by Michel Chossudovsky
December 7, 2009
The following text (in annex below) was
published simultaneously by major Newspapers around the World.
It constitutes a Worldwide public relations initiative, intended
to sway public opinion into unreservedly accepting the "Global
Warming consensus". The text of the editorial was prepared by
The Guardian team.
The editorial presents an apocalyptic scenario, with global
warming ravaging the planet.
While it rightly points to the need to reduce toxic manmade
emissions, as an environmental clean air objective in its own
right, it accepts the Global Warming Consensus, outright,
without debate or discussion, as an absolute truth as outlined
by the UN Panel on Climate Change.
It fails to acknowledge the broader scientific debate on climate
change. It also fails to address the controversy behind the data
base on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.
The evidence that CO2 is the sole cause of Global
Warming is questionable, as revealed by
numerous scientific studies.
There has been, in this regard, a persistent attempt to silence
the critics as conveyed in the writings of MIT meteorologist
Richard S. Lindzen
Climate of Fear:
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into
silence - 7 April 2007)
Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant
funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as
industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies
about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the
face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
CO2 emissions are heralded in the editorial as the single and
most important threat to the future of humanity.
The authors of the editorial believe that,
"the politicians in
Copenhagen have the power to shape history's judgment on this
Our understanding is that the politicians from NATO countries,
who will be attending the Copenhagen Venue, invariably act on
behalf of the interests of the financial establishment, the oil
companies and the defense contractors.
In this regard, it is worth noting that key decisions and
COP15 have already been wrapped up at the World
Business Summit on Climate Change (WBSCC) held in May in
Copenhagen, six months ahead of COP15.
The WBSCC brought together some of the World's most prominent
business executives and World leaders including
Al Gore and UN
Secretary General Ban Ki Moon. (The World Business Summit on
The results of these high level consultations are contained in a
"summary report for policymakers" drafted by
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, on behalf the corporate executives
participating in the event.
This report, which has been
forwarded to the participating governments, has very little to
do with environmental protection.
It largely consists in a
profit driven agenda, which uses the global warming consensus as
(For details see
Climate Council: The World
Business Summit on Climate Change)
"The underlying ambition of the [WBSCC] Summit was to address
the twin challenges of climate change and
the economic crisis.
Participants at the Summit considered how these risks can be
turned into opportunity if business and governments work
together, and what policies, incentives, and investments will
most effectively stimulate low-carbon growth."
What is the hidden agenda behind the Copenhagen CO15 Summit?
The Global Warming consensus is being used to justify a
lucrative multibillion carbon trading scheme which seeks to
enrich corporations and financial institutions to the detriment
of the developing countries.
According to the editorial:
"Social justice demands that the
industrialized world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash
to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean
technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing
This carbon trading scheme does not serve the interests of
social justice. Quite the opposite.
What is now being
contemplated is a multibillion trade in Carbon Derivatives:
banks are slated 'to make a killing' on carbon trading, with...
a very high probability of massive fraud and insider trading in
the carbon trading markets."
The Multibillion Trade in Carbon Derivatives)
In a bitter irony, the
architect of Credit
Default Swaps at JP Morgan is behind the development of a
trading system in "Carbon Derivatives".
While we share the concerns of the environmentalists, there is
no reason to uphold something which is untrue or questionable to
reach stated environmental goals.
Reducing toxic manmade emissions, preserving biodiversity,
protecting wildlife and preventing deforestation need not be
viewed as subordinate and instrumental to reducing the tide of
These are objectives in their own right.
The implementation of an environmental program geared explicitly
towards reducing environmental contamination and pollution at
the national and international levels requires neither the
Global Warming Consensus, nor a profit driven carbon trading
December 7, 2009
Copenhagen climate change conference
'Fourteen days to seal history's judgment on this generation'
December 7, 2009
This editorial will be published tomorrow by 56 newspapers around
the world in 20 languages including Chinese, Arabic and Russian. The
text was drafted by a Guardian team during more than a month of
consultations with editors from more than 20 of the papers involved.
