Because my acceptance of this notion was predicated on the assumption that the something in question would be an interim measure only in place until a much better something could be developed.
However, recently I am starting to suspect that often certain 'somethings' are actually worse than nothing, because the way such high-powered games now get played seems to have been changed by the players.
Selfless statesmanship is well and truly on the back burner. Even national interest seems quaint.
In the pursuit of a legacy that egos demand be basked in during their lifetime, and no matter how tenuous its substance and the heck with the consequences once they are gone, few politicians' or policymakers' ambitions seem to extend to actually make a real difference. Instead the new measure seems to be seen to have 'succeeded' in 'making something happen', slightly irresepctive of what that might be.
And it's pretty much across the board, from sanctions on nukes to consensus on emissions.
The latter of course is an area I tend to track more closely in this job, and hence being the one to which this blog most refers. For instance, what was issued so triumphantly in the communiques of the majority of the mainstream attendees (from all corners, and some quite 'passionate') at the recent Montreal climate event does not seem to me to translate into very much.
So I just wonder whether a bunch of folk saying 'progress has been made' or 'views were expressed' or 'most were agreed' really gets us anywhere other than to make it all go away for a while. And that means the public shrug and keep on doing what comes naturally.
So maybe there is a case for a full-on, 'all or nothing' deal so that it gets thrust into, and stays on top of the agenda until something is sorted out that will make a difference.
At least one consequence of global warming is that Hell may actually freeze over.
No comments:
Post a Comment