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
A well armed populous will be required to stave off a Global Governance Catastrophe.
Gail Combs says:
March 20, 2012 at 5:10 am
You may find this interesting
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/03/measured-in-gold-price-of-oil-is-below.html
Measured in Gold, the Price of Oil is Below Average
…”MP: Measured in terms of a stable commodity in relatively fixed supply like gold, the price of oil now is below its historical average, as the chart illustrates, and suggests that the falling value of the U.S. dollar is contributing to record high gas and oil prices, when measured in dollars. Measured in gold, oil and gas are now historically “cheap,” not expensive. “
Since some one up thread was complaining about the Right I thought I’d add a bit (the quoted part below is from a former partner in Dillin, Read and HUD Secretary under Bush 1.
After reading Dark Alliance, I started to study the extraordinary moneymaking business that DOJ and agencies like HUD had built in enforcement that really only made sense if in fact the government was entirely complicit in narcotics trafficking and related mortgage and mortgage securities fraud.
If you want to read more about how drug money took down the country you can read Financial Coup d’Etat. If you want the whole story you can start with the table of contents.
Links here: http://classicalvalues.com/2012/03/wall-street-is-in-the-news/
So the Right is complicit as well. If only in a useful idiot sort of way. i.e. if the “climate” attack doesn’t work maybe the “drug” attack will. A lot going on in the UN about “Drugs” lately. Anyone notice?
Also look up what is sustainable in the The Johannesburg Declaration. Drug Prohibition. And drug money is one of the biggest slush funds that keeps the whole shoddy mechanism running.
Dave Wendt says:
March 20, 2012 at 3:49 pm
Gail Combs says:
March 20, 2012 at 5:10 am
You may find this interesting
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/03/measured-in-gold-price-of-oil-is-below.html
Measured in Gold, the Price of Oil is Below Average
…”MP: Measured in terms of a stable commodity in relatively fixed supply like gold, the price of oil now is below its historical average, as the chart illustrates, and suggests that the falling value of the U.S. dollar is contributing to record high gas and oil prices, when measured in dollars. Measured in gold, oil and gas are now historically “cheap,” not expensive. “
____________________________________
Thanks
I did a money supply ~ $/oz gold ~ Min. wage in $ ~ Min Wage in oz gold Chart a while back.
This is what I found:
In 1959 the minimum wage was .$1.00 or 0.0284 oz of gold.
In 1974 the minimum wage was .$2.00 or 0.0102 oz. oz of gold.
In 2009 the minimum wage was $6.55 or 0.0064.oz. of gold.
Given this to calculate the average CEO’s wage.
I came up with this as a rough estimate:
1976 minimum wage was 0.0184 oz gold and a CEO’s pay was 0.663.oz gold
2008 minimum wage was 0.0066 oz gold and a CEO’s pay was 2.44.oz gold
No matter how you slice it the common folk are getting taken to the cleaners though price of good inflation (in $$) and wage deflation. Even though “Measured in gold, oil and gas are now historically “cheap,” not expensive. “ The corresponding minimum wage as measure in gold is about half what it was in 1971. The big drop in true wages was from 1959 to 1974 when the minimum wage in gold was halved and it has almost been halved again since then.
References:
Gold price http://www.finfacts.ie/Private/curency/goldmarketprice.htm
Money supply http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/BOGUMBNS.txt
Min Wage http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm
An interesting study on where all that cheap labor came from: http://www.opednews.com/articles/History-HACCP-and-the-Foo-by-Nicole-Johnson-090906-229.html
These new world order climate change clowns are out of control!!!
If by being ‘vindicated’ you mean being called wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong – then so be it. You simply ignored my comments about those ridiculous assertions … “Palin a backwater neo-con that hijacked the TEA party” :: No, she is a quite traditional pro-American who hijacked nothing … that ‘Ron Paul is the TEA Party Godfather’ :: that’s a big Hell No … that there is ‘conservative lip service to big government’ :: no, those RINOs *not* conservatives are big government lackeys … that it’s called TEA, *not* tea and it is not even a party … that the term ‘Neo-Con’ is suspicious as it is usually used with bad intentions … that Palin Derangement Syndrome indicates a problem of your own side … Vindicated? That word doesn’t mean what you think it means.
And now you say this: “You basically admitted that Reagan, Bush, Nixon, Romney, Palin et al, were/are not real conservatives” … I certainly said no such thing. I clearly said “Romney and Bush and Dole” and by implication all other RINO country clubbers (Ford, Rockefeller, McCain, Christie, Pataki, Wilson, Powell, Dupont, Kean, Hastert, Michel, Crist, Hutchinson, Grassley, Spector, Boner, Chafee … ad nauseum). What they all have in common is the ability to be equally comfortable wearing a (D) or (R) but not ‘Conservative’, and that level of idealogical confusion only happens when leftists try to define the terms. Now, how you were able to insert Palin and Reagan into that comment demonstrates complete ignorance of anything outside your political bubble.
Your novel definition of the usually bigoted pejorative: ‘Neo-Con’ is easily disproved. You say “A true test of a neo-con is their willingness to accept foreign intervention as a god-given American duty and to paradoxically oppose Democrats- who basically uphold the same values”. Well now, all you have to do is simply ask yourself if there are any so-called ‘Neo-Cons’ that DO NOT “paradoxically oppose Democrats” war action? So, would Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Bill and Irving Kristol, Horowitz, Wolfowitz, Bush 43, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bolton, Rice, Goldberg or any other alleged Neo-Cons challenge the (D) wars and interventions? Of course not! Pretty much all of them back any and all action by either party because most are simply too afraid to be called hypocritical by a (D) President or (D) Speaker or (D) News Media (which is just so ironic). Yes, there might a couple of those listed that timidly questioned smaller actions like Haiti or Bosnia (for very good reason if you ask me) but nothing vaguely compared to the hatred sent towards Cheney or Bush 43. Here is what you do not quite understand: For all practical purposes, all of the interventions and wars whether initiated by a (D) or (R) are pretty much – unanimous. The only difference lies in the media vitriol directed at them later (especially if the ‘warmonger’ happens to be ‘Conservative’ or (R) or Jewish or whatever target the media finds politically incorrect) or lack of vitriol if that ‘warmonger’ has a (D) attached to their name.
Perhaps if we simply ignore the loaded term ‘Neo-Con’ then these military actions can be argued on the merits. Or perhaps not because then we see that the hypocrisy you tried to assign to ‘Neo-Cons’ is almost exclusively a creature of the left. The Clinton era cheerleaders rooted for Bosnian action while they previously decried the Kuwait Gulf War, not to mention ridiculing Panama, Libya and Grenada. Those of us that were not born yesterday watched in utter astonishment while the leftists simultaneously called for intervention in El Salvador while demanding hands-off Nicaragua (attack the Anti-Communists, protect the Communists). I could spend the whole day describing the cartwheels and contortions that leftist Democrats perform to protect America’s international enemies while attacking their national political rivals. In the big picture terms like ‘Neo-Con’ and ‘Oil Wars’ are simply propaganda constructs that serve to distract from the real issue. The leftist Communists and Socialists infiltrated and have completely saturated the (D) party so that it instinctively opposes any action that rolls back Communism, Totalitarianism and Terrorism. The attempt to change the subject to ‘Neo-Cons’ driving the ‘Wars for Oil’ (what oil did they take?) and ‘Shilling for Israel’ (isn’t Iran still there working on a nuke?) are pure lies not much better than Goebbels propaganda.