To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers.
Skeptics get scoffed at when we say the burdensome regulations that have been and have been sought to be imposed by the alarm over global warming are just a tool to secure a larger governance control. In today’s society, if you control how energy is generated, used, and tax, you pretty much control the modern world. People will do almost anything to keep that computer, iPhone, and electric heat and appliances.
Now in Scientific American, one writer just lays it all out for us to see, pulling no punches.
Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe
Almost six years ago, I was the editor of a single-topic issue on energy for Scientific American that included an article by Princeton University’s Robert Socolow that set out a well-reasoned plan for how to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations below a planet-livable threshold of 560 ppm.
…
If I had it to do over, I’d approach the issue planning differently, my fellow editors permitting. I would scale back on the nuclear fusion and clean coal, instead devoting at least half of the available space for feature articles on psychology, sociology, economics and political science. Since doing that issue, I’ve come to the conclusion that the technical details are the easy part. It’s the social engineering that’s the killer. Moon shots and Manhattan Projects are child’s play compared to needed changes in the way we behave.
…
Unfortunately, far more is needed. To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers. There would have to be consideration of some way of embracing head-in-the-cloud answers to social problems that are usually dismissed by policymakers as academic naivete. In principle, species-wide alteration in basic human behaviors would be a sine qua non, but that kind of pronouncement also profoundly strains credibility in the chaos of the political sphere. Some of the things that would need to be contemplated: How do we overcome our hard-wired tendency to “discount” the future: valuing what we have today more than what we might receive tomorrow? Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries? How do we create new institutions with enforcement powers way beyond the current mandate of the U.N.? Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?
Read it all here
This guy is surely one of those that drove me to cancel my subscription to SA!
No matter what the UN does, or attempts to do, China, India and Brazil will just keep on chugging along and spewing who knows what into the atmosphere. And everyone knows it.
Are the reeducation camps and the Ministry of Truth big enough? Forced marches, Jack booted green enforcers and so called western democratic governments lining up to sign up for this. YES, Obama, the EU collective and the present government in Australia immediately comes to mind. The trouble is extreme left or right wing governments are as hard on the people as each other. and the right to live a peaceful life should be sacrosanct. When will we learn that governing from the center is always the best option for mankind, warts and all!!!!!
I think I ended my subscription with them in 2006 or 2007. I started referring to them as “Scientific” American but I guess these days they have devolved to Scientific “American”.
It’s sad as it was a pretty fine science magazine back in the day.
I just got back from the beach. It’s still there. No Star Trek universe transnational government needed to sweep back the sea level rise because there hasn’t been any since I started going there 50 years ago.
“I’ve come to the conclusion that the technical details are the easy part. It’s the social engineering that’s the killer.”
Was that an intended pun? Social engineering is indeed the “killer”! Haven’t we already been down that road with Stalin, Mao, and Hitler? Putting politicians in charge of enforcing “science” is never a good idea. At best, it will end up forcing science into the dark ages to preserve the status quo. And, at worst, it will end up in mass slaughter.
Stix really believes this. That’s scary. On the other hand, he’s so in love with his notion that he has lost any sense of proportion, which makes his advocacy much less credible. That tends to happen to people who have tuned out any fact or argument that might weaken their belief or put them to real intellectual effort. True believers self-destruct.
Meanwhile in Syria and a dozen other hotspots (of a different kind) in the world.
A perfect explanation of why we are bitter and want to cling to our guns.
[some words in the above have been borrowed from Barack Obama]
“Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries?”
——————————————————————————————————————
Yes, Oceania comes to mind. The author of this can find his blueprint in “1984”.
When you have scientists, professors, and the media all clamoring to establish a world government to protect the climate, it spells trouble. Now all that is needed is a powerful religious figure to add to the chorus. Oh wait, that’s already happened:
“…the protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate obliges all international leaders to act jointly…”
“…to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority…”
— POPE BENEDICT XVI,Jul 6, 2009, Charity in Truth
I thought journalists were trained to think critically:
Gary Stix commissions, writes, and edits features, news articles and Web blogs for Scientific American. His area of coverage is neuroscience. He also has frequently been the issue or section editor for special issues or reports on topics ranging from nanotechnology to obesity. He has worked for nearly 20 years at Scientific American, following three years as a science journalist at IEEE Spectrum, the flagship publication for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. He has an undergraduate degree in journalism from New York University. With his wife, he wrote a general primer on technology called Who Gives a Gigabyte?”
http://worldsciencefestival.com/participants/gary_stix
WUWT?
Gary Stix is the author and I can find no further qualifications other than ‘journalist and author’. This apparently is enough to qualify to be Senior editor at SA.
I am still steaming at this gibberish. Another screwy offering from our Sydney Morning Herald, that attempts to demolish sceptics, Heartland, the Galileo Movement, and then has the cheek to say we need to prioritise science over politics. All this from a lecturer in public policy and politics and whose doctoral thesis examined the role of neo-liberal ideology in Australia.
I note the SA article produced a backlash in comments, deservedly so.
“It’s the social engineering that’s the killer. ”
True on so many levels. And a killer quote.
Nice to know he is looking out for our best interests. /sarc
But may I ask, what ever happened to global warming?
Remember, this is ALL based on 0.7 degrees C warming over the last 150+ years, and a bunch of computer models programmed by advocates. The “Age of Information” has becime the “Age of Disinformation,” and we are all the poorer for it…
I think that the UN is already trying to make this happen through international legistlation …
http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/EPLP-031-rev3.pdf
I am not fluent enough in legal-speak to be sure how binding this will be on sovereign states …
In two years time we will cross the psychological threshold of 400 ppmv in CO2
and only a meager 160 ppm increase is left until the Day of Reckoning, when
Earth will be unlivable……
I like to buy some real estate where the future world government will reside …..
…….Geneva is already expensive, I prefer Kasachstan or Turcmenistan (places with
an …stan on end) but another good place for me would be Micronesia, there are
good solid atolls about….Each visitor has to bring a bag of sand as sustainable
contribution as 20 kilos suitcase …..
JS
Excerpt below, from an article written by Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace.
Please note that this article was written by Moore in 1994.
The Berlin Wall fell on November 9, 1989.
The Earth Summit in Rio occurred just 2 1/2 years later, in June 1992.
Twenty three years after the Fall of the Wall…
So comrades, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale (and Global Warming) unites the human race.
So comrades, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale (and Global Warming) unites the human race.
🙂
___________________________________________________________
http://www.greenspirit.com/key_issues/the_log.cfm?booknum=12&page=3
The Rise of Eco-Extremism
Two profound events triggered the split between those advocating a pragmatic or “liberal” approach to ecology and the new “zero-tolerance” attitude of the extremists. The first event, mentioned previously, was the widespread adoption of the environmental agenda by the mainstream of business and government. This left environmentalists with the choice of either being drawn into collaboration with their former “enemies” or of taking ever more extreme positions. Many environmentalists chose the latter route. They rejected the concept of “sustainable development” and took a strong “anti-development” stance.
Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.
These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society. Some of the features of eco-extremism are:
• It is anti-human. The human species is characterized as a “cancer” on the face of the earth. The extremists perpetuate the belief that all human activity is negative whereas the rest of nature is good. This results in alienation from nature and subverts the most important lesson of ecology; that we are all part of nature and interdependent with it. This aspect of environmental extremism leads to disdain and disrespect for fellow humans and the belief that it would be “good” if a disease such as AIDS were to wipe out most of the population.
• It is anti-technology and anti-science. Eco-extremists dream of returning to some kind of technologically primitive society. Horse-logging is the only kind of forestry they can fully support. All large machines are seen as inherently destructive and “unnatural’. The Sierra Club’s recent book, “Clearcut: the Tragedy of Industrial Forestry”, is an excellent example of this perspective. “Western industrial society” is rejected in its entirety as is nearly every known forestry system including shelterwood, seed tree and small group selection. The word “Nature” is capitalized every time it is used and we are encouraged to “find our place” in the world through “shamanic journeying” and “swaying with the trees”. Science is invoked only as a means of justifying the adoption of beliefs that have no basis in science to begin with.
• It is anti-organization. Environmental extremists tend to expect the whole world to adopt anarchism as the model for individual behavior. This is expressed in their dislike of national governments, multinational corporations, and large institutions of all kinds. It would seem that this critique applies to all organizations except the environmental movement itself. Corporations are criticized for taking profits made in one country and investing them in other countries, this being proof that they have no “allegiance” to local communities. Where is the international environmental movements allegiance to local communities? How much of the money raised in the name of aboriginal peoples has been distributed to them? How much is dedicated to helping loggers thrown out of work by environmental campaigns? How much to research silvicultural systems that are environmentally and economically superior?
