Home | About | Donate

No More False Solutions: Rising Call to Ban Corporate Polluters From UN Talks


#1

No More False Solutions: Rising Call to Ban Corporate Polluters From UN Talks

Sarah Lazare, staff writer

Corporate polluters are driving global warming and must not be allowed to steer—or even participate in—the ongoing processes of the United Nations whose stated aim is to develop global solutions to the climate crisis, a coalition of civil society organizations declared Wednesday.

Twenty organizations, including Amazon Watch and Climate Action Network International, delivered a petition to "kick big polluters out of climate policy"—bearing 224,000 signatures—to the UN climate talks in Bonn, Germany.


#2

Why the hell does the Paris conference need to be sponsored by anybody, let alone a bunch of polluting corporations? Get corporations out of the negotiating room.


#3

What good would it do to remove corporate lobbyists from the room? That would leave the government reps--and virtually all of the governments are owned by the same corporations. We are constantly told that lifestyle change is not enough, that we need national and international level policy change. Well, we aren't going to get it, probably ever, although it's possible that once it's way too late to stop catastrophic change and the impacts are hitting everywhere hard--we will then get appropriate legislation. It won't help--we have to have drastic change NOW. So we need to stop wasting our time trying to influence these corpogovernment meetings, and talk about what we the people can do to save ourselves, not only from climate change but from myriad other environmental crises, stupid wars, ubiquitous injustice, and everything else that flows from letting sociopaths rule the world.


#4

Aren't there also some non-governmental organizations invited to the conference? I hope it all comes down to a question of money so that it will be possible to pay the fossil fuel firms money to KEEP IT IN THE GROUND--enough money to maintain the fossil fuel extracting firms' incomes as a percentage of world GDP and get their consent to replace fossil fuel with renewable energy. As far as sheer raw political power is concerned too big to fail international corporations very much including a few dozen fossil fuel extracting firms hold way more political power than all the consumers and non-governmental organizations put together. And too big to fail international corporations own the federal government and probably many other national governments have BOUGHT them thoroughly. The too big to fails have a very short time horizon--at most ten years, which is a blink of the eye compared to the length of time it will take the climate change **** to hit the fan.


#5

Wildfire and Grace have got some good points.
"we need to stop wasting our time trying to influence these corpogovernment meetings"

All too true. When do we as humans realize that those who facilitate(d) the end of the world, knew long before the masses that they were doing so, and decided to go ahead. That that fact means that those same people are not the place to look for solutions.

Grace,
"I hope it all comes down to a question of money so that it will be possible to pay the fossil fuel firms money to KEEP IT IN THE GROUND--enough money to maintain the fossil fuel extracting firms' incomes as a percentage of world GDP and get their consent to replace fossil fuel with renewable energy"

I would really, and I mean REALLY, want this to be a viable choice. It is like my kids asking me "If you had a trillion dollars, what would you do?". Ignoring the most reliant point in that I will never have a trillion dollars. There is simply no government, no army, no police force, no world judicial system, to implement such a solution no matter who decides what.

Both people ignore the fact that it is not the oil companies who are polluting but their customers, us. This is akin to punishing drug dealers and ignoring drug users. The drug war was a massive failure and so will be our search for a solution to this problem.

It is obvious that if you were to bet, you are vastly more likely to win a bet on global demise than a radical change in human mindset, world wide. No scientist claims that this coming crises will kill all humans, but just a whole lot of um. I will hope and work for saving the planet and the human race, but my money is on preparing for the world that my children will have to try to live in.


#6

I think at this point, there needs to be a medium for people to talk among themselves, like a net forum or something. If our courts are dead to us in terms of logical debate without corporate influence, then something has to replace it. Its like nature equalling itself out. If corruption is in our courts, then it needs to be left there and the rest of us decide for ourselves how to handle these situations.


#7

false analogy: drugs vs fossil fuels

Drug users can live in this world without drugs and in fact do better without drugs.

Users of fossil fuels don't have much choice in our world unless they are very wealthy or skillful.

I want an electric car...but I can't afford it. (plus most of our electricity is not powered from clean energy sources yet) I really want solar panels and to be off grid but I can't afford it. I do have a small garden and a hybrid. a/c and try to minimize waste. I don't travel on ships or planes any longer.

It is of note that our government subsidizes fossil fuel industries much more than any sustainable approach.