Copenhagen, where do we go from here?
by: Pieter and Helene Bos
Copenhagen, where do we go from here?
In the run up to Copenhagen, we wrote two articles:
“Copenhagen - No bread from stones” , the background of the Copenhagen treaty and the pressure towards the one world government in it.
“Copenhagen – five questions – eight statements”, a short overview of the main aspects involved.
From these articles it is clear that we were not enthusiastic about the draft-Copenhagen treaty. However, that no result was reached does not make us automatically glad.
1 Self control
We wrote that we did agree with the draft-Copenhagen treaty on the issue of the need of self control regarding the use of resources and regarding the pollution of the environment. That self control is badly needed indeed, and the conference surfaced many proposals in that direction, but did not agree on any of them. That does not make us glad.
2 Self control and world view
Self control requires a view of reality, which is real and realistic enough to make one decide to submit personal interests to the interests of the larger scale.
Now self control in this case, regarding the use of resources and the pollution of the environment, can be exerted at three levels; at individual level, at national level and at global level. In each case the self control has only real effect in case “the others” take the same action. Also, in each case the self control has a certain cost and a certain risk: the risk of endangering your market position. In other words: the view of reality, needed for self control, must be really strong to make us take action, even if we are alone, and to carry the cost and run the risk.
That the draft treaty was rejected is good, as the push for the concept of “saving Mother Earth” as a global view of reality was stopped short or delayed. In the mean time the world is even more at a loss regarding a practical world view, and self interest wins.
From one of the four laboratories that gather and interpret scientific data concerning global warming for the IPCC (International Panel for Climate Control) info was published, suggesting that the interpretations had been “politically corrected”. This has been labelled “Climatgate”. It confirms what, now 32,000, scientists around the world have suggested since Kyoto 1998: global warming is as much an alarmist agenda as a field of scientific research. The Climatgate has stirred some further doubt and controversy around the whole topic of global warming and the human influence on it.
The director of one of the environmental NGOs remarked that, in response to the way the NGOs were treated during the conference: “…There is now a tremendous amount of animosity and distrust between the U.N. establishment and the environmental establishment. They know that they need each other,…”. Indeed, new “establishments” are developing, opposing other establishments.
4 One World Government
The Dutch minister of Development Aid was interviewed on the result of Copenhagen. He was disappointed, but in a way rationalised the poor result, stating that a “re-distribution of world power”, “a complete redistribution of international power” and “another world order” will be necessary to make a really effective treaty. This confirms the alarm by many sceptics, who sensed that the climate agenda and the world federalist agenda indeed draw strength from one another.
In the “morning after” Copenhagen many journalists and politicians called for some strengthening of the UN-organisation… on a way to a one world government.
5 Christian response?
Do Christians have the self control (the view of reality, which is real and realistic enough) to make one decide to submit personal interests to the interests of the global scale? If that is not the case then they are part of the problem, and not yet part of the solution.
Will the global church wake up and discern the above four spiritual dynamics and start seeking God’s prayer strategy for the years ahead?
If the self interest in the world increases, is the love of the church for the world increasing accordingly?