Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to political theorists Geoff Mann and Joel Wainwright, people will increasingly turn to international institutions to address problems like climate change.
How Governments React to Climate Change: An Interview with the Political Theorists Joel Wainwright and Geoff Mann
By Isaac Chotiner
January 14, 2019…
In “Climate Leviathan: A Political Theory of Our Planetary Future,” Joel Wainwright, a professor of geography at Ohio State University, and Geoff Mann, the director of the Center for Global Political Economy at Simon Fraser University, consider how to approach a problem of such international dimensions. They look at several different political futures for our warming planet, and argue that a more forceful international order, or “Climate Leviathan,” is emerging, but unlikely to mitigate catastrophic warming.
…
Wainright: One of the arguments in our book is that, under pressure from the looming challenges of climate change, we can expect changes in the organization of political sovereignty. It’s going to be the first major change that humans have lived through in a while, since the emergence of what we sometimes think of as the modern period of sovereignty, as theorized by Thomas Hobbes, among others. We should expect that after, more than likely, a period of extended conflict and real problems for the existing global order, we’ll see the emergence of something that we describe as planetary sovereignty.
So, in that scenario, we could look at the current period with the crisis of liberal democracies all around the planet and the emergence of figures like Bolsonaro and Trump and [Indian Prime Minister Narendra] Modi as symptoms of a more general crisis, which is simultaneously ecological, political, and economic. Maybe this is quibbling with your question, of trying to disaggregate the causal variable. Which comes first—is it the ecological or the political and economic?—is a little bit difficult because it’s all entangled.
Mann: I think we’re going to witness and are already witnessing, in its emergent form, lots of changes to what we think of as the sovereign nation-state. Some of that change right now is super-reactionary—some groups are trying to make it stronger and more impervious than it’s been in a long time. Then, other kinds of forces are driving it to disintegrate, both in ways we might think of as pretty negative, like some of the things that are happening in the E.U., but also in other ways that we might think of as positive, in the sense of international coöperation. There’s some discussion about what to do about climate migration, at least.
…
There is a terrific book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, which examines amongst other things why comparatively united great powers like China stagnated for millennia, while quarrelsome, disunited Europe went on to create the modern world.
… At the beginning of the sixteenth century it was by no means apparent that the last-named region [Europe] was destined to rise above all the rest. But however imposing and organised some of those oriental empires appeared by comparison with Europe, they all suffered from the consequences of having a centralised authority which insisted upon uniformity of belief and practice, not only in official state religion but also in such areas as commercial activities and weapons development. The lack of any such supreme authority in Europe and the warlike rivalries among its various kingdoms and city-states stimulated a constant search for military improvements, which interacted fruitfully with newer technological and commercial advances that were also being thrown up in this competitive, entrepreneurial environment. Possessing fewer obstacles to change, European societies entered into a constant upward spiral of economic growth and enhanced military effectiveness which, over time, was to carry them ahead of all other regions of the globe …
History suggests that nations and cultures which retain their individuality and liberty in the face of brutal transnational political pressure to conform will be the nations and cultures which shape the future.
This is a made-up controversy created by taking seriously the clueless musings of two academics. Mann and Wainwright’s thesis that there are emerging signs of a sovereign world state is not supported by an inkling of evidence. The Paris agreements setting up goals of emission reductions was a very weak attempt to do this, but is doomed to failure because there’s no enforcement mechanism. The withdrawal of the U.S. from this regime seals its fate.
Wainwright/Mann should be pressed for any signs that there’s any progress whatsoever in global governance.
Obviously there are many people who agree with them. Look at the EU unelected bureaucrats. But the EU is in decline and threatened with dissolution particularly if Brexit results in a clean break. And look at the UN and their climate change regime. They have conferences that create the aura of benign world governance but I challenge anyone to show any concrete evidence that the aura translates to any traction whatsoever.
To me, the only contribution of the UN’s regime is to highlight the global nature of the so-called climate crisis. And they and others produce gobs of data proving that action by any individual country is utterly futile.
In the U.S., other than a few young turk Congresspeople, there’s not a single sign that the notion of global government has any support at all. Liberal democrats like Eliz Warren have vocal supporters but are so far out of the mainstream that democrats are the ones who suffer.
Mann and Wainwright need to look at history. All attempts to impose a supra national centralised control system eventually fail. The detritus of defunct empires litter history.
The concept of an international incorruptible hotbed of infinite wisdom is for the fairies.
Leftists are always convinced that this time it’s going to work. Because this time, they’ll be the ones in charge.
Bogus political desire based upon false pretenses and utterly without evidence of any need.
Typical elitist progressive who believes that they are the next ruling class.
