Setting rules for nature and giving her rights...seems strange to me,
The Bolivian government got the ball rolling by proposing four big ideas: that nature should be granted rights that protect ecosystems from annihilation (a "Universal Declaration of Mother Earth Rights"); that those who violate those rights and other international environmental agreements should face legal consequences (a "Climate Justice Tribunal"); that poor countries should receive various forms of compensation for a crisis they are facing but had little role in creating ("Climate Debt"); and that there should be a mechanism for people around the world to express their views on these topics ("World People's Referendum on Climate Change").
Despite this however I do find it reassuring to learn that there are summits discussing climate change,particularly after the flop of Copenhagen. This time its in Bolivia, named World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth- the name sells it well.
Whilst people are beginning to recognise that it is in fact society that needs to be saved and re-assessed rather then the nature, its beginning to look like we may get somewhere. It is often the problem when promoting green issues- people get cast off as hippies who love the planet and want to save the pretty flowers. This is not the case. Its about thinking, common-sense, strategic design. Its about saving ourselves. Despite having come so far, we remain so naive, Surely the salvation of the human race is much more important then saving the nature. We need humans, in fact we are humans, thats what we relate to, so that should be the point used to convince the nations. It needs to be simple, straight forward, approached from a different angle.. In a report in The nation, the smart journalist picks up on this........
" after the Copenhagen debacle, an exceedingly dangerous talking point went viral: the real culprit of the breakdown was democracy itself. The UN process, giving equal votes to 192 countries, was simply too unwieldy--better to find the solutions in small groups. Even trusted environmental voices likeJames Lovelock fell prey: "I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war," he told the Guardian recently. "It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while." But in reality, it is such small groupings--like the invitation-only club that rammed through the Copenhagen Accord--that have caused us to lose ground, weakening already inadequate existing agreements. By contrast, the climate change policy brought to Copenhagen by Bolivia was drafted by social movements through a participatory process, and the end result was the most transformative and radical vision so far."
They got it!- now we need to promote that. The only problem now is..how do you make humans care about themselves when they always have the answer..."well, we're all going to die anyway, so i might as well just do what i want whilst i'm here"- a strong yet also so invalid reason. Yes we will all die, but we are here for a reason, not just to inflict damage and get fat. We are meant to be productive, fulfil our dreams and goals. I question anybody who claims they are happier doing nothing over being active, conscience and assertive....For now, i'm with the Bolivian ambassador of the UN Pablo Solon-
"The only thing that can save mankind from a tragedy is the exercise of global democracy."