• Google
    This Blog Web

October 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

RSS Feed

Bookmark and Share

Email Feed



  • Powered by FeedBlitz

« Monstrous Hybrids Alive | Main | Buzzwords for the Future »

October 05, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

ed

Check out this US Carbon Footprint Map, an interactive United States Carbon Footprint Map, illustrating Greenest States to Cities. This site has all sorts of stats on individual State & City energy consumptions, demographics and much more down to your local US City level...

http://www.eredux.com/states/

hawkeye

It is interesting. I guess I'm an agnostic on the religion of global warming. I still wouldn't be surprised if a few decades down the road we aren't hearing about global cooling again, but it mostly boils down to a high level of skeptism about the rapidity being put forward about "the threat".

I can imagine (or just go to lifeboat) other threats that are more likely, more urgent and more realistically addressed with today's technology.

Having said that, energy alternatives need to be created anyway for strategic reasons to achieve energy independence. This logic applies to most nations. Don't get so set on getting agreement for the"why" when those who are "anti-environmentalist" will frequently agree on the what. AND consider compromise on some possible short term items.

What would ANWAR be worth for real M.P.G.solution or Alt energy commitment like nuclear or solar, etc? A solar satellite commitment would be awesome.
my 2 cents...

Jim Stark

Reason suggests we must not accept the "it's too late" argument even if it turns out in the end to be right. But what kind of global political plan might provide a basis for the Herculean effort to neutralize "the threat," since the pitiful UN can't even get Darfur right.

We know from opinion polling that a global referendum on establishing a democratic world government (DWG) would pass, if done today. We know that the mandate emerging from a successful global referendum would be "binding" under international law. Common sense dictates that such a mandate would be politically compelling no matter what its legal status. We know that by utilizing the Internet, such a global referendum is doable even without the support of nation states, even in spite of their opposition (and many national governments won't object if they assess that their job of running a nation is made far easier by this new global political reality). And finally, we know how to use modern technology to assure ourselves that unlike all other governments, democratic or otherwise, the DWG can be protected against all corruption by being 100% transparent (no words spoken by elected Members of a Global Parliament are unrecorded and all words that are spoken end up posted on the Internet for watchdog groups to read or hear).

You won't get your garbage picked up if you don't have a municipal council, and we won't have a chance of stopping global warming or outlawing potentially omnicidal war without a new, global political center of gravity. The choice is not between world government and no world government. As the real fear of destroying our planet and ourselves sinks in, and as Tim Flannery points out, the real choice is between a really democratic world government and a Big Brother-type military outfit, sponsored by the multinationals, no doubt, that will try to save the planet without regard to how people feel or what people think about anything. Considering the profound lack of foresight exhibited by Homo sapiens in the past, we will likely dawdle until the latter option is the only option, by which time it may really be too late. For those who are repelled by that scenario, go to www.voteworldgovernment.org and vote ... and get everyone you know to vote too. It is surely better to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all ... and who says we're going to fail? I think the human race will do this.

M. Simon

You might find this of interest re: climate change.
Criminals And Moralists Working Together

Enron Carbon Trading And Hansen

Enron And Carbon Trading

Tom Craver

I could support (though do not expect) a "democratic" world government of the sort needed to pass and enforce universal laws - e.g. on climate.

But NOT the sort where 4 billion people get to impose their will on 3 billion by direct vote. That's a recipe for global civil war.

Assuming nearly all people (other than dictators) could agree to the democratic principle "consent of the governed", I see three derivative principles necessary to sound and just government by true consent: Representation, Unanimity, and Limited terms.

Representation - Each individual would have an inalienable right to choose who will represent them - even murderers on death row. Representatives would choose the representatives to higher bodies of government. Laws passed by a body would be binding and enforced on all below in the tiers of representation.

Unanimity - This is the only way to prevent tyranny of the majority. Within any legislative body, laws could only pass with unanimous consent of all representatives. Representatives would be selected by unanimous agreement of small self-selected groups from the next lower level of government - starting with groups of individuals picking their representatives.

Limited terms - this would apply to represenatives as well as laws. While those who elected a represenatitive or passed a law could always unanimously agree to recall or cancel, sometimes a bad decision may be made and one person could block correction of that mistake. Term limits insures that no mistake will last too long.

Of course, that's far to simplistic - there are a multitude of details that would need to be worked out, such as to what degree represenatation is geographically defined, how borders are set and change, what happens when someone moves, etc. But I do think those principles would form a solid foundation.

John B

Jim Stark - You actually believe polls are truely representative? Or are you accepting these polls due to what appear to an ignorant observer to be your preconceptions re: world government?

Tom Craver - Sounds like you're up to recreating the League of Nations, or the Continental Congress. Both of which did so well, didn't they? *wry grin*

My 2c...
-John B

The comments to this entry are closed.