is democracy a threat to the global enviroment - and are we doomed ?

Great Debates
1

It sometimes seams to me that the voters in every country makes it impossible for any governments on earth to take necessary actions to stop the global warming. It further seams to me that necessary action to stop global warming infact means so drastic changes that it will more or less ruin the lives of most citicents in every nation, especially the wealthy nations.

Is the price to stop global warming major economic depression, massemployment and grinding powerty to most people in a scale that makes the 1930 look like the “Happy days”. ?

Seams to me that we all are on a train heading for disaster, but we can’t stop because our way of life are so fundamental for our modern existence

Have anyone else had such thought ?
I’m however not so sure that this is linkes to democracy as I suspect that dictators fear to take similar actions to avoid the rage of the masses.
Another (but relevant) debate are if the democraties have so much power as they had some decades ago. It seams to me that the financial business world of free trade - and organizations like OECD and similar org. have today very much power that should infact been under democratic rule and not in boardrooms.

2

There are beginning industries dealing with pollution. Autos are being designed by independent manufacturers to solve the problem. Tesla is an example. Windmills ,better solar panels etc. The big 3 who fight every chance to keep up will suffer. Industries that are too invested in producing but not developing will fail. But, new opportunities will be there.
NAFTA and other trade agreements were designed to increase profits. They were hammered out by business men to their own advantage. They gutted the environmental and workers rights out of the pacts. It could have been much better. It is a disaster now.

3

No…and no. Next question?

If it is necessary to essentially destroy civilization in order to save it…well, I’ve heard about stuff like this before and it didn’t work out very well.

Here is the thing. Figure out exactly what the ‘necessary actions’ ARE would be a good place to start. Then convinced a majority that whatever sacrifices you are asking will have a measurable, verifiable effect and you are home free. Problem thus far (at least in the US) is…while I believe most folks are on board with the idea of GW, less are convinced that humans play either the major or only part in that. Less still are convinced that the rather vague but obviously escalating plans of the AGW crowd, many who have obviously political axes to grind, are realistic…or that the sacrifice being asked will actually buy us anything at all.

Excellent question. Is it? Since it’s so difficult to nail down some of these folks as to exactly what IS needed, for how long and realistically how much it will cost in the end, it’s hard to say. It’s equally hard to nail them down on exactly what metrics we will be able to use to determine if all that wonderful sacrifice is actually doing any good at all.

BTW, and as an aside…the main contributor these days to CO2 emissions is China…which isn’t a democracy at all. Just something to think about.

-XT

4

[QUOTE=Wildfire**MM]
It sometimes seams to me that the voters in every country makes it impossible for any governments on earth to take necessary actions to stop the global warming.
[/quote]
Actually, from what I’ve heard it’s the governments that are dragging their feet, against the desires of the voters.

[QUOTE=Wildfire**MM]
It further seams to me that necessary action to stop global warming infact means so drastic changes that it will more or less ruin the lives of most citicents in every nation, especially the wealthy nations.

Is the price to stop global warming major economic depression, massemployment and grinding powerty to most people in a scale that makes the 1930 look like the “Happy days”. ?
[/quote]
No, that’s more likely to be the cost of NOT stopping global warming. We either pay a smaller economic price now; or a much larger one later. Normal people can understand that, but the elite is too insulated from reality to grasp the concept of consequences.

[QUOTE=Wildfire**MM]
Another (but relevant) debate are if the democraties have so much power as they had some decades ago. It seams to me that the financial business world of free trade - and organizations like OECD and similar org. have today very much power that should infact been under democratic rule and not in boardrooms.
[/QUOTE]
I agree.

5

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
There are beginning industries dealing with pollution. Autos are being designed by independent manufacturers to solve the problem. Tesla is an example. Windmills ,better solar panels etc. The big 3 who fight every chance to keep up will suffer. Industries that are too invested in producing but not developing will fail. But, new opportunities will be there.
NAFTA and other trade agreements were designed to increase profits. They were hammered out by business men to their own advantage. They gutted the environmental and workers rights out of the pacts. It could have been much better. It is a disaster now.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, but many enviromentalist point at our consume, and that this consume (that is supposes to increase each year) are crucial for our economic progress and welfare. They often argue that mankind must have 3-4 planets like the earth to manage the worlds consume without destrying the earth - if the third world would consume as much as us (And the third world seams to be heading towards our consume)

6

The question should be will capitalism doom us. Strangely that is how it was answered. Unbridled capitalism will destroy us all.
The people can be convinced to do the right thing. Corporations can not.

7

[QUOTE=Wildfire**MM]
Yes, but many enviromentalist point at our consume, and that this consume (that is supposes to increase each year) are crucial for our economic progress and welfare. They often argue that mankind must have 3-4 planets like the earth to manage the worlds consume without destrying the earth - if the third world would consume as much as us (And the third world seams to be heading towards our consume)
[/QUOTE]

I have no idea what this means. Really.

Anyway, you can’t switch the economics of the planet overnight. It is still debatable whether or not mankind has any impact on Global Warming, although the majority of people seem to be coming over to that side.

At any rate, businesses need to continue to function and people need to continue to live. Shutting down the economy in favour of greenhouse gas reduction isn’t possible.

I think the philosophy of reducing greenhouse gases and pollution is sound in practice, but again, not by shutting down the economy.

You state that voters are preventing governments from taking action on global warming as if the two are separate entities. The people are the government in democracies. You don’t like the status quo, you vote them out and another in: no?

8

[QUOTE=Leaffan]
I have no idea what this means. Really.
[/quote]
He/she was referring to the fact that our economy is based not only on consumption, but ever increasing amounts of it. Everything is designed to be consumed, obsolete or fall apart in a few years at most and be replaced. And to the claim that the Earth simply isn’t big enough to support the wasteful US lifestyle for the entire world population; it has neither the resources nor the ability to absorb that much waste without being ruined. I think judging from his/her location that WildfireMM**'s first language isn’t English.

[QUOTE=Leaffan]
You state that voters are preventing governments from taking action on global warming as if the two are separate entities. The people are the government in democracies. You don’t like the status quo, you vote them out and another in: no?
[/QUOTE]
No. You can vote for whom you like, but the politicians will just ignore you and listen to the corporations once in office.

9

The IPCC’s estimate of costs for reducing emissions out to 2050 in order to stabilize CO2 levels at the lowest level that they considered (which I believe was about 445-535 ppm) was a reduction in GDP growth of less than 0.12% of GDP a year. So, in other words, if you assume that world economic growth would have been, say, 3% per year, then these costs would reduce the growth to ~2.88% per year. (See here, in particular Table SPM.6 on p. 18 of the Summary for policymakers.)

I hardly think that qualifies as “major economic depression, mass[ive un]employment and grinding powerty”.

There are people out there who want you to think that the only two options are to do essentially nothing or to face economic ruin. However, those tend to be the people who are, in one way or another, connected to industries (like coal) who will likely be losers in a carbon-constrained world, or people who have a viceral hatred of almost any government regulation of the market.

10

[QUOTE=jshore]
The IPCC’s estimate of costs for reducing emissions out to 2050 in order to stabilize CO2 levels at the lowest level that they considered (which I believe was about 445-535 ppm) was a reduction in GDP growth of less than 0.12% of GDP a year. So, in other words, if you assume that world economic growth would have been, say, 3% per year, then these costs would reduce the growth to ~2.88% per year. (See here, in particular Table SPM.6 on p. 18 of the Summary for policymakers.)
[/QUOTE]

Interesting. Of course the devil is in the details. I haven’t heard that anything so modest is what’s required to halt or slow down GW…in fact, all I have heard is that we are on the bring of disaster, etc etc, and that only extreme measures will get us through. If the US can do this for less than .12% of GDP then I have to wonder…why aren’t those figures being put forth more? I mean…that has got to be somewhere in the ball park of, say, NASA’s budget I should think.

I’m a bit skeptical that this low end figure is what we are really talking about here…because if it is, it makes no sense why we aren’t doing it already. And why the Euro’s are having so much trouble meeting their own quotas. And why other countries aren’t jumping at the chance to do this for such a paltry amount. We are only talking about a few hundred billion dollars if my rough back of the envelope calculation is in the ball park.

[QUOTE=jshore]
I hardly think that qualifies as “major economic depression, mass[ive un]employment and grinding powerty”.
[/QUOTE]

Certainly not…if in fact the estimate you are quoting is both encompassing, accurate and inclusive. I’m a bit skeptical as I said…simply because every show I’ve seen on GW (and we are talking about a hurricane of recent shows on this subject) points to it being a bit more than what you are indicating to halt or avert this impending disaster.

[QUOTE=jshore]
There are people out there who want you to think that the only two options are to do essentially nothing or to face economic ruin. However, those tend to be the people who are, in one way or another, connected to industries (like coal) who will likely be losers in a carbon-constrained world, or people who have a viceral hatred of almost any government regulation of the market.
[/QUOTE]

Interestingly enough, there are ALSO people and groups out there who are using the fear of GW/AGW to push through their own anti-corporate/green/tree hugging agendas