SAVING THE WORLD?

IT IS BLINDINGLY obvious that if all countries agreed to take immediate action to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide, it would be massively expensive and turn the world economy upside down. The cost of everything will rise. Food, fuel, building costs, prices of just about everything. Taxes will rise too, of course, and the private sector will be faced with yet more regulations backed by the threat of draconian fines.

Well, perhaps it is not that obvious. None of these consequences seem to bother the UN. It is enthusiastically backing the whole climate change boondoggle. It misses no opportunity to put itself forward as the saviour of the world from the alleged earth-changing sins of private enterprise. It still hopes for a (miraculous) agreement by all countries to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to prevent the earth hotting up with alleged disastrous consequences for humanity (and everything else that lives and breathes on the planet).

This yet to be achieved consensus supposedly will be delivered in Paris, France, in December at the culmination of the 21st conference on climate change organised by the UN, or to give its full title, the “Conference of the Parties” (CoP 21).

This particular party is supposed to mark the triumph of environmentalism. All the UN’s 193 members will be there and swear that they will do the right things as defined by the view that economic growth and existing technology is steadily frying the planet.

Yes, well, no, fine, as we say, because with two months to go before the scheduled happy ending, there are signs that it might be difficult to get the trumpets to blow a fanfare. Put aside such pressing matters as the chaos in the Middle East, mass migration, bordering on invasion into Europe, the Ukraine shambles, the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan, not to mention the state of the global economy. Ignore all that.

Saving the world from burning to a crisp is supposedly the overwhelming concern of those attending the conference. The bureaucrats of the UN are counting on it. But are world leaders with the power and the cash required for the rescue equally passionate?

Take the wonderfully named LikeMinded-Developing-Countries (which suggests there are some that are not). The UN prefers to call them LMDCs* (acronyms are beloved of all bureaucrats). These make up half the world’s population. Do they care as much about, or believe climate change is as great a threat, as people in the comfortable middle classes of the West or those walking the corridors of UN headquarters in Flushing Meadows, New York?

There is some doubt they do. The likeminded developing countries had their own pre-Paris conference two weeks ago (September 15). They met to decide a negotiating strategy, which suggests something less than a wholehearted commitment and more like a tussle for advantage.

The post conference statements seemed to be in the context of the recent UN admission that the Paris conference is not about protecting the environment, but about negotiating the distribution of the world’s resources, and transforming the “global economic model”. India’s environment minister, Prakash Javadekar, set the tone. He urged the LMDCs to take “a unified stand on critical issues”, using words like mitigation, adaptation, loss, damage, finance, technology development and transfer, the principle of equity, and common but differentiated responsibilities. Rich nations should transfer money to the poor to mitigate the effects of climate change. India would resist any “obligatory review mechanism”, he said.

“If the developed world doesn’t walk the talk on issue of finance, there will be a problem for the Paris outcome. I hope the developed world will consider it and rise to the occasion,” he said. It sounded like a veiled threat. Meanwhile, the EU, according to Brussels bureaucrats, has reached an agreement that all its 28 states will jointly reduce Europe’s emissions by 30 to 40 percent by 2020. Poland had to be beaten over the head to agree. It relies heavily on coal for its energy.

Lastly, there is doubt about the keenness of powerful Western politicians to obey the climate change agenda set by the UN. The US has never gone along with it, whatever its presidents have said. Now doubts appear to be extending to the leadership of other industrialised countries.

The top seven leaders are due to arrive on the first day of the Paris conference and then leave. So no glorious conclusion on the final day. This is when everyone is supposed to shout, “Hurrah, we have saved the world!” as world leaders sign a binding treaty to spend more than $100 billion (R1.39 trillion) on doing so in the next five years.**

Seeing as promises made to deliver this amount were first made in 2009 before the full implications of the global economic downturn were known, there seems a fat chance of it happening in 2015. It is true that the UN has since reduced the amount of cash needed to $2bn, according to some reports. Perhaps the lower figure is because reality has crept in.

Nevertheless, the amount of money the UN climate bureaucracy wants is certainly ambitious. The question is whether the developed world – the part with the money – is ready to do so on the basis of a theory that cannot be proved or disproved.

There are plenty of other crises that demand their attention. Whatever noble motives – love of nature, wild animals, all animals, vegetarianism, and veganism – that drive the Green lobby, the prime motive behind the climate change scare has now morphed into one with a distinctly fascist tinge – a push for world government that grows more blatant by the day with unelected UN bureaucrats seeking unprecedented supranational power.

Keith Bryer is a retired communications consultant. * Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Bolivia, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, India, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait , Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Mali, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela and Vietnam. ** The French president’s estimate is

100 billion.