There's really nothing much favourable I can say about spin events such as Live Earth
. Not only were most participants quite hypocritical in their own answer to the call
, other than jumping on a well prepared PR bandwaggon. What's more, the message promulgated by Messrs Gore et al
is one of pathetic over-dramatisation. The planet needs no saving, nor does mankind as such. I don't contend that "we" are likely to run into quite a lot of trouble and pain in adapting to the changing environment, and that it may be reasonable to take mitigating measures now, but the missionary zeal in evidence does little to alleviate my suspicion that there is more to it than meets the eye: Politicians will jump at every opportunity to expand their own sphere of influence, even though the single most effective strategy would be one of a government-neutral
increase of the relative price of fossil fuels. Politicians however are loath to hear the bit about government-neutral, of course ... they are part of the problem rather than of the solution.
In fact, I am wondering whether we're on the way to a carbon standard
economy. This refers to the world currency system, as in gold standard, or the Bretton Woods system. Already today, the influence of one form of carbon (i.e. oil) on the global economy is very strong and may be seen as an alternative currency.
Anyway, arcane considerations such as that apart, I've come across a good evaluation of voluntary carbon offset programmes
by Tufts University. I am glad to see that one of the recommended companies is Swiss MyClimate
. Amazing that my forthcoming trip to Singapore for instance will release about 10 tons of CO2, the offset of which would set me back some ?260. I need to consider my policy options.
Labels: politics, travel