Plot to undermine global pollution controls revealed
January 3, 2002 8:54 AM   Subscribe

Plot to undermine global pollution controls revealed
"A secret group of developed nations conspired to limit the effectiveness of the UN's first conference on the environment, held in Stockholm in 1972. "
posted by Irontom (14 comments total)

 
"Excuse me, stewardess, I speak Jive."
posted by dong_resin at 9:08 AM on January 3, 2002


Why would anyone need to limit the effectiveness of a UN conference? It's not as if they're very effective to begin with. Or useful.
posted by frednorman at 9:23 AM on January 3, 2002


There seems to be an unspoken assumption that this was a bad thing to do.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 9:32 AM on January 3, 2002


It is a good thing for the UN to attempt to play a significant role. Though they often may fail, their meetings and issues, when revealed to the world, help us to figure out who is being naughtry and who nice. That they were victims of foul play and this made known to the world help also to let the good guys (our side) know that they have been exposed for their hypocrisy and money grubbing mess they are making of the world they pretend to support. While it is cool to be wise, cynical, juaded, still, the info tosses a lightbeam on them and gives us pause in our presumed righteousness.
posted by Postroad at 9:34 AM on January 3, 2002


steven:

an assumption that it would be bad to undermine a process rather than participate in that process whether one is pro or con? yes.
posted by moz at 9:36 AM on January 3, 2002


no one's questioning the existence of a 30-year-old report? the writer of the story apparently didn't contact any of the nations in question? how 'bout some proof, folks? ... post the document, maybe...
posted by krewson at 9:40 AM on January 3, 2002


[an assumption that it would be bad to undermine a process rather than participate in that process whether one is pro or con? ]

So is this part of the process or is it subverting it? One could argue it either way. You could also argue that subverting the process is simply part of a larger process, no?
posted by revbrian at 9:49 AM on January 3, 2002


an assumption that it would be bad to undermine a process rather than participate in that process whether one is pro or con? yes.

Yes. So why do we not criticize those in support of said measures for any time spent outside of official meetings organizing their supporting views? The way this is being put here, you are saying that those in support of environmental measures may meet all they want and present ALL measures they want regardless of their impact yet those who must actually implement these measures and deal with the impact should not be allowed to discuss these measures and try to mitigate the number being presented? That is hardly a two-sided process...
posted by RevGreg at 10:10 AM on January 3, 2002


revbrian:

filibusters have been used for a long time. remember how strom thurmand filibustered in an attempt to stop civil rights legislation in 1957? i wish it were not a part of the process, for it does seem a bit low, but sadly it is a part. lobby your congressmen in support of amending the problem.

i must say that the article you linked as an example of subverting votes in the senate was quite hysterical. cultural marxists control universities, the media, bureaucracies and hollywood? you might try to find something a little more neutral next time, revbrian.

revgreg:

So why do we not criticize those in support of said measures for any time spent outside of official meetings organizing their supporting views? The way this is being put here, you are saying that those in support of environmental measures may meet all they want and present ALL measures they want regardless of their impact yet those who must actually implement these measures and deal with the impact should not be allowed to discuss these measures and try to mitigate the number being presented?

it is insinuated that the Brussels Group attempted to "undermine" the process of the UN's first conference on the environment, but in truth how the conference could have been undermined is not explained.

the author states that Foreign Office papers say the group "made real progress on this difficult problem", though without specifying how this was done. and Its chief aim in the diplomatic jockeying during the run-up to Stockholm was for developed countries to get what they wanted "and perhaps be less worried about making it a success for developing countries". what is "jockeying"? that seems vague, don't you agree? did the group simply try to persuade other established countries to ignore developing countries? did it try to threaten them or bribe them (unsuccessfully were that the case)? was lobbying intended to be excluded from the conference? according to british documents the Brussels Group "will have to remain informal and confidential." apparently those in the group did not feel they should be out in the open.

my problem is not that the group lobbied against environmental measures but the way in which it did. i don't quite know all there is to know how the group went about its lobbying to say if it was all on the up-and-up. perhaps all we can argue about, in that case, are hypothetical circumstances.

lots of reverends at metafilter! that just seems odd to me.
posted by moz at 10:37 AM on January 3, 2002


[i must say that the article you linked as an example of subverting votes in the senate was quite hysterical. ]

Agreed - He's quite the crackpot. Still it was what I came across quickly in a search for the 60-vote supermajority issue. A filibuster (while admittedly silly) has it's place from time to time, but for every vote!? Seems a bit much.

I would honestly be more surprised if this group didn't form than if it did. Power attempts to preserve itself, consolidate and grow. No real surprise there.

[lots of reverends at metafilter! that just seems odd to me.]

A pleasant surprise to me. Rev. Greg is rarely on at the same time as myself so we rarely comment in the same threads.
posted by revbrian at 10:52 AM on January 3, 2002


Moz: it looks like a universalist reverend tag-team conspiracy to me.
posted by insomnyuk at 10:53 AM on January 3, 2002


The greatest success of this group was to protect the Concorde? Yawn. All the good state secrets stay secret, I guess.
posted by rschram at 10:55 AM on January 3, 2002


[Moz: it looks like a universalist reverend tag-team conspiracy to me.]

I would think 3bruces would be more appreciated by the Mefi crowd. That said, I didn't know he was online until I read his comment so it would be difficult to conspire. Still can't understand why he uses the internet on his own time rather than the company time...
posted by revbrian at 11:03 AM on January 3, 2002


Still can't understand why he uses the internet on his own time rather than the company time...

Okay! I'm at work. Are ya friggin' happy now?!
posted by RevGreg at 1:33 PM on January 3, 2002


« Older Not just another pretty face... ...  |  File sharing apps may contain ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments