Agreement in Paris

Pic courtesy The Guardian

The agreement recently signed in Paris is very significant, but perhaps not for the reasons trumpeted in most of the mainstream media.

Sure, there is now an international goal of reducing carbon emissions which should help ensure a viable future for generations ahead, and a rational application of the precautionary principle.

But that is not, gentle reader, the most significant element of this event.

As far as I know, this is the first time that so many nations have agreed on anything.

This demonstration of harmony, and its associated display of consensus is extraordinary.

This is best displayed by the reactions of the conflict entrepreneurs, both here and in the US.

Variously, the agreement is characterised as a socialist conspiracy, an attempt by the elites to take over, or the aberration of a lunatic religion.

These reactions convince me, just as the science does, that the agreement is critically important. The deniers have the same world view as those who authorised the spraying of deadly defoliant on the jungles of Vietnam.

Back then, the end justified the means, and now, the same thinking is revealed by these reactions. The difference is that the "end" is greed, not a military victory.

The result will probably be the same, but not before a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth by those with vested interest in the status quo.

It occurs to me that if so many nations can reach a consensus on this issue, then perhaps they should, under the auspices of the UN, begin looking at other significant international problems, such as poverty, preventable disease, and international terrorism.

In the case of the latter, any effort would have to be more successful that the current approach.