Jay of Melbourne and sonofgloin,

I share many of your sentiments and recollections of formative years as they relate to the gradual transition of genuine environmental concerns and their gradual high jacking by other persuasions.

I’m less interested in who, what and how because I think this is now perhaps less relevant. The objective of this thread was to discover if the reality of the decline of this current phenomenon was recognized by its own supporters and where it might possibly go without its former supporting infrastructure.

If we accept that the genuine environmental concerns of the 1960’s onwards may have been usurped by “other persuasions” in whatever form these might take, if it is in decline and thus weakened, might it be exposed to “other” opportunist forces that might take advantage of it’s demise?

This might sound a bit obtuse so let me paint a scenario for you. If movements like CAGW looses its infrastructure and becomes vulnerable but retains its disciples, isn’t this an attractive proposition for the next vulture to descend upon the road kill?

If I were a government facing austerity, had implemented (CO2) legislation and a means of taxing the population, would I allow the reason for the taxes to disappear entirely along with its supporting disciples or would I harness this for political and economic gain?

My proposition therefore is that rather than supporting a collective approach (Kyoto), I might harness the means of raising taxes and the supporting disciples, to continue to raise taxes but apply them to rebuilding fossil fuel based economic growth?

In other words usurp the remnants of the last political phenomenon to enable the next.

You are both deep thinkers and have already confirmed your talent for seeing beyond the current situation. I am keen to get your perception of the question posed, “Where can fixing CAGW go without its infrastructure”?

Will it go anywhere or will it be again usurped

Great! I have been trying toi make just that point.
It has been up stream all the way.
Just trying to tell SOME the truly lost in fact.
It is not about GILLARD.
Not about Abbott, well maybe it is.
His now proven to be a lie, that carbon tax would seed us bankrupt, gee.
In fact thanks yet again.
In agreeing it is not a local issue.
*I can, with your blessing I hope, dump increased world wide view man needs to act on the table*
We will stumble get it wrong make mistakes.
But Liberals have to confront, maybe you do too, they have the same carbon reduction targets,just a different path.
Taxing non polluters to pay the polluters and thieving from?
PENSIONERS.
Rest! do not fly away, calm, Turnbull before the election will dump Tony,s wet dreams.
And your landslide, using SOME of Labors policy's, will come.
Regards .

Spindoc>> So if the reason to “buy” and the “product” are not longer good enough for the market to maintain its infrastructure, where can this market go?<<

Remember Spindoc that the market is sustained by left wing governments. In the US only three states implemented a carbon tax, and they are democratic states. The top ideologues know that carbon abatement without new technology is bullsheiser. But there is a two bladed sword in the carbon tax, it also distributes wealth from the first world to the second and third. Some might say that is the primary objective and I would probably agree.

sonofgloin,

"...It also distributes wealth from the first world to the second and third...."

Well that might even things up a bit. Perhaps you should check out the profits made and the control exercised by corporations like Monsanto and Cargill - in India for example.

Egypt was the World Bank's "top reformer" last decade....lots of money made by the ruling elite and "first world corporations"....not much chop for Egypt's general population - hence revolution.

You tend to ignore the fact that the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank are there as doormen for Western corporations and their dealings with third world governments - usually tying loans to structural adjustments which cruel poor populations and enrich Westerners.

Poirot>> You tend to ignore the fact that the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank are there as doormen for Western corporations and their dealings with third world governments - usually tying loans to structural adjustments which cruel poor populations and enrich Westerners<<

Poirot, I agree with you,i posted this:
>>Global wealth has moved at considerable pace, right now 1% owns 40% and 10% own 80% of the globes assets. That leaves 20% for the rest of us<<

When we discuss the WTO,IMF,or the World Bank, we are talking about the European Banking cartel. They certainly take money from the second and third world...in fact the whole world.

Do you recall "BANKCARD"? In an era of prosperity in the mid 1970's when the banks only loaned you money if you could pay it back, less than 10% of Australians had a credit card. The European banking cartel via our banks pushed credit onto us.

I vividly recall that Bankcards were sent unsolicited to kids, dogs cats goats and budgies. The debt trap and fiscal slavery was a planned event. When you say the exploitation of the poor nations ends up in the pockets of the western nations is a sweeping statement. It ends up in the pockets of the 10% who own 80% of everything.

You may not realize it but western society plebs are also victims. They are taking our savings as fast as we can gather them. In 2007 we the people had a consumer debt that came with the era of credit cards, but as a nation our government owed nothing. Today we pay a BILLION in govt interest every month to the same banking cartel.

There are many interesting perspectives offered here and I’m in agreement with many of them, particularly in relation to the international control and distribution of public money.

The question I asked remains unanswered.

“Where can fixing CAGW go without its infrastructure”?

If we accept that CAGW was also a Eurocentric mechanism for the same financial control and redistribution of public money, where if anywhere can it go now?

If we are to draw comparisons with the WTO, IMF and World Bank and the EU Central Bank ECB, they have all retained their international infrastructure and influence. They would seem in fact to have increased their power.

The point is that if CAGW was indeed a similar mechanism and its infrastructure is corroding, what can it achieve now?

Are we to conclude that if it has lost its international governance through Kyoto, if the CO2 trading markets to fund it have failed, that individual governments of any flavor are reducing their funding due to austerity and that the renewable manufacturing industry is shot, then there is no governance or infrastructure to support it?

In the absence of any challenge to the assertion, have we concluded that it cannot go anywhere even if we wanted it to