Climate Change and Democracy

Originally posted by quackquack
I think a lot of the bailouts are because our economies are all intertwined. It does not necessarily mean that we want to have one worldwide governing authority and it does not mean that people view this intertwining as a positive change that they wish to extend.

Local government will always be needed - simply because it's not efficient to run everything from a central government. However, an overarching world government - if sufficiently democratic - would help alleviate some issues like protectionism, some wars and various other conflicts.

Originally posted by CalJust
That explains why more often than not "the best strategy for the group" does not happen when individuals make choices.

What usually happens in practice, is that the someone that starts and sets an example, loses out. But hey, there is always room for trail-blazers and martyrs!

But individuals do make choices, and we do successfully live in societies. Sure some societies fall due to the excess of selfish people, or selfish people getting an upper hand, but some societies flourish.
But we achieve this by setting up rules so that the selfish are punished. The Tragedy of the Commons, happens more when there are no rules. Since we are discussing the world environment, a good example would be over fishing in international waters. There are often not enough penalties for misbehaving, so each country tries to be selfish. The result - over fishing.
The same applies to climate change, there is no framework in place to punish those who don't do anything, so everyone looks at everyone else, and acts selfishly - to everyone's detriment.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Local government will always be needed - simply because it's not efficient to run everything from a central government. However, an overarching world government - if sufficiently democratic - would help alleviate some issues like protectionism, some wars and various other conflicts.

It might be nice in principal but it seems to me the trend in politics is not to accept sacrifice for the greater good, but instead it is demand what is best for oneself.

Originally posted by quackquack
It might be nice in principal but it seems to me the trend in politics is not to accept sacrifice for the greater good, but instead it is demand what is best for oneself.

It's not about sacrifice, but about mutual interests.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But individuals do make choices, and we do successfully live in societies. Sure some societies fall due to the excess of selfish people, or selfish people getting an upper hand, but some societies flourish.
But we achieve this by setting up rules so that the selfish are punished. The Tragedy of the Commons, happens more when there are no rules. Since we ...[text shortened]... do anything, so everyone looks at everyone else, and acts selfishly - to everyone's detriment.

Perhaps the real reason we overfish is people want fish and don't really care if we overfish and we over pollute because people want cheap goods and don't care about pollution. It seems likely that even if we had one government and could better take care of externalities we would choose not to.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It's not about sacrifice, but about mutual interests.

Its only in your interest if you are willing to prioritize something like climate change. There are many people who claim to believe that it does not really exist; there are many others who want change but are not willing to make the necessary life changes.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The same applies to climate change, there is no framework in place to punish those who don't do anything, so everyone looks at everyone else, and acts selfishly - to everyone's detriment.

Looks like we finally agree on something!

😀

Originally posted by CalJust
Brian Statham is the Chairperson of SANEA, the South African National Energy Association, affiliated with the World Energy Council (WEC).

He writes the following in the SANEA Journal:

I recently had the opportunity to attend a private discussion on energy matters while in London. An eminent speaker declared: "We will not solve the global problems of en ...[text shortened]... acy won't get us there, is there really an alternative to democracy, and if so, WHAT?? [/i]

Global tyranny.

Originally posted by quackquack
Your question seems to be broader than just climate change. It is more about whether democracy leads to things that optimize earth's society as a whole. But individual nations are not going to forfeit their individual sovereignty to decide issues. We will not have one view on pollution as we won't on abortion, capital punishment, religion, entitlement ...[text shortened]... taxation, personal freedoms or the millions of other issues that face people on planet earth.

Individual national sovereignty issues stand in the way of global agreements, just as real individual rights often stand in the way of national goals.

Originally posted by rwingett
Would you thank the slave owners for providing a nice plantation for the slaves to work on? After all, if it weren't for the institution of slavery, the slaves would surely starve.

As with the institution of slavery, neither your capitalistic system nor your venerated "producers" are necessary. I suspect that if we were to do away with both that there would still be plenty of jobs to go around.

It was producers and capitalism that saw to it slavery ended. Eliminate capitalism and slavery will return.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What do you regard as the maximum size of a country in terms of area and/or population?

Who has the right to say?

Originally posted by twhitehead
And since it is the large corporations (and the rich) that set the taxes, that isn't going to happen.

[b]However, on second thoughts, this is actually NOT the real problem. Whilst international conglomerates DO influence governments, the UNFCCC works on a national level, so governments will vote what is in their own best perceived interests.
You ...[text shortened]... f everyone is selfish, everyone looses. For co-operation to happen, someone's got to start.[/b]

Selfishness and cooperation aren't mutually exclusive. And cooperation with a wrong and destructive idea doesn't benefit anyone individual or society.

Originally posted by CalJust
You've hit the nail on the head - my point exactly!

Are you familiar with "The Tragedy of the Commons"?

Google it!

That explains why more often than not "the best strategy for the group" does not happen when individuals make choices.

What usually happens in practice, is that the someone that starts and sets an example, loses out. But hey, there is always room for trail-blazers and martyrs!

It is mysterious how individual interests must always harm society, society being made up of individuals.

Originally posted by CalJust
Brian Statham is the Chairperson of SANEA, the South African National Energy Association, affiliated with the World Energy Council (WEC).

He writes the following in the SANEA Journal:

I recently had the opportunity to attend a private discussion on energy matters while in London. An eminent speaker declared: "We will not solve the global problems of en ...[text shortened]... acy won't get us there, is there really an alternative to democracy, and if so, WHAT?? [/i]

I'd interpret this as meaning that the interests of individuals in a democratic nation, and therefore the interests of those nations, do not naturally lead them to want to "go first" in carbon reduction. There are articles to be found on game theory and climate change, that address this problem. Some suggest Australia going first, with limited carbon reduction targets that would be increased as others join in.

Originally posted by normbenign
It was producers and capitalism that saw to it slavery ended. Eliminate capitalism and slavery will return.

Slaves are capital.