?

Log in

No account? Create an account
septembre 2017   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
galaxy

What now?

Posted on 2017.06.01 at 15:38
Current Location: I hear that Mars is nice this time of year.
Humeur actuelle: warming
Musique actuelle: Lucy in the Sky
Tags: , , , ,
Well, he is being consistent, in theory, by taking a stance for American workers and businesses. I had thought that he has, by now, been so bought-out by the global powers that be that I thought he would OK the Paris agreement and summit. By turning down many of those countries involved in the Agreement, he is partly turning his back on some of the globalists, who have both good and bad interests at heart. (Those in power who fight global warming are of two "groups": those who work in the interest and science of their constituents and of the world, and those who work in the interests of themselves and of specific global corporations. Sometimes the twain do meet, as we are talking about politicians, here).

Here is the really great news: Trump has apparently accepted the essential idea that global warming is occurring. That is a major move ahead, as gloomy as thing seem at this moment. There were some who thought that he might instead have chosen to stay IN the Agreement - why? So his administration could work to take it apart - from the inside-out. And, many feared he would simply walk out on the Agreement. He has done the latter, but proposed a full renegotiation - not really based on the science, but on the assumed negative affects on our economy.

What this is going to do is to expand the Trump bubble on Wall Street, at the very least. By now, we all know that Wall Street does not translate into a better USA economy, as so much of the money goes into risky investments, foreign countries, and USA corporate elites - just like Alaskan oil doesn't benefit the USA much, since the oil is only made cheaper for China to buy up. Same deal with the DAPL and XL pipelines, where the jobs are only temporary. So, what we will have is a continuation of a bubble. The bubble is doomed to pop - and, ironically, that might one day be triggered by some catastrophe caused by global warming.

Renegotiation is better than nothing - except that it might be too much of a delay, and be disrupted by some accident or trouble. Not only this, the stance of demanding renegotiation for our own interests is a mentality which we have struggled for years to overcome in other countries, developed and developing. Developing countries once shouted that the Developed countries have too much of an advantage in climate-change agreements, since they have already benefitted much from their years of industries which pollute. That is the main reason why there is a, "Green Fund," for those countries. Trump wants to refuse or remove that green fund, thus inviting a return of selfish-interest disagreement from the developing countries.

It wasn't too long ago that China was adamantly refusing to take the Paris summit seriously. Obama and others had to hunt them down and twist their arm to join in. Now, China is seeing the political benefits of moving ahead on climate change. And Andrea Merkel will benefit from the German public's backlash against Trump's decision. And Teresa May will benefit as Jeremy Corbyn will lose some popularity by comparison to Nationalist Trump.

With both these trends - discord from developing countries, and self-gain by other developed nations - Trump ideal of negotiation is up against long odds. It is a battle against time: Which will come first? The new agreement, or the popping of the Trump economic bubble. Probably the latter.

Renewed squabbling by self-interested countries, and corporations, could be like a replay of the tariff wars which came in at the beginning of the Great Depression. Global political balkanisation. The only people who benefit via such discord, and even economic decline, are well-placed global elites and corporations. The overall global economy and environment will not benefit.

However, as I said above, the really good news is that Trump is not rejecting global warming. The Pope, Al Gore, and science are to thank for this. This is the part of my prediction that was correct. The fact that Trump chose not a cold break or to dismantle the Agreement, but instead to renegotiate, is another good sign - one which I did not foresee. Listen - it could have been far worse, although - it still could get a lot worse.

I do hypothesize this: Since Trump is not out-and-out rejecting the science, he may come to see that when all countries are economically, "hamstrung," by such global agreements, then there is no real loss by any individual nation, like the USA - and so it makes sense to work together along with the science, with, "sacrifices," which are in fact relatively moot, in the bigger picture.

Many times, it takes a Republican to come along, fuming and cursing and threatening, to paradoxically make progress on good progressive legislation and policy. We can look to Trump's fore-bearer, Richard Nixon, who signed in the EPA and the Clean Air and Water acts. Bizarely, it was Ronald Reagan who succeeded in substantial nuclear arms reduction with the U.S.S.R.   Eisenhower begand civil rights legislation.  Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican.  And George H. W. Bush advocated for negotiations on climate change!

So, it is a possibility than, over these years of negotiations, Trump may become a progressive when it comes to climate-change. We've seen him turn on a dime before.  As I said, his climate-denier stance has been completely political.  Honestly, he doesn't really know what he is doing, except to discover what he thinks is best for the people who elected him.

I think this is all a terrible thing.  It is a give-away to globalist Big Oil, Dirty Coal, Mining, Logging, etc.  But not as bad as it looks. For one thing, it is galvanising a lot of other countries to move ahead even stronger.   For another thing, it casts a suspicious eye on nastier players in the climate accords, even as it rejects the good players.  Finally, it is bound to set up a wave of pro-environmental political candidates and protests!

What's next?

The States! Lead by California, many of the states can intervene in the mean time, and act like countries in their own right, contributing their own voice and influence to climate-change discussions. They could form a kind of environmental confederacy. Other states who don't move like this could be boycotted. And people like Inhof WILL be voted out soon enough, TRUST ME!

Were this to happen, it would completely consistent with the global devolution of power to irridentist, separatist, tribal and regional groups and states. Now that we have the internet, this decentralisation of power, (beyond or including nationalism), can so much more easilly be coordinated than in the days when Trump drove a Delorian.

Comments:


meowmensteen
meowmensteen at 2017-06-02 01:24 (UTC) (Lien)
Oh I think he gets it, he just doesn't want to appear to get it because right now his base is so anti-science. Holding onto his base is his number one priority.
where hypotheses come to die
madman101 at 2017-06-02 04:20 (UTC) (Lien)
Right - I agree.

But he has also been bought over to the corporate mainstream and pissed off his base a few times, which I was hoping to post a little about later..
Previous Entry  Next Entry