Combatting global warming is the new mission of mankind, finally unifying the world, a world that is elsewhere drowning in trade wars and other ugly things. Fulfilling the dreams of all sorts of philanthropists, ranging from such diverse people such as politicians, citizens, trade unions, students, pupils, soldiers, teachers and business people, all passionately sharing the vision to protect the earth against global warming.
Against whom? Who did this? We are all guilty, mankind must stand up against mankind and, this is also very clear, it is the global “we” who must pay the costs for mankind’s sin.
All a bit strange? You never blew – what?, now you know – carbon monoxide into the atmosphere? You did not build the cars you drive polluting the air, just bought what was there? You did not cut the woods, because you do not own any land except your balcony? You threw your personal rubbish, as you were told, into the bin provided by your commune and did not carry this away?
Also a bit strange that the most activist protagonists against global warming are those, the business people, who used the world as a cheap bin for their waste, and those, who generously allowed to do this, the politicians, thanks to all their strict regulations, what and how much the first ones can dump where.
All a bit strange? A recent case, in which the EU, the political agency of the European business interests in the world, and another global activist against global warming, successfully fights a battle against increasing global warming, might shed some light on what this mission of mankind is all about, as about who is doing what and who pays the costs for this mankind’s project.
Under the headline “The EU tries to provoke a trade war”, a quotation from a minister from Malaysia, one finds some information about a conflict between Malaysia and Indonesia on one side and the EU on the other side, from which one can learn what the mankind mission titled global warming is about.
The EU had decided to no longer import palm-oil bio diesel from these two countries, who provide 80% of the global palm-oil production for bio-diesel. The EU argues against importing any bio-oil made from palm-oil from those two countries an longer, that these countries were chopping down their forests and thus contribute to the global warming. The EU- countries produce bio-diesel for the world market of alternative bio-diesel from rape oil. Chopping down their woods, the EU countries have done this in order to make agriculture a global business sphere already long time ago, so that thanks to the worldwide shared battle against global warming they can move the costs for shifting the economic battles about the global busyness with energy products towards alternative energy resources on the shoulders of the developing countries, thus ruin their agriculture and by doing this getting rid of a competitor on the market of bio energy resources, thus finally make the big busyness on the world market for alternative energy resources. And they do all this, of course, for nothing else but for the EU’s contribution to mankind’s mission against global warming!
So, everything is clear now, what the battle against global warming is about?
By the way: The poverty this creates in those two countries (3 million people only in Indonesia get their income from palm-oil farming) is no longer an topic in the debates about what is going on in the world of capitalism. Compared to the joint mission of mankind, poverty appears under the the mission combatting global warming as a sacrifice mankind has to make as the costs for the sin mankind is responsible for.
And not to forget finally:
One things is also already very clear, what makes it so appealing, presenting the use of the earth as the rubbish bin by those who produce all the waste as a matter for which mankind is responsible: As such a matter of mankind, mankind will pay for the costs. And, as an option under debate, the tax on carbon monoxide, discussed these days among politicians as means forcing mankind to produce less of that waste, will go the way any tax goes: The producers of that poison will shift their additional costs caused by the tax towards the prices of their final products so that the so called consumer, the owners of the balconies, will pay for the sin of mankind. Thus, the fairy tale of a united mankind, united against a global warming, gains reality, and becomes at least for the world’s capitalists, the producers of the whole mess, a fairy tale that becomes true: The world’s “mankind” takes over the costs of the world’s capitalists for their waste.
And this is only consequent: One should remember, that the argument that finally successfully convinced the political elites across the world, that they must take the lead in this mankind’s mission, was that global warming would result in costs questioning in a long term run the world’s business. Consequently, the battle against global warming and the costs this creates should not have the same economic effects as global warming has, otherwise this battle would be economically counterproductive.
If it was the risk for the sustainability of the world’s busyness, that convinced the political elites to join the battles against global warming, then, at least for the political elites, there must be a mission of mankind that is even more holy than rescuing the earth: for them, the capitalist economy is above all the very untouchable mission of mankind against which rescuing the earth must be relativated and for which the earth must be rescued.
But was it not this, the calculations of the busyness world, using the earth as a big bin, that caused the global warming?
Isn’t therefore a genius idea, making mankind with this notion of global warming a threat for mankind caused by mankind responsible for the battle against global warming, no distinction of who is doing what drowned in the world’s big we, so that it must be us, mankind, paying the costs for our sin.Comments preferably in English.