Right-thinking humanity joins together in a single opinion

Here is another harbinger of the collectivist totalitarian future toward which the American and world left are rushing us—an editorial on climate change that was published collectively by 56 different newspapers in 45 different countries prior to the Copenhagen conference. It was posted December 7 at Michelle Malkin’s site:

Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.

Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year’s inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world’s response has been feeble and half-hearted.

… The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C—the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction—would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea. The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based …

… Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down—with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of “exported emissions” so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than “old Europe”, must not suffer more than their richer partners.

The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance—and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.

I love that reference to social justice. If these people were really serious about saving human civilization from an imminent environmental catastrophe, would they also be pushing social justice, i.e., equality of outcome between rich and poor? In reality, the climate scare is a front for the equality agenda which is aimed at crippling the rich Western countries and transferring their wealth to the poor nonwhite countries, all under a new world order run by the left.

- end of initial entry -

H. writes:

Regarding your post about climate change activists employing the language of “social justice,” have you not seen their use of the term “climate justice”? Google it! It pretty much confirms your theory. I first heard it a couple weeks ago on LA’s progressive radio station, KPFK, in which a young, female “climate justice” activist at Copenhagen laid out the needs of the movement: we must be militant; we must be ruthless; we must be warriors; etc. Then she said, “If you were a polar bear, or a black rhino, you would know this is a war.”

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 22, 2009 03:21 PM | Send