The IPCC's Consensus Solutions to Global Warming Serve Special Interests, Conservation Serves Gaia

Yesterday the IPCC released its "Summary for Policymakers" of the solutions to fight global warming. As usual, by the time the delegates from the 194 countries that met in Berlin had watered down the document with their political agendas it became another meaningless pile of crap at best. In reality the crap at the bottom of the barrel that they can all agree to is worth less than nothing because the capitalist owned MSM is now busy pumping out those casper milktoast compromises as meaningful.

The IPCC is a political institution, not a scientific one, just like every U.N. institution. The IPCC's process demands that every report must reach a consensus which means every stakeholder - be they governmental, business, scientific or environmentalist -must agree to each recommendation. Consider how many things j your family members could agree about let alone all the special interests above.

For instance, according to the Guardian, "Objections from rich nations saw the complete removal of a section that recommended that hundred of billions of dollars a year would have to be paid by developed countries to developing countries, to ensure they grow their cities and economies in a non-polluting way." And the Associated Press reports another dispute erupted over whether to include charts that showed emissions from large developing countries, such as China and India, are rising the fastest as they expand their economies. The charts were removed from the summary but remain in the report, which will be published later this week. Then there's the objections from major fossil fuel producing nations including Saudi Arabia which led to the weakening of statements that ending the huge subsidies paid for oil, gas and coal would help reduce emissions.

Solutions wise, what the various special interest groups could agree with to avoid widespread catastrophe included a huge increase in solar and wind power without a word about all the fossil fuels embedded in their production making them profitable but not 'green'. They agreed to include other controversial sources such nuclear energy and bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration (BECCS) which Dr. Rachel Smolker, co-director of Biofuelwatch, slammed as "largely untested" and "very risky" technologies that are likely to "exacerbate" climate change, agricultural problems, water scarcity, soil erosion and energy challenges, "rather than improving them."

The IPCC also recommended divestment from fossil fuels without mentioning that any re-investment of those funds in any aspect of capitalism was just a self esteem bromide because every aspect of consumer driven extractive capitalism is just fossil fuel consumption in slightly different disguises. The IPCC consistently refuses to acknowledge that we can't consume our way out of over-consumption, that there are no green solutions technological solutions, only green illusions.

The only truly green solution is CONSERVATION, a word and concept that can't be allowed to appear in any race to the bottom capitalist growth driven 'consensus'. Real conservation is a heresy that threatens the core beliefs of consumer capitalism. Those heretical ideas - wanting less, consuming less - are the only ones that can save us from the imaginary neo-liberal 'free market' belief system that is consuming the earth and our descendants future. Any effective conservation effort wouldn't slow 'growth', it'd squash demand driven extractive capitalism.

Of course we must stop our headlong gallop toward environmental collapse immediately. But even if our bling addicted consumer culture could change course, the current crud in our air would continue to ramp up its effects for decades at least. That's why in addition to de-growth we must have a 'viable' strategy for removing our current GHG build up even if it takes many years. That's why de-growth, individual and collective, in conjunction with re-sequestration of GHGs through organic agriculture, re-establishment of perennial grasses, world-wide hemp utilization and re-forestation [real forests not industrial tree farms] are the only real solutions.

As Jorge Majfud says, "Trying to reduce environmental pollution without reducing consumerism is like combating drug trafficking without reducing the drug addiction." It's important to notice that Majfud referred to the broader issue of "environmental pollution" not just to global warming. The long list of insults and injuries to fair Gaia caused by our over-consumption of needless crap go far beyond what the IPCC's consensus allows to be spoken of.

Like Lao Tzu said in a different context 5,000 tears ago, "The way that can be spoken of is not the way". The way is CONSERVATION. Please check out the articles below for more information on the real solution, the real way, that no IPCC report is allowed speak of:

'Climate Change and Agriculture' by Vandana Shiva
Biodiverse organic farms produce more food and higher incomes than industrial monocultures. Mitigating climate change, conserving biodiversity and increasing food security can thus go hand in hand.

'World Soils and the Carbon Cycle in Relation to Climate Change and Food Security', by Rattan Lal

'Organic Farming Sequesters Atmospheric Carbon and Nutrients in Soils', by The Rodale Institute

'Putting carbon back into the ground – the way nature does it', by Adam D. Sacks