Viewing Message #8
Dear Colleagues,
Firstly let me wish you all a very pleasant holiday period and a less depressing New Year than its predecessor. (There’s no harm in hoping!)
Next year will see many changes in our organisation. By April 2008, we hope to have fully operational our policy formulation system, whereby Adopters contribute to and participate in the formulation of Simultaneous Policy. This will make us the second country after the UK, to put this system in place. With two such sites operational, Simpol International should be able to activate and start refining the machinery for coordinating SP formulation between different national affiliates. This will represent a significant step on the Movement’s road to its intended destination. If you go to our Website, you will see a new item on the menu relating to policy formulation, which will demonstrate the process we are about to implement.
There will also, at John Bunzl’s suggestion, be a significant change in our approach to Adoption. Simpol-NZ will be acting as a test bed for these changes, which, it is anticipated, will ultimately spread throughout Simpol International’s affiliates. We have been finding that many to whom the Simpol idea has been presented, show themselves to be entirely sympathetic to its aims and understanding of its approach. However, they still do not go through the formality of “Adoption.” We get words, but we don’t get the required action of filling in the form and thereby giving us the muscle with which to impress electoral candidates. This might be due to several reasons; reluctance to commit themselves to a particular course of action in the unknown circumstances of an election campaign that is yet to take place; forgetfulness or a lack of any sense of urgency; a despair that one person’s actions in this matter will have zero effect on the national or global outcome; etc..
We plan therefore to introduce a system whereby the essence of participating in the Simpol movement will not necessarily involve formally “Adopting” SP. Instead, newcomers to Simpol will be asked to signify their support for our project by writing to their MP on an international matter that is of particular concern to them. At the bottom of this newsletter you’ll find a sample of the sort of letter we are looking at. We will offer those who wish to participate, a variety of templates they can use – naturally, they’ll be free to write their own letter from scratch if they prefer.
This impending change is all very much at a draft stage at the moment. Much more thought and planning has to go into its finalisation and implementation. This is just to give you an early alert and to tell you that any of your thoughts on this development will be welcome.
On another matter of great importance, I wish to share a few observations on the recent Bali Summit on climate change. The mainstream media, anxious as usual not to alarm the cows peacefully grazing the paddock of unbridled consumerism, are hard at work lulling us into believing that our wonderful leadership have risen magnificently to the challenge and that they will have the whole problem of global warming under control by the end of 2009. Relax, spend and be happy!
Here is a brief resume of the dynamics of the conference as described immediately before its conclusion by a White House sympathetic, but “independent” private sector intelligence agency (Stratfor.)
Geopolitical Diary: Climate Negotiations Heat up in Bali
The negotiations took place between three major blocs -- the European Union, United States and China – forget everyone else –they don’t really count.
The EU Position. The European Union needs a climate agreement, and hopes to control that agreement by making it an extension of the Kyoto Protocol process. Since the EU already has placed carbon restrictions on its economy, effectively decreasing its global economic competitiveness, (more fool the Europeans) it has interests in seeing the rest of the world do the same, primarily by getting all major economies to commit to legally binding reductions of their carbon emissions.
The US Position. Unlike the European Union, the United
States is not facing dwindling energy supplies and energy dependence
on a foreign neighbour (Russia). (The US has to pay more than it used
to, but it still can get its hands on all it needs – tar-sands,
coal and all) Unlike the EU, it does not necessarily have to come to
an agreement. Washington’s negotiating position was that if
Europe wanted an agreement that included the United States, it would
have to be on U.S. terms. The aim is to kill Koyoto once and for all
and to hold separate talks under terms set by the USA.
The Chinese Position. China was determined to obtain as many concessions towards maintaining its full speed ahead economic growth as the European Union and United States were willing to give in order to bring it to the preferred negotiating table.
Other Participants as, or more, amenable to the US rather than the EU position. Australia, Brazil, Canada, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa..
This is how the Stratfor commentary summed up the position of the participants.
“If the European Union were to lure other developed nations
such as Australia, Japan and Canada from the U.S. talks, then it
might succeed in undermining what could be a U.S. appropriation of
international negotiations. However, Canada is presently closely
aligned with the United States on international climate policy, and
although Australia recently signed the Kyoto Protocol, its appetite
for emissions reductions at EU levels is minimal. Japan already is
taking part in U.S.-Pacific energy partnerships, and sees its energy
future in such an alignment.
If the Bali negotiations prove
unacceptable to Europe and it does try to thwart the U.S. talks,
(proposed for 2008) it will be banking on a new U.S. administration
to come to the rescue and participate in the U.N. negotiation
process. This would result in a frenzied negotiation process, since
most nations would like to see a final agreement reached on
international emissions reduction obligations by the end of 2009.
This would leave time to prepare for the implementation of
international climate regulations in 2012.
What the European
Union is hoping to do is make what emanates from Bali as weak as
possible to gain U.S. backing, but make sure it is worded in a way
that allows for binding commitments from the United States once a new
administration comes in. Again, this is not without risk. Though
current climate legislation in the U.S. Senate advocates U.S.
participation in the formal U.N. climate negotiation process, what
climate legislation the U.S. Congress eventually passes, which likely
will be in 2009 at the earliest, might not be designed to conform
to the international will but to shape it.
Further,
Washington likely will remain on a Pacific-based strategy, which will
prioritize the wishes of China, Japan and the United States over
Europe.
The Bush administration's strategy on climate change
has been to maintain a position in which coming to no agreement is
always a possibility. With Russia aggressively toying with Europe's
energy system and a populace that is deeply concerned about climate
change, the union does not have this luxury. Negotiators in Bali
understand that the United States can leave the table at any time,
while Europe's negotiators must come to an agreement -- even if that
agreement is not EU-led and Kyoto-based. Even if the United States
and European Union wanted the same things out of a global climate
regime, wants and needs place different players in different
positions. The European Union needs cuts in carbon emissions much
more than does the United States, as its shrinking energy supplies
and energy dependence on Russia eventually cut into its bottom line.
Since Washington does not particularly need restraints on its
carbon-based economy in order to remain competitive in the world, it
can sit on a climate agreement for some time.
Washington
appears to hold most of the cards, especially if Congress passes a
climate law in 2009 or 2010 that relies on domestic emissions cuts.
This law will become the U.S. negotiating position for the
international agreement, and no president will sign a treaty that
forces the United States to go beyond the U.S. climate law --
agreeing on a U.S. climate policy will be too painful for the U.S.
Senate to take on twice in three years. With this in mind, the EU
threat to boycott the U.S. talks is a meaningless one. Of all the
players at the table, only the union needs an agreement. Boycotting
the only venue where that realistically could happen makes no sense.”
A world governed on the current competitive nation state model has a pathological inability to rise to the occasion.
This is what George Monbiot had to say in an article in the UK Guardian after the conference was over.
”The destructive power of the
American delegation is not the only thing that hasn't changed. After
the Kyoto protocol was agreed, the then British environment
secretary, John Prescott, announced: "This is a truly historic
deal which will help curb the problems of climate change. For the
first time it commits developed countries to make legally binding
cuts in their emissions." Ten years later, the current (UK)
environment secretary, Hilary Benn, told us that "this is an
historic breakthrough and a huge step forward. For the first time
ever, all the world's nations have agreed to negotiate on a deal to
tackle dangerous climate change." Do these people have a chip
inserted?
In both cases, the US demanded terms that appeared
impossible for the other nations to accept. Before Kyoto, the other
negotiators flatly rejected Gore's proposals for emissions trading.
So his team threatened to sink the talks. The other nations
capitulated, but the US still held out on technicalities until the
very last moment, when it suddenly appeared to concede. In 1997 and
in 2007 it got the best of both worlds: it wrecked the treaty and was
praised for saving it.
Hilary Benn is an idiot. Our diplomats
are suckers. American negotiators have pulled the same trick twice,
and for the second time our governments have fallen for it.
There
are still two years to go, but so far the new agreement is even worse
than the Kyoto protocol. It contains no targets and no dates. A new
set of guidelines also agreed at Bali extend and strengthen the worst
of Gore's trading scams, the clean development mechanism. Benn and
the other dupes are cheering and waving their hats as the train
leaves the station at last, having failed to notice that it is
travelling in the wrong direction.
Although Gore does a better
job of governing now he is out of office, he was no George Bush. He
wanted a strong, binding and meaningful protocol, but American
politics had made it impossible. In July 1997, the Senate had voted
95-0 to sink any treaty which failed to treat developing countries in
the same way as it treated the rich ones. Though they knew this was
impossible for developing countries to accept, all the Democrats
lined up with all the Republicans. The Clinton administration had
proposed a compromise: instead of binding commitments for the
developing nations, Gore would demand emissions trading. But even
when he succeeded, he announced that "we will not submit this
agreement for ratification [in the Senate] until key developing
nations participate". Clinton could thus avoid an unwinnable
war.
So why, regardless of the character of its leaders, does
the US act this way? Because, like several other modern democracies,
it is subject to two great corrupting forces. I have written before
about the role of the corporate media - particularly in the US - in
downplaying the threat of climate change and demonising anyone who
tries to address it. I won't bore you with it again, except to remark
that at 3pm eastern standard time on Saturday, there were 20 news
items on the front page of the Fox News website. The climate deal
came 20th, after "Bikini-wearing stewardesses sell calendar for
charity" and "Florida store sells 'Santa Hates You'
T-shirt".
