Britain's position at the EU negotiations is
that of sticking to the toxic pollution that gives London short term gains and
the whole world long term losses. Compared to climate change, where the long
term is much, much longer, and the losses are much, much less certain,
unregulated finance is arguably a more urgent problem to be tackled.
Interestingly, Britain has chosen to be a
heavy player in the climate change business while remaining a denier in
anything that has to do with financial markets. While in the first case they
try to get countries to cooperate to achieve "sustainable development", in the
latter they hang tough on the notion of sovereignty.
This can only remind me that the current
British coalition has imposed budget cuts to all but one department: that which
deals with international development (DFID), including forest conservation in
tropical countries. British funds for REDD projects in the tropical world have
never been so available, and the current secretary for climate change, Chris
Huhne, has not only continued but strengthened British efforts to avoid carbon
emissions abroad.
Surprisingly, what they seem to be doing at
home is the exact opposite of what they want foreigners to do, as George
Monbiot has so undeniably explained.
The bottom line is the following. Influential
players in the international political system have the power to impose agendas to
others while exempting themselves from full compliance. This is clearly the
case with the British standards for sustainability, where forest
conservation is to take place in tropical countries but not at home, whereas financial toxic pollution is to continue undisturbed in London but hopefully not abroad.
Are weaker
countries better-off when they try to protect themselves from this type of
trick, or do they rather gain more by simply assuming that this is how the game
plays and conforming to the given rules?
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário