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
Robert E. Phelan says:
March 19, 2012 at 12:02 am
… Note the sponsors and patrons. Note the agenda. Note the participants.
These people are building up to have the Rio conference sell us all down the river.
Good point! Have a look at this (from conference program):
http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/pdf/poster_session_1.pdf
Nitrogen – NITROGEN!!! What, are they going to say we have too much Nitrogen?
For crying out loud, it’s 78 percent of the atmosphere, are they going to try to get
rid of it? Well, then they’ll get rid of us too…er,…maybe that’s what they want….
(Sorry for the rant, but some of this drivel emanating from the eco-nuts
beggars belief. And, judging by the number of supposed “studies” taking place,
there must be an awful lot of “greenwash” money [erm, that used to be ours]
changing hands….).
It is a very great shame the The Australian which is Australia’s national daily news paper is behind a paywall preventing access by WUWT readers. In today’s issue Dr Will Steffen, the executive director of the Climate Change Institute at Australia’s premier university, states that the present heavy rains in Eastern Australia, which also occurred during 2010 and 2011 are due to global warming. In 2007 Professor Tim Flannery, the Climate Commissioner during a prolonged drought period stated the dams in south east Australia would never fill again due, of course, to drought caused by global warming. In response to this article there have been a 108 comments of which 107, repeat 107, were devastatingly critical. Although the sample size is too small to draw any conclusions, it is most heartening to see so many Australians expressing contempt and disbelief for people such as Will Steffen and Tim Flannery. A cogent point made by many is to ask Dr Steffen if he knew this heavy rain was going to occur why didn’t he say so in 2007 so that the expensive desalination plants built to counter the effects of drought (and so far never switched on) need not have been built.
Maybe someone can explain the following to me.
These people may want a “world government” all they want – it’s not going to happen, and it’s not going to happen because there’s no force on this planet that can make China do what it doesn’t want it to do (and, increasingly, that applies to India, Brazil, etc as well). The only kind of “world government” that China would accept is one where it is the boss – or, at least, where it can veto what it doesn’t like. But that is already more or less where we are right now, isn’t it, whether there is a formal “world government” or not.
So the whole idea of a world government what would impose the “crisis mentality” for centuries is nothing but a fantasy of some very silly people. Isn’t it?
Of course, those same silly people can very well want to commit economic suicide, as California is already doing. But that won’t survive true economic decline – even the Soviet dictatorship could not withstand that.
Meanwhile, the Age of Reason will survive in China and those other countries, while the West reacts to the loss of its power by committing economic suicide – like the Xhosa in South Africa in 1856. Which is unfortunate, but maybe inevitable.
If the UN or the EU were a corporation whose stock traded on the stock exchange, who would ever buy it? What value-add can they demonstrate to a (rightly) skeptical investor? The corruption at the UN is so vast that nobody even notices it any more. Take just one case: Kofi Annan and the Iraq oil-for-food scandal. Much of the revenue from the permitted sales of oil simply vanished while in UN custody. He should have been cashiered for that but he’s now “mediating solutions” in Syria. Then we have the repeated revelations of UN “peacekeepers” engaged in abuse and trafficking of the populations they were sent to protect: Bosnia, Africa. Haiti.
Bottom line they purport to offer governance services to a needy world, but they soak up precious resources and cannot even govern themselves. Tragic. And terrifying.
Also watch out for the right as well, who equally desire big government.
The Green Guard are getting ready to take us all on their ‘Great Leap Backwards’.
I would like to add a bit more depth to my comment above. The critical year is 1972 the year of the first UN Earth Summit when Strong first started pushing CAGW.
Elaine Dewar wrote in Toronto’s Saturday Night magazine:
It is instructive to read Strong’s 1972 Stockholm speech and compare it with the issues of Earth Summit 1992. Strong warned urgently about global warming, the devastation of forests, the loss of biodiversity, polluted oceans, the population time bomb. Then as now, he invited to the conference the brand-new environmental NGOs [non-governmental organizations]: he gave them money to come; they were invited to raise hell at home. After Stockholm, environment issues became part of the administrative framework in Canada, the U.S., Britain, and Europe.
“Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?”
This is actually the very first time I see a warmist social engineer mention the risk of tyranny under their schemes. In general, they are incapable of introspection. This one is a rare exception.
Q. Daniels says:
March 18, 2012 at 10:41 pm
What would John Galt do?
Who is John Galt?
😉
Peak Warming Man says (March 19, 2012 at 1:16 am):
(…) Most countries like USA and Australia and UK etc started out as seperate states that then united under a central government for the common good, the next step is for the countries then to unite under a central(or world) government for the common good, (…) it’s a natural progression and is nothing to fear.
No. When the people of the countries concerned can be certain that those taking part in the construction of a world government are representative of their interests and democratically accountable to them, then perhaps there is, indeed, little to worry about. When the push for a world government is coming from a clique of power-hungry, fascist authoritarians representing only their own interests and accountable to no-one, there is every reason to worry … and to do something to stop the process before it is allowed to fester any more. Currently, the latter is demonstrably the case, hence the concern.
From brent says:
March 19, 2012 at 1:10 am
Proposed UN Environmental Constitution For The World Would Establish An Incredibly Repressive System Of Global Governance
http://tinyurl.com/88692zv
Excerpt
They aren’t foolin’ folks.
Not a chance.
Sociopathic political personalities work such systems and opportunities as though born to it, which they were. Restraint by policy, regulation, and bureaucracy is pointless and impossible; it simply results in the creation of a Nomenklatura privileged layer which produces, props up, and both serves and controls Big Man Secretaries, Presidents, etc.
Sort-of typo: “They aren’t foolin’ folks.” I intended, “They aren’t foolin’, folks.”
But it works, I hope, the other way, too. The massive rate-payer, tax-payer, and voter rejections of Green policies and politicians as soon as their intentions and effects become evident is heartening. Whether the Greenistas can grab irreversible power before the backlash swamps them, and survive loss of “The Mandate of Heaven” (classical Chinese-adage-speak for the necessary combination of public support and effective governance), remains to be seen. They clearly see the danger of being “outed” and discarded, of course, and are now desperate to circumvent and preclude it.
“Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad”
Brilliant words from Anon
“Dear sir,
Your journal is neither scientific nor American”
Famous letter in the 1960s.
I gave up SA several years ago, despite it’s excellent articles in other fields of science. ‘The Economist’ may go the same way.
———————–
Goldie says (March 18, 2012 at 11:40 pm)
“they actually need to offer something now apart from a Jack boot or whatever the Marxist equivalent of one is.”
The Marxist equivalent of a jackboot is…..a jackboot.
———————–
This is the real battle of the 21st Century – between neo-Malthusians with all their plans to control and restrain humanity, and those who believe in progress and freedom. A running battle fought in politics, the media, the schools and universities, and public opinion. Much of the West has been lost, but can perhaps be regained, and the developing world is not so easily duped.
Time to mobilise! Just as the Cold War had to be won, this new Malthusian assault must be defeated if a civilisation which has been built up over centuries is not to fall into “the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.”
This is pure-quill Stalinism.
Joe McCarthy was rught.
I am a green German, dealing with Conservation and Renewable Energies for decades in Europe and Africa, even before they came with the CO² stuff. I just had the idea to be a good house keeper, to use everything and not to waste anything. When the CO² message arrived, I soon fond out, that it is’t true, but I thougt it is fine to have a measurement for any case of energy consumption, how much fossil fuel is used.
Then I found out, that the CO²ers started to frighten grown-ups and even more children. Young people are beocomimg activists, not having the chance to check, if its is true. Nowadays it becomes difficult to say something other than the official doctrine. Scientists are fearing to loose their posts when saying something sceptical.
And now I have to read this:
“species-wide alteration in basic human behaviors would be a sine qua non”
And this in the US! OMG! How far have we gone! How will they achieve this goal? Big Brother? Drugs? Brave-New-World-Media? TV? Surgery?