Let us consider instead the other great source
of corruption: campaign finance. The Senate rejects effective action
on climate change because its members are bought and bound by the
companies that stand to lose. When you study the tables showing who
gives what to whom, you are struck by two things.
One is the
quantity. Since 1990, the energy and natural resources sector -
mostly coal, oil, gas, logging and agribusiness - has given $418m to
federal politicians in the US. Transport companies have given $355m.
The other is the width: the undiscriminating nature of this
munificence. The big polluters favour the Republicans, but most of
them also fund Democrats. During the 2000 presidential campaign, oil
and gas companies lavished money on Bush, but they also gave Gore
$142,000, while transport companies gave him $347,000. The whole US
political system is in hock to people who put their profits ahead of
the biosphere.
So don't believe all this nonsense about
waiting for the next president to sort it out. This is a much bigger
problem than George Bush. Yes, he is viscerally opposed to tackling
climate change. But viscera don't have much to do with it. Until the
American people confront their political funding system, their
politicians will keep speaking from the pocket, not the gut.”
Our efforts need to be quintrupled.
Here is a draft of a proposed letter to be sent to MPs by people signing on to Simpol – it would act instead of a formal adoption form.
Date:
Dear Member of Parliament or parliamentary candidates,
As one of your constituents, I am writing to let you know how I intend to vote in the coming general Election.
I have reached the conclusion that New Zealand politicians (just like those of all other democratic nations) are powerless to implement the policies required to ensure our nation’s future security in the face of the threats posed by the globalised economy. As things stand, competition, rather than collaboration, is the default setting on international relations. It is therefore, impossible for our, or any other, government to implement the policies required to combat global warming, uncontrolled resource depletion and the many other factors leading to a growing instability of the international system, lest it be placed at a competitive disadvantage.
For this reason, I am joining with other citizens all around the world to decide the policies needed to solve global problems. Our range of policies to deal with problems such as global warming, excessive, trans-national, corporate power, pollution, poverty and other global problems is called the Simultaneous Policy (SP). It is to be implemented simultaneously by governments, but ONLY, when all, or sufficient, have first pledged to do so. The multi-issue range of policies, which ultimately will constitute SP, will be formulated so nations that may lose out on one policy, can gain on another. In this way, global problems can be solved without any nation’s economy being unduly disadvantaged, thus removing all the present (and often valid) reasons given for inaction and delay.
We plan to use our votes in this new way to ensure that politicians of all parties and nations, will implement these urgently need policies. As, under present arrangements, politicians are unable to take the necessary actions, it’s time for citizens to take the lead and to receive maximum cooperation from their politicians in doing so.
Please therefore note that I will be voting at future national elections for ANY politician or party – within reason - that pledges to implement the multi-issue range of global policies we are developing, known collectively as the Simultaneous Policy (SP). If my favoured party or my favoured candidate fails to sign up to SP, I will choose to vote for any other reasonable politician or party that has. Their having pledged themselves to implement SP when the time comes, is to me, and to the increasing number of voters joining the Simultaneous Policy movement, the most important attribute a politician or party can have. As we gather strength we will add sufficient bias to the swing vote to be able to reward those candidates who support our agenda (and to punish those who don’t.)
Politicians of all parties are being called upon to sign the SP Pledge (see the enclosed form). It has already been signed by candidates and MPs from different countries and from across the party-political spectrum. Already, in the UK, where the movement started, twenty-seven sitting MPs have pledged to implement SP. Closer to home, SP has the support of the President of East Timor, Dr. José Ramos-Horta. For more information on the policies being developed and on the MPs and MEPs who have so far signed the SP Pledge, please visit www.simpol-nz.org
For you as a politician, signing the SP Pledge signifies your intention in principle to implement SP simultaneously, once sufficient other nations do likewise. Until then, you can continue to implement and support your party’s existing policies unchanged. Making the pledge thus involves you in no risk and yet it qualifies you, potentially, to receive my vote and the votes of others who support SP. Furthermore, making the SP Pledge clearly differentiates those politicians and parties that have a plausible and logical solution to global problems, from those that don't.
So, if you wish to secure my vote at the next election, and the vote of the rapidly increasing number of other citizens in your constituency, who are adopting SP, I would urge you to sign the attached form and to return it Simpol-NZ.. Simpol will publicise those politicians who have signed the SP Pledge and will inform citizens accordingly so they will know who to vote for at the next election.
To survive, humanity needs to co-operate globally. Attracting my vote depends on YOU playing your part by signing the SP Pledge. I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,