"Today the battle lines are drawn between expanders and restrainers; those who believe that there should be no impediments and those who believe that we must live within limits."
Guardian Weekly columnist George Montbiot sees a profound opposition that goes well beyond old ideological divisions between left and right. That may well be, but it is still a fight between those who can and those who can't.
There are ideological divisions at the bottom of the climate debate. Copenhagen is bringing that out explicitly. While the polemic at times may seem conservative or idealistic, there is a fundamental clash of world views. If this is not addressed then the ideological conflict will remain unresolved.
Pullitzer winning columnist Charles Krauthammer writing in the Washington Post makes it very explicit how he sees the political threats brewing in Copenhagen.
- "The raid on the Western treasuries is on again, but today with a new rationale to fit current ideological fashion. With socialism dead, the gigantic heist is now proposed as a sacred service of the newest religion: environmentalism. One of the major goals of the Copenhagen climate summit is another NIEO shakedown: the transfer of hundreds of billions from the industrial West to the Third World to save the planet by, for example, planting green industries in the tristes tropiques.
Politically it's an idea of genius, engaging at once every left-wing erogenous zone: rich man's guilt, post-colonial guilt, environmental guilt." (Read the rest here: The Environmental Shakedown)
Then, for the other side, compare this political analysis by Naomi Klein:
- "The big criticism of the movement the media insisted on calling “antiglobalization” was always that it had a laundry list of grievances and few concrete alternatives. The movement converging on Copenhagen, in contrast, is about a single issue—climate change—but it weaves a coherent narrative about its cause, and its cures, that incorporates virtually every issue on the planet. In this narrative, our climate is changing not simply because of particular polluting practices but because of the underlying logic of capitalism, which values short-term profit and perpetual growth above all else." (Read the full article here: Copenhagen: Seattle Grows Up)
Writes WeatherWatch.co.nz head weather analyst Philip Duncan: - The other night I asked on Twitter "Why is it both sides of the global warming debate are SO extreme. Where are the moderates? The intelligent ponderers rubbing their beards?". (and no, I don't assume all scientists are men).
And, reflecting on the criticisms of CAP15 at Copenhagen, he added ..
- Once a topic becomes political it's hard to see the forest for the trees. Both sides throwing grenades at each other and hoping that when the dust settles the public now agrees with their point of view.
I had to agree, - You are right to say that the most vocal in the discussions around climate change have been the extreme point of views. And these are driven by ideologies - or fear of ideologies.