Must be a new religion with an efficient working Inquisition. Hmm – as the U.S. are not save now , I have to look for anothe place to escape, if the CO² Gouvernments are taking over. I’ve got it! Poland is not so far away and they dare to say a contrary opinion.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17300952
At least, the vodka is cheap there, if I need to dream a little bit about real greening….
In terms of travel time, the other side of the world is now closer than the other side of the State was when my dad was a boy.
Now is the time for planning a world Government that we can live with. Otherwise we’ll end up with one that we can’t live with. The aims of such a body must be
1) to avoid unnecessary war
2) to dispense justice, without which war might become necessary
3) to enhance liberty
What would such a constitution consist of? Here are my first thoughts.
The worst aspects of representative democracy should be avoided. The situation where politicians are more responsive to the wishes of their party than their electorate should be prevented. To do this, we should outlaw political parties for such a body. Specifically, we should create the criminal offence of ‘associating with a known politician’. Such an offence should apply only to politicians of that body.
It should move toward the day when technology permits all people to directly represent themselves.
The constitution should specify that any provision that operates to exempt the lawmakers from any effect of their laws is invalid.
It must avoid the financial folly that the Western Democracies such as Greece and America fell into. To do so it should separate its legislative and financial powers, plus limit the percentage of wealth it may tax, plus limit the maximum dollar figure it can tax.
It must avoid the morass of regulation the EEC fell into. While it may have the authority to recommend regulations, it should not have the power to require them to be enforced.
A proper system will include separation of powers, and checks and balances. The wonderful virtues of the negative should be stressed. “World Congress shall make no law.” Over and over again.
Human freedoms that it may not infringe such as freedom of speech should be specified.
There must be genuine sanctions for breaching provisions of a constitution, or it would end up like the Soviet Union, with a beautiful constitution and a totalitarian actuality..
There must be a sunset clause on every law it passes. 21 years is reasonable. If they wish to reimpose a law after 21 years of experience with it, then so be it. But a sunset clause frees the present from the straightjacket of the past. Such re-introduction can not be done in block, but can only be done individually.
Any body, agency, corporation etc. created by the organisation shall likewise expire after 21 years, excepting only such armed forces as it possess to enforce international peace. The body shall tax its member nations 1 percent of their arms budget every year, and use that amount to arm itself. Such an amount is not inherently de-stabilising, but it will accrue over time, while creating a small incentive to nations to reduce their arms budgets.
A law must be accompanied by a statement of the purpose of the law, the good it means to achieve and the harm it wishes to avoid, and how it is envisioned the law shall achieve that goal. Any infringement of the law that does not defeat the purpose of the law will not be unlawful.
The practice of adding ‘amendments’ that amount to different laws shall be unlawful. There may be at any time a total of 100 laws only from this body, not counting its constitution.
So, there’s my first thoughts. Any opinions?
Reminds me of a poster I saw in an old propaganda movie of the 1940’s: “Heute Deutschland, Morgan die ganze Welt!”
World domination is not a new idea. Scary as it sounds I wonder if it’s actually possible.
Well, now that he’s convinced himself, I guess it’s settled! How ironic that he later alludes to “academic naivete”. Yes, generating electricity from sunlight, wind, or sewer gas is not that hard. Scaling it up to utility or industrial levels of supply and reliability–that’s pretty much impossible. But this naive academic has no friggin’ clue.
To answer his questions:
Have children. Then we will do almost anything to ensure we give our kids a better world than we received. Chief among our legacy is cheap, reliable, ubiquitous transportation, abundant energy, housing that keeps us cool in summer and warm in winter, abundant food supply, etc. NO living in caves with 3 hours a day of flashlight-bulb-level electricity for my kids!
No.
That’s easy. Get the UN to pass another resolution. There. Done.
No. Never in the history of the world has any dictator NOT abused his power. That’s why we work so hard and spend so many lives to destroy dictatorships.
Apparently this blockhead wants God Almighty to come down from Heaven and set up heaven on earth to his specifications. That has always worked so well in the past. He takes “academic naivete” to stratospheric levels. And he says we just need to start “embracing” his “head-in-the-cloud answers”.
Scientific American actually published this???
Unfortunately, ladies and gentlemen, this is what our youth are learning in college from their professors. I can’t tell you how many student I have met who have their own car, at 18, or, at least, a Smart Phone, but faithfully believe in something called sustainability, for which neither they nor professors have any clue about. But, they do love to talk and pontificate. It is as if the kids don’t trust themselves, feel their parents have messed up the world, so let’s put some unknown, unelected body in charge and they will tell us what to do. I find the direction so frightening that it is worthy of being completely ignored or violated.
Gail Combs says (March 19, 2012 at 2:53 am)
“A key point was Gleissberg had identified an 88 yr cycle in the weather patterns in 1971. With this information a 30 – 40 year warming trend could be predicted.”
That’s interesting, Gail. However, the abstract of the paper you linked to gives no hint as to cycle dates, and the main body is paywalled (side note: why is the AGU still paywalling 9 year old papers??).
Do you know where we are in the warming / cooling cycles at the moment? Are we about to go from warm to cool?
The comments in this thread remind me of discussions about the weather. Everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything about it. All of you who rant and rave about “global governance”, etc.: Is that all you do? How many of you are willing to commit your “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” to stopping it? You complain that “the other side” is coercing the rest of the world thru punitive means to achieve their agenda, yet I see no equivalent means being used to stop them. Why is that? Are we satisfied to vent our spleens on a blog, and let it go at that in the forlorn hope that “the other side” will abandon their agenda? Good luck.
This is a War. And wars are not won thru defense alone.
If you have not already read it, it is very important to periodically be reminded of just how deep the human folly can be, how it can sweep whole cultures, lead economies to ruin, and then, thankfully, end.
Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds:
http://manybooks.net/titles/mackaych2451824518-8.html
free download. (Many more free download sites if you search on the name)
http://duckduckgo.com/?q=free+download+memoirs+of+extraordinary+popular+delusions+and+the+madness+of+crowds
(“duckduckgo” is a search engine that does not track you as Google does…)
“Memoirs” details the periodic mass insanties of people. From the “Tuplip Mania” in Holland where folks bid up the price of ONE tulip bulb to be close to that of a whole house, to simpler delusions.
Some day, the entire “Global Warming Hysteria” will be just another entry in the Madness of Crowds, along with the Green Paranoia.
Sadly, what “Memoirs” also teaches is that these delusions can be persistent, destructive, and often need to simply run to a catastrophic end before folks recognize them.
But still, it is encouraging in times like these to have some historical perspective, and to realize that This Madness is no different from Tulip Mania and will look just as silly in retrospect.
Yes, there will be True Believers willing to sell everything to stand on the mountaintop, expecting God Himself to visit them. Some will think you, too, ought to be forced to join them in their Madness… Just politely, but firmly, say “No, thank you. I like my life as it is now.”
And perhaps ask if they would like to buy a tulip bulb? 😉
Maybe we ought to adopt the Tulip as the Global Warmers Emblem for “Save The Planet” governance? Think we could talk them into putting it on a flag and waving it around (with the banner heading “Save the planet, plant a Tulip!” 😉
Yes, the risk of a UN Governing Body is real. ( The Agenda 21 folks from the UN are pushing for it, hard; and expect several hundred $Billion PER YEAR in funding, so will not let that dream go easily…). But while being prepared to fight to preserve ones liberties is an unfortunate necessity, I’ve found that simply exploding in laughter in someones presence can take the wind out of their Pomp and Circumstance “right quick”… Never pass up the opportunity to laugh someone out of town… it can be most effective 😉
So “All Hail The Tulip Kings! Hip Hip Hurrah!”…
And remember to ask if they think they ought to eat cake with that?…
“Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?”
NO. It would be the UN from the start—the epitome of an inept unfeeling dictator. We would already be there.