No, "Transatlanticism" European! 0041 / .... The Copenhagen summit on climate change in December 2009, a milestone: for the first time, is expressed with a hardness to the extent of the challenge the clash between national interests and the need for global cooperation. On this disheveled scene stirred at a never before seen by degrees the full range of political society - protesters, activists, lobbyists, journalists, television, diplomats, ministers, heads of state - has played the first table challenge will dominate the politics of the twenty-first century: just violent or adaptation to climate change and the ecological crisis. These fifteen epic days were concluded by a final shape farce twenty heads of state giving birth on a corner table with a wobbly half refused to agree in stride by the assembly of delegates representing nations. In the morning, the leaders had gone miserably while exhausted diplomats renvoyaient to later analysis of an agreement that was not one. China, United State, Europe, Africa, India, Brazil played a wild sarabande where everyone, from the highest dignitary to the humblest sweeper, was only one actor among the huge cast of extras tune. However, nothing in this comical moment of seriousness. We had not heard. The reason we wanted to do, but the business world are they guided by reason? The rule in the United Nations (UN) is that decisions are made by consensus: not exactly unanimity, but in such a way that if a determined opposition, even minority asserts itself, the meeting discussed once again the decision to make to reach an agreement. It is certainly an expression imperfect but real global democracy based on the principle that each nation, regardless of its power, has an equal right to participate in the common choice. In Copenhagen, many South American countries, saying that the agreement was drafted in secret and without consultation, refused to approve it, leading the congregation in their wake. As usual, beware of judgments to the punch. In this case, the failure of Copenhagen stemmed from the approach adopted by the Government of Denmark, as host country, chaired the conference. Connie Hedegaard, Danish Minister for the Environment, was deemed essential membership of the United States to the text resulting from the meeting. So she took the initiative to develop a strong support for the U.S. position text, marginalizing the "UN" document that came from the difficult process of negotiation before the game. This document, however, was an effective basis for discussion. Maneuvering Hedegaard caused stiffening of the most known countries in South and throughout the conference became embroiled in the conflict between two texts and approaches. No one can say whether the UN document would have lead to an agreement. What is certain is that the Danish attempt to circumvent the democratic process of the United Nations failed. In Copenhagen, there was no failure of democracy, but bankruptcy claim to be better than democracy. This is not the place to discuss the ups and downs of the summit. But to see how, in such an important moment, an unconscious spoke. Mr. Hulot is a man of integrity and facilitated best intentions. Despite its place in democracy takes more weight. However, it is not unusual: it echoes many environmentalists voice. For the philosopher Dominique Bourg, democracy "today means a representative form of government designed during the last two centuries, and constructed so that it greatly hampers the ability to deal with major environmental problems." James Lovelock, British scientist designer of the Gaia theory, goes further: he believes that in the face of ecological crisis, "it is necessary that some people with authority and confidence that we have run the business should really. to have them, of course, but it can not happen in a modern democracy. It may be necessary to put democracy aside for a moment. " An Australian researcher David Shearman says for his part that "if democracy can not provide leadeship and action on climate change, its survival must be questioned." And he co-authored a book entitled "Climate Change and the Failure of Democracy." The reasoning of those environmentalists who I respect can be stated as follows: the environmental crisis is so serious that it must take drastic measures to prevent it. These measures revêtiraient as a drastic reduction in material and energy consumption. But the ecological crisis is not immediately apparent: the destruction process at work will not feel their effects gradually. Therefore, people refuse to change their destructive lifestyle but ultimately satisfying today. As they elect their leaders - democracy - these, trying to please their constituents do not take the necessary measures. The ecological crisis will worsen beyond control. Conclusion: since democracy may adopt the necessary policy salvation, since it does not allow to take into account the interests of long-term democracy undermines sustainable well-being of humanity. And we must entrust a virtuous elite care to lead the company on the right path.
Posted on: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 11:24:16 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015