• It is anti-trade. Eco-extremists are not only opposed to “free trade” but to international trade in general. This is based on the belief that each “bioregion” should be self-sufficient in all its material needs. If it’s too cold to grow bananas – – too bad. Certainly anyone who studies ecology comes to realize the importance of natural geographic units such as watersheds, islands, and estuaries. As foolish as it is to ignore ecosystems it is absurd to put fences around them as if they were independent of their neighbours. In its extreme version, bioregionalism is just another form of ultra-nationalism and gives rise to the same excesses of intolerance and xenophobia.
• It is anti-free enterprise. Despite the fact that communism and state socialism has failed, eco-extremists are basically anti-business. They dislike “competition” and are definitely opposed to profits. Anyone engaging in private business, particularly if they are successful, is characterized as greedy and lacking in morality. The extremists do not seem to find it necessary to put forward an alternative system of organization that would prove efficient at meeting the material needs of society. They are content to set themselves up as the critics of international free enterprise while offering nothing but idealistic platitudes in its place.
• It is anti-democratic. This is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of radical environmentalism. The very foundation of our society, liberal representative democracy, is rejected as being too “human-centered”. In the name of “speaking for the trees and other species” we are faced with a movement that would usher in an era of eco-fascism. The “planetary police” would “answer to no one but Mother Earth herself”.
• It is basically anti-civilization. In its essence, eco-extremism rejects virtually everything about modern life. We are told that nothing short of returning to primitive tribal society can save the earth from ecological collapse. No more cities, no more airplanes, no more polyester suits. It is a naive vision of a return to the Garden of Eden.
***************
No doubt Gary Stix would readily volunteer (and expect) to be one of the architects of the social change and hence would not be subject to the ‘radical solutions on the social side’.
As with most people who advocate radical changes to society, they are not willing to be the first in line. Euthanasia/suicide is available to those who wish for a smaller population but they don’t line up to start the process. Those that want more control over resources don’t seem to want to limit their own use and even argue that they need to fly around the world to deliver their message without acknowledging the hypocrisy of doing so (Al, put your hand up).
‘Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries?’ – As Louis points out – YES! Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler – insert your own crazy, freedom-hating, megalomanic dictator here.
‘Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?’ – Stix needs to look in the mirror when asking this as he is sounding like the very thing he is asking about.
The Green Movement’s True Colors: green on the outside and red on the inside.
Watermelons as James Dellingpole calls them.
This is fascism, plain and simple.
World Science Festival: Gary Stix: Senior Editor, Scientific American
Gary Stix commissions, writes, and edits features, news articles and Web blogs for Scientific American. His area of coverage is neuroscience. He also has frequently been the issue or section editor for special issues or reports on topics ranging from nanotechnology to obesity. He has worked for nearly 20 years at Scientific American, following three years as a science journalist at IEEE Spectrum, the flagship publication for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. He has an undergraduate degree in journalism from New York University. With his wife, he wrote a general primer on technology called Who Gives a Gigabyte?
http://worldsciencefestival.com/participants/gary_stix
for those able to listen to BBC, which it seems is possible at this link.
this program, along the same lines as Stix, was on BBC World Sce Business programe last nite. listening to BBC’s Peter Day encourage/contribute to this nonsense is painful. it would seem we are in a new phase of CAGW PR:
BBC World Service: Global Business with Peter Day
Peter Day hears from Alan Moore author of No Straight Lines: making sense of our non-linear world and asks him ‘what next’ for the industrialised world.
In his book he argues that the industrialised world is facing the combined problems of social, organisational and economic complexity.
In this edition of Global Business he tells Peter Day how No Straight Lines interprets the disruptive trends shaping our world and how companies can address the challenges and move onwards and upwards.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00ph35n/Global_Business_No_Straight_Lines/
“Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries?”
Eh…you mean like fire, brimstone, fear of an apocalypse.
or
Fighting sabateurs, splittists, deviantists, reactionaries, counter-revolutionaries.
or
Blaming all the failures of your utopia on an often vulnerable or arbitrary minority[, or deniers,] or the 1%.
NOTE: I made an edit in [brackets] since your wording might push some buttons like what happened on the other thread – Anthony
“Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?”
As the saying goes, that’s not a bug, that’s a Feature!