Like the Guardian most of the newspapers have taken the unusual step
of featuring the editorial on their front page.
This editorial calling for action from world leaders on climate
change is published today by 56 newspapers around the world in 20
Copenhagen climate change summit - opening day liveblog.
Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the
unprecedented step of
speaking with one voice through a common editorial.
We do so because
humanity faces a profound emergency.
Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will
ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security.
dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts
have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest
on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year's inflamed
oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In
scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to
blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage.
so far the world's response has been feeble and half-hearted.
Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that
will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be
determined in the next 14 days. We call on the representatives of
the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to
fall into dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity
from the greatest modern failure of politics.
This should not be a
fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and
west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by
The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to
take steps to limit temperature rises to 2°C, an aim that will
require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next
A bigger rise of 3-4°C - the smallest increase we can
prudently expect to follow inaction - would parch continents,
turning farmland into desert.
Half of all species could become
extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations
drowned by the sea. The
controversy over emails by British
researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data
has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on
which these predictions are based.
Few believe that Copenhagen can any longer produce a fully polished
treaty; real progress towards one could only begin with the arrival
Obama in the White House and the reversal of
US obstructionism. Even now the world finds itself at the mercy of
American domestic politics, for the president cannot fully commit to
the action required until the US Congress has done so.
But the politicians in Copenhagen can and must agree the essential
elements of a fair and effective deal and, crucially, a firm
timetable for turning it into a treaty. Next June's UN climate
meeting in Bonn should be their deadline.
As one negotiator put it:
"We can go into extra time but we can't afford a replay."
At the deal's heart must be a settlement between the rich world and
the developing world covering how the burden of fighting climate
change will be divided - and how we will share a newly precious
resource: the trillion or so tonnes of carbon that we can emit
before the mercury rises to dangerous levels.
Rich nations like to point to the arithmetic truth that there can be
no solution until developing giants such as China take more radical
steps than they have so far.
But the rich world is responsible for
most of the accumulated carbon in the atmosphere - three-quarters of
all carbon dioxide emitted since 1850. It must now take a lead, and
every developed country must commit to deep cuts which will reduce
their emissions within a decade to very substantially less than
their 1990 level.
Developing countries can point out they did not cause the bulk of
the problem, and also that the poorest regions of the world will be
hardest hit. But they will increasingly contribute to warming, and
must thus pledge meaningful and quantifiable action of their own.
Though both fell short of what some had hoped for, the recent
commitments to emissions targets by the
world's biggest polluters,
the United States and China, were important steps in the right
Social justice demands that the industrialized world digs deep into
its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to
climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow
economically without growing their emissions.
The architecture of a
future treaty must also be pinned down - with rigorous multilateral
monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible
assessment of "exported emissions" so that the burden can eventually
be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting
products and those who consume them.
And fairness requires that the
burden placed on individual developed countries should take into
account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members,
often much poorer than "old Europe", must not suffer more than their
The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill
for bailing out global finance - and far less costly than the
consequences of doing nothing.
Many of us, particularly in the developed world, will have to change
our lifestyles. The era of flights that cost less than the taxi ride
to the airport is drawing to a close. We will have to shop, eat and
travel more intelligently.
We will have to pay more for our energy,
and use less of it.
But the shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more
opportunity than sacrifice. Already some countries have recognized
that embracing the transformation can bring growth, jobs and better
quality lives. The flow of capital tells its own story: last year
for the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy
than producing electricity from fossil fuels.
Kicking our carbon habit within a few short decades will require a
feat of engineering and innovation to match anything in our history.
But whereas putting a man on the moon or splitting the atom were
born of conflict and competition, the coming carbon race must be
driven by a collaborative effort to achieve collective salvation.
Overcoming climate change will take a triumph of optimism over
pessimism, of vision over short-sightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln
called "the better angels of our nature".
It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have
united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national
and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then
surely our leaders can too.
The politicians in Copenhagen have the power to shape history's
judgment on this generation:
We implore them to make the right choice.