Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Digg
Tell us what you think!Send a letter to the editor about this or any other article in The Maine Campus.
It is fitting that the Copenhagen convention starts Dec. 7, the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. It’s fitting because it is a surprise creation of a world government disguised as a relief of global warming. It could change the world, like America’s involvement in World War II did. The current aims of a Copenhagen treaty are to limit carbon emissions of every country that signs it and give the power to enforce penalties on signatory countries that violate the treaty. With the ratification of this treaty, we could see prices of food and energy rise beyond what average people can afford to pay, jobs dying out and a decline in national prosperity.
The Copenhagen summit seeks to create a world government that is responsible for enforcing the treaty. The other purpose of this treaty is to transfer wealth from countries like America to Third World nations as compensation for “lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity,” as quoted in an early draft of the treaty. This provision goes on to say that compensation is for future damages because “many will become environmental refugees.” This week, the United Nations climate chief Yvo de Boer wants wealthy nations like America to put up $10 billion a year to kick-start the program. This money would be given to Third World countries. The Associated Press says these countries might walk away if not enough money is offered before the treaty is signed. This money is only the beginning of what America will have to give to pay.
The exact carbon emission reductions called for by the draft treaty are 45 percent of the 1990 levels by 2020, and 95 percent of those levels by 2050. The problem is that if no one invents the technology to reduce these emissions, cars that run on gasoline will be banned, every factory with carbon emissions will close, and every coal power plant will be shut down to reach the goal. That will not leave us with enough electricity for everyone, no personal transportation, and food will be hard to get.
If we Americans want out because of the potential decline in our quality of life, we could not leave the treaty. The only way out is if every other country would let us leave, and as the richest nation in the world, that would not happen. The World Bank estimates this will cost between $75 and $100 billion dollars per year. Words like “election” and “democracy” do not appear at all in this treaty, which leaves us without any say. If the treaty is signed, it will take precedence over our Constitution, the very thing that gives us protection from our own government.
We do not need a treaty to save a planet that doesn’t need to be saved. Recent studies show the planet has not increased in temperature over the past 11 years. The global surface temperature record actually has shown statistically significant cooling over the past eight years, and 2009 could be the ninth coldest year on record. Just this week, e-mails were leaked that climate researchers omitted data that would counter an IPCC report. As my major is a science, I am ashamed to see that science could be hijacked to support a political movement. The fact that a “consensus” proves global warming is the politicization of science. Science is not about having a majority. Remember when everyone thought the earth was flat? Look at the facts and ask whether global warming is really happening. Keep an open mind and go where the evidence leads.
Jonathan Zappala is a senior psychology student.
Bangor Daily News