Copenhagen Is Supposed to Fail. DIY!

October 26, 2009

Much passionate concern is flying around regarding the United Nations meeting on climate this December in Copenhagen. We hear it from honest activists and from politicians who sound trustworthy on this most crucial matter. An example is Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of Great Britain, who deserves a prize for eloquence in warning us of climate change.

However, there is something many people have not yet learned about politicians and technofixers seeking too much continuity.

What to do? In the absence of visible leadership on climate protection — leaders that aren’t sell-outs or technocratic dreamers — I can only think of “do it yourself.” (DIY. For ideas on DIY and living the future now, scan our Culture Change articles and contacts for networking.)

When the Prime Minister was quoted with solemn hope by the credulous news media on Oct. 19, I responded with the following statement for the Global Warming Crisis Council listserve. When my words were praised, I decided to release my statement more widely, as is:

Don’t be taken in by Gordon Brown or any other approved savior regarding the climate crisis.

My prediction for the UN Copenhagen meeting is that it cannot and will not do anything but promise policies that hinge on the technofix, instead of actually moving toward the immediate slashing of greenhouse gas emissions. After all, how could any head of state or climate official in a corporate-dominated world really try to cut back on industrial activity to a significant degree? It would be not just political suicide but literally.

The only way that expected discussed “cuts” can be arrived at is by designing theoretical reductions from the switching of energy practices over time. Too much time, too many people, no way to adequately replace petroleum.

It does not matter how sincere or passionate any of the official international compromisers are who “represent’ humanity. Their technofix is a lie, and that’s what the so-called leaders are signed up for. So shouldn’t the rest of us act accordingly, pro-actively? Perhaps a promise of reaction could be issued to them beforehand, announcing that we know they intend to only fail. At least it could make clear to a large audience, somehow, that we know that the process is set up for failure and that we’re always being bullshitted.

Keep in mind that the passionate messengers of dire effects of climate change earn trust by identifying the problem, and then they revert to imbeciles or deceivers by claiming the answer is different energy technology to be expanded or developed. Never a cultural change, never the abandonment of the car, or rejection of the whole bankrupt System. A lot of people have been fooled by the technofixsers, the only “good actors” to get a consistent forum in the play of good cop/bad cop (the bad cops are fossil fuels & nuclear business-as-usual). The game is rigged and is a fraud, so another game (culture) is overdue.

Jan Lundberg

Jan C. Lundberg, a national speaker, writer and publisher, is best known for running what was widely considered "the bible of the oil industry," Lundberg Survey Inc. In 1979 the firm predicted the Second Oil Shock. After 14 years there, he left for-profit work to found the nonprofit Sustainable Energy Institute, now Culture Change. For almost twenty years he has studied peak oil, energy alternatives, and conservation based primarily on grassroots change in lifestyle. He has assisted clients interested in the impacts of peak oil and climate change on material security and community connection. Educated in Europe and on the high seas, he has pursued an adventure called a career that is still evolving.

Tags: Building Community, Consumption & Demand, Education, Electricity, Energy Policy, Fossil Fuels, Industry, Media & Communications, Oil, Politics, Renewable Energy