I’d look at his financial stake in the carbon trading business that could make him a very wealthy man if governments adopt his policy proposals and I might start to question whether his motives are entirely pure. I’d look at his steadfast refusal to meaningfully engage his critics and wonder if his stance is truly based on confidence in science or if it’s instead part of a carefully crafted public relations campaign, designed to underline his contention that we truly face a “crisis.” And I’d even start to wonder if he really believes that we face a crisis at all.

Hmm. I must be a cynical person.

(more…)

Add another crisis to the list of problems caused by climate change – a lack of jet parking at small international airports. To be fair, this isn’t a direct consequence of climate change, but it wouldn’t be a problem in Bali, Indonesia right now if not for the big UN climate change shindig that’s going on. Via Newsbusters, a report on the urgent situation:

Tempo Interaktif reports that Angkasa Pura – the management of Bali’s Ngurah Rai International Airport are concerned that the large number of additional private charter flights expected in Bali during the UN Conference on Climate Change (UNFCCC) December 3-15, 2007, will exceed the carrying capacity of apron areas. To meet the added demand for aircraft storage officials are allocating “parking space” at other airports in Indonesia.

The operational manager for Bali’s Airport, Azjar Effendi, says his 3 parking areas can only accommodate 15 planes, which means that some of the jets used by VIP delegations will only be allowed to disembark and embark their planes in Bali with parking provided at airports in Surabaya, Lombok, Jakarta and Makassar.

It’s bad, folks. It’s really bad.

Artist’s conception of the current state of Bali Ngurah Rai International Airport – Click for full size

Adding insult to injury is this nasty little fact:

Never before have so many people converged to try to save the planet from global warming, with more than 10,000 jetting into this Indonesian resort island, from government ministers to Nobel laureates to drought-stricken farmers.

But critics say they are contributing to the very problem they aim to solve.

“Nobody denies this is an important event, but huge numbers of people are going, and their emissions are probably going to be greater than a small African country,” said Chris Goodall, author of the book “How to Live a Low-Carbon Life.”…

…The U.N. estimates 47,000 tons of carbon dioxide and other pollutants will be pumped into the atmosphere during the 12-day conference in Bali, mostly from plane flights but also from waste and electricity used by hotel air conditioners.

If correct, Goodall said, that is equivalent to what a Western city of 1.5 million people, such as Marseilles, France, would emit in a day.

But he believes the real figure will be twice that, more like 100,000 tons, close to what the African country of Chad churns out in a year.

A couple of questions spring to mind:

  • have these folks ever heard of videoconferencing?
  • If that isn’t possible, wouldn’t it make more sense to hold the conference in a place served by many airlines that already fly regularly scheduled routes rather than a place that requires so many chartered flights? Say, someplace exotic like, oh, I don’t know – how about… New York?

A hat tip on the carbon footprint link goes to Texas Rainmaker, who closes this update with a friendly reminder:

The conference is aimed at developing a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol, the treaty whose members actually increased greenhouse emissions after ratifying it.