I had just filled 11 years when the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED started in Rio de Janeiro in June 3rd 1992. By that time I believed in politicians being able to actually make a change and commit to real agreements. I believed that change in the world could be done at a political level. I believed in our democratic system as it stands and that through reform real, palpable change could be achieved.

I remember that at the end at that conference I was all enthusiastic. I really was!

Some years later I had moved to Norway and back to Ecuador, learned a lot about the world and had a broader understanding of our political system in a global sense. By then, in 1998, I found myself studying Gro Harlem Brundtland (GHB)’s proposal at school. The paper that was basically agreed upon under the Rio summit: GHB’s proposal,Our Common Future(follow the link and read it) also called the Bruntland report, can be summarized in the idea of sustainable development: Economic and social human growth while keeping our global ecosystem healthy.

While I was gaining insight in this matters the Kyoto protocol happened. For people that actually like to analyse things this agreement is the next best thing to nothing. Simply because it opens for mechanisms that can be misused, it has no penalties defined as part of the agreement for lack of compliance and because is does not address the mitigation levels that were required to have a useful agreement (over 100 years the greenhouse gases reductions will not even reach 4%) – I have already blogged on this so I will not bother you with that now.

11 years later, with more studies into these matters biasing me and a Philosophy degree to make things worse, I have to say: We all knew that Copenhagen was to be a failure. Whatever comes out of this summit tomorrow is worse than nothing coming out.

Why? Because a crappy agreement will not show the reality of this summit: Our political system worldwide is not addressing the biggest challenge in human history. Simple as that. We need a political reform worldwide WHICH IS NOT GOING TO BE PROMOTED BY YOUR AVERAGE POLITICIAN! – Sorry, but you have to face this. Politicians do not have accountability or responsibility, they just talk and try to be re-elected. This is too serious to let a bunch of idiots ruin it for the rest of us, and do so in our name!

Back to Copenhagen and the ongoing summit. Let’s put it in perspective:

  1. Connie, who was thought to become the next EU climate queen, has now resigned from the COP15’s presidency. Earlier she said that failure in Copenhagen is not an option and that it would clearly show that “the whole global democratic system not being able to deliver results in one of the defining challenges of our century” – It’s nice to be able to use somebody else’s words to describe a problem. But yes, it sucks to be right. Time after time.
  2. Adaptation and mitigation must go hand by hand. Without both we will, for real, get in trouble. Want to read more on Adaptation and why it matters? Read my former teacher Karen (member of the UNFCCC) and friends. they will explain it better than I can in their reports:
    * Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change: Concepts, Issues, Assessment Methods (PDF)
    * More Than Rain (PDF)
    Once while at Uni I asked her if she actually believed that our politcians could actually sort this one out and pull off an agreement that would actually be fair for all of humanity and that could give us a change to keep our environment in good shape. Karen, I guess,  is a person that understands that the global picture is complex and that politics are a game. Her answer was something like: “Well, I do not want to be pessimistic here, but no.” – It might have been the way I asked, who knows. Anyway I was glad to understand that I am not the only one thinking there’s something wrong here. But to be right about such things sucks.
  3. There are nations like Tuvalu that will be remembered. because they are the voice of the speechless. Their voice is an echo and reminder of the fact that our survival is never a subject of discussion, it is the only option! Our survival does not imply growth, but dignity. Survival implies a working ecosystem, not more energetic resources. Survival implies life and peace, not money and force!
  4. As reported by some organizations NGOs/CSOs will not have access to the summit tomorrow. So if your country is not enforcing freedom by default and is letting representatives for Civil Society/Non-Governmental organizations on-site be part of the delegation, There is practically no civil watchers representing YOU, of course, only your average politician is in place playing the “I want more for less” attitude that this negotiation game implies.
  5. In Copenhagen the police took ~700 people to prison the past weekend. I have a friend that was there while this happened. We talked yesterday. And he said: “It really is sad that the media focus on the conflict generated by the political need to show “action” against pacifist demonstrating” – I could not agree more because who is talking about the thousands of Pro Environmentalist that were outside of the Bella Center and in other parts of Copenhagen mourning Mother Earth while our politicians play the “Business as usual” game and accelerate the growth train towards the inevitable end of the line at the cliff?
  6. Now, naivity is not stupidity. But it is time to wake up, for real! I am getting tired of saying this, but still: Politicians alone will not fix this one. And we do not need a political agreement to act. What we need is organically coordinated action… But that’s another post.
  7. Readers of this blog know that I am by no means trying to draw an apocalypse here. I have seen too much love in humanity to believe that we are doomed to our own self-destruction. But I also acknowledge that if we leave this to our politicians we are going to blow it up. Are we?

The next result is not a game and will not happen in an oval room. It’s going to happen in the streets, in your bedroom, in a bar, in your schools. We need action. Among and between ourselves. Between you and your next peer!