If only they can scam citizens or governments into giving them their desired tyrannical despot positions.
Based in Paris, Brussels, or Geneva? or split among those three?
Which has been their goal, all along.
The Thermageddonites are fanatic, idiots.
One government plans, are a bad thing, not a good thing.
China is busy working on a one government plan for the world.
Step 1, dominate all industrial production. The richest country makes the rules.
Step 2, threaten small countries with commercial pain if they do not play by the Chinese rules.
On a lighter note, the following is a thoughtful overview of where we are in the CAGW saga.
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Global Warming
“The very desire to be a politician should forever disqualify you from ever becoming one !”
Billy Connoly
The most amazing feature of this latest left wing nonsense is, they never seem to run out of incompetent thinkers?
How can the left be still with us after all these years of abject failure?
Wasn’t the USSR after 70 years trying and failing to get collectivism to work sufficient proof for the left?
Do we have to go through it all again with the EU. The EU which has all the same elements as the soviets had and now, the EU is seeking military powers to back up its totalitarian ambitions.
It even has five presidents! You Americans are way too cheap only having one. Think of all those Air-force One planes you could justify, with five presidents! I am told the reason there are five, is in case they have to hold one of them up, hic….that might just be hearsay though.
The UN is trying hard to become the big brother organisation of the world we must do all we can to make sure it never happens.
Keep up the good work, realists. Our children and grandchildren will one day thank us, for being here during their period of social blindness.
“How can the left be still with us after all these years of abject failure?”
The Leftwing Media has a near-monopoly on the “truth” which gives them the ability to turn the failures of the Left into successes, through one process or another (lying/ignoring).
A lot of people get their news from Leftwing Media headlines. A lot of people are misled by Leftwing Media headlines. A lot of people are living in scary false realities as a result.
The societal institutions we rely on to give us the truth we need to govern ourselves properly are no longer reliable. They have turned into partisan, political propagandists focused on gaining political power for the Left. We are in a battle for the truth and for our personal freedoms now.
All of that plus; they never learn from history. I sincerely believe non of them even think to look at history, let alone learn from it. Everything is Unprecedented! ya know.
Problem with Media is that it naturally attracts Lefts.
The Left, as we should remember, believes basically that ‘Everything would be better if only *I* was in charge’.
They believe that they know what is best for you. What is media? A business that tells the public what they need to know. And who best to fill this role? Someone who already knows what is best for the public.
What media SHOULD be is ‘here are the arguments’.
What media usually becomes is ‘here is the summary. PS – I know what is best for you.’
Now we see their real political agenda.
Climate change is just a vehicle.
That’s why they were so mad at the Trump election – they were basically at Endgame.
They might be anyway.
It’s not just now that we see it. Several times various alarmist have let slip what their real agenda.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for the, at least, 150 years, since the industrial revolution,” — Christiana Figueres of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change
“But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy” –Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, and a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007
Which is why I find it so frustrating arguing with people that deny it. For crying out loud, I’m not the one who’s saying it – THEY are. I can quote Obama verbatim, and it just doesn’t seem to matter.
And I”M a ‘denier’.
“World Sovereignty.” ? Does that the other planets can’t tell us what to do ? Whew, now I feel better……D’OH !
“World Sovereignty.”…? Does that mean that the other planets can’t tell us Earthlings what do ? Great, I was getting tired of being pushed around by those Venusian bullies… D’OH !
And those Marians always so belligerent. Not to mention always wanting to destroy Earth because it blocks their view of Venus. Good thing they never did get that “uranium PU-36* explosive space modulator” working properly.
* later renamed to “Illudium Q-36” or alternatively “Eludium Q-36”
Marian the librarian was easy to get along with.
It is highly sensible to make global decisions on some things. Here is a list of a few:
1. Nuclear weapons – unlike most Americans, I do not trust the USA unconditionally to be responsible where nuclear weapons are concerned. They need reining in by the rest of the world. Just as other single nations need to be.
2. Solar incoming energy. The whole world depends on it, so no nutcases from any nation can be allowed to use weaponry to affect that unilaterally.
3. Environmental dumping at sea. The whole body of oceans is a single entity, so dumping toxic chemicals at sea will soread to the whole biological world in time. Global agreement is required to outlaw such vandalism.
4. Particle Physics – the economics of new accelerators is such that global cooperation is reasonable.
5. Climate Engineering – we already know that changes in MJO cycles in the Indian Ocean can affect polar vortices, pointing clearly to global effects of localised/regional modulations in certain climate parameters, like ENSO, PDO etc. Getting humans interfering without global consent is therefore unethical in the extreme.
Rhys.
You are confusing world concerns with totalitarian world authority.
Everyone with any sense shares concerns about global issues. That does not mean we must have a single global authority with all that entails, to be able to do what is right.
The idea some all powerful individual sitting on high at the world parliament forum, let’s call it the UN, with actual power available to wield to bring about change, is too frightening to consider.
The ultimate question would be, how do you get rid of such authority if it goes off the rails?
The world is a far safer place having hundreds of individual nations that compete with each other, in an environment of mutual respect and consideration.
Totalitarianism has proven itself to be a dangerous failure. We must not allow any traction down that road to be achieved. The UN must never be allowed to grow its own sense of authority. It is the servant of nations not the controller of nations.
“It [UN] is the servant of nations not the controller of nations.”
Yes, and let’s keep it that way!
I think that was a Steven Spielberg movie remake with very tall machines.
This would play out about like Apple and Google operating in China, complete with double standards and kowtowing. At least we would see who the powerless people are in reality and digitally.
“There’s some discussion about what to do about climate migration, at least.”
This appears to be the regurgitation of the idea of investment opportunities in condos in Antarctica.
If these men tried to bring their book into China with almost 1.4 billion people under an oppressive 1 party state, they likely would be shot after a short trial.
they likely would be shot after a short show trial.
fixed that for you.
Funny, we’ve had trade agreements for centuries without the needed to go planetary.
The few aberrations (1917 Russia, 1930’s Japan, Germany) have always ended badly for millions.
Indeed. You don’t need a “one world government” to accomplish a global task. The nations of the world are capable of working it out amongst themselves when they want. The only difference is a “one world government” can accomplish it sooner (at the point of a gun) but that’s not necessarily a good thing. Oft times, being able to stand back and have time to really think about it will prevent bad decisions from being implemented
For example, we’re constantly being told the world is warming up, the ice is melting and that will lead to rising sea levels. But in the 70s there was an idea being bandied about to dump soot over the polar caps in order to melt them and save the world from the coming ice age. Just imagine how much “worse” so-called global warming/melting ice capes/sea level rise would be if a one world government immediately followed through on that idea in the 1970s rather than cooler head (no pun intended) putting on the breaks by not immediately jumping on the bandwagon and implementing such a scheme.
Tbjz is proof positive of reincarnation! Maurice Strong take a bow, you’re back!
These people imagine that the gov will be on the side of virtue. Starting in the 1930s it was the gov in US that instituted Jim Crow laws (segregated schools, redlining, etc). Gov was not the good guys. It was gov that did forced sterilization of tens of thousands of “defectives” in the US. Dictatorships in E Germany, Russia, China do not produce a clean environment. It was the US gov that turned away Jews facing genocide.
Dictatorships adequate to accomplish their climate change agenda also do not suffer protestors–they kill them.
So it was called “Global Warming”, “Climate Change”, “Climate Disruption” and now is called “Climate Crisis”. The alarmists are running out of names for their scaremongering propaganda.
“It’s going to be the first major change that humans have lived through in a while, since the emergence of what we sometimes think of as the modern period of sovereignty, as theorized by Thomas Hobbes …”.
=========================================================
Hobbes argued for autocracy and Mill for individual sovereignty.
Paraphrasing Robert Conquest about Marxists ‘there are temperaments that will always seek absolutes, cure-all formulae for reconstructing society … and inclined to fads in other fields, no argument could persuade them otherwise’.
They’ve now latch onto Climate Change™, totalitarianism or individual sovereignty, it’s a matter of temperament.
There is no climate crisis. Climate change has been going on for eons and it will continue to take place whether mankind is here or not. It is happening so slowly that it takes networks of sophisticated sensors decades to detect it. We must not mix up weather cycles which are part of the current global climate with true climate change. Based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models we can conclude that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So there is really no climate problem that mankind can possible solve.
As long as I am who is in charge okey dokey. No leftist c**t should be anywhere near ANY gears&levers that affect anything more than a pile ofr dried up dog crap. Ever. Period. Full stop. Just look at Venezuela, Zimbabwe, New York(state and city) and California if you need any convincing.
“Some of that change right now is super-reactionary”
Can we all chip in and buy this guy mirror?
“Planetary Sovereignty” is just another way to say what rich families and foundations such as Rockefeller have been pushing for decades: “Interdepdence” between nations.
My guess is that after WWII, the Rockefellers and other rich ‘important’ people realized that their wealth and lavish lifestyles could go away in a flash, especially now with nukes. They see interdependence and ending nationalism as ways to make the world less volatile and hence, preserve their wealth and lavish lifestyles.
“We Need ‘Planetary Sovereignty’ to Address the Climate Crisis”
Uh-huh. Speaking as an American, what you REALLY need to FOAD.