And while we acknowledge this and tell it to each other, the show continues in Copenhagen with the superstars tomorrow. But no, this is too important to reduce it to a nice rhetorical speech. Do not get fooled. Copenhagen is the bad joke it was meant to be.

This struggle cannot be lost. To loose this one implies lack of human survival. Are you going to follow or are you going to act?

Ok. Bare for å få det ut av banen:

  • Livet er meningen med livet. Livet er en følelse!
  • Abort er et valg og burde forbli et valg
  • Flere barn kan, for min del, komme til verden
  • De som ikke vil ha barn må gjerne la være å ha det
  • Et hvert menneske er fritt til å ha en mening rundt dette med reproduksjonen og må gjerne utøve den
  • Edruelighet er et bra egenskap å ha når man nærmer seg evolusjonære problemstillinger

I forbindelse med dette er det en del tanker jeg ikke klarer å få ut av hodet mitt:

  1. Biologisk er vi mest fruktbare og fulle av energi når vi er i 20-årene.
  2. Karrièrejaget setter oss mot den biologiske veggen. Selvrealiseringen ser ut til å være målet, men den tar ikke hensyn til våre biologiske pre-disposisjoner.
  3. Det er nærmest umulig å være ung og gærn og få barn uten at de økonomiske konsekvensene av dette valget merkes klart og tydelig av de involverte individene.
  4. Selv om nærmest en tredjedel av den unge befolkningen er under høyere utdanning er det ganske dårlig business for en student å få barn. Spesielt om det er et student-par som får det. Det er faktisk vanskelig å få det til å gå rundt og samtidig ha ordentlig studie progresjon. Spør hvilken som helst stundent forelder. Og nei, sosialen burde ikke være løsningen.
  5. Blir vi for mange menneske-dyr komme vi til å trenge flere enn de fire klodene vi allerede trenger for å realisere vårt konsumnivå globalt.

Selvrealiseringen kan ikke være et jag etter så mange midler som mulig for hvert individ. Være produktiv, uten mål og mening, for å bygge opp under et system som jobber hver dag for sitt eget overlevelse innenfor visse parameter: politiske og økonomiske paradigmer/ideologier, moral, landegrenser, m.m.

Meste parten av vår samlet energi (tenk “våre beste år” over tid, for hele befolkningen) går til å bygge opp “landet” istedenfor at landet finansierer eller kan møte våre individuelle biologiske behov og våre barns behov. For de som ønsker og kan ha barn, selvfølgelig. Det er jo et spørsmål om valg og muligheter det også.

Altså, det er samfunnsøkonomisk å bygge barnehager og ha tilnærmet full dekning for barn under 2 år. Å la foreldrene (tenk en far som har lyst) ta vare på barna sine til de er 2 eller 5 år er derimot helt utenkelig, det koster samfunnet altfor mye. Gjør kalkylen selv så forstår du hvorfor hverken Jens, Kristin, Siv, Erna, Lisbeth, Emil, Pippi, Anikken eller noen andre “ansvarlige” tørr å si det høyt: Det er mer lønnsomt for samfunnet å ha noen underbetalte individer til å ta vare på barna (til 99,9% av befolkningen) enn å la de som er best egnet til jobben gjøre det.

Når over en fjerdedel av befolkningen er fremdeles under 20 burde vi begynne å tenke at kanskje det er greiere å forholde seg til våre menneskelige forutsetninger og ikke bare forventninger samfunnet har lagt opp til?

La oss ikke tillate oss å bygge videre enda en generasjon som gjerne vil A, B, C, osv. uten at den forholder seg til sine egne begrensninger, i tillegg til å se på sine muligheter. Et tema som i dag ser ut til å være langt forbi det ønskede Å.

Det er ikke til å unngå at vi alle har et felles ansvar i dette: La oss ta det, oss i mellom, og ikke vente at ministeren sier det i avisen eller på tv’en.

Sjeldent finnes mer enn 4 generasjoner menneske-dyr levende samtidig. Prat med de eldre. Det er mye å lære fra dem. Vi alle kan faktisk opplyse hverandre, om vi vil høre. Og snakke.

Simplemente porque el sistema escolar no logró lavarme el cerebro lo suficiente. Debe ser porque llegué un poco tarde a la fiesta: Había ya vivido la mitad de mi vida consciente antes de aterrizar en Fornebu.

Además hay otro factor: he visto demasiada miseria.  Como puedo yo creer que un compromiso de clase y un cuento de contrucción institucional puede resolver los problemas humanos a escala mundial?

Una última razón es sin duda que creo que el poder es una patología humana. Mientras más poder se concentra en X más es X carcomid@. Prefiero creer en que cada individuo puede ejecutar su poder responsable e individualmente a pensar que la solución es entregar ese poder a X mediante el ejercicio del voto en una urna. Sin importar las buenas intenciones: El poder nos carcome y corrompe a tod@s y cada un@ de nosotr@s.

Es singular pensar que el poder es masculino y la libertad femenina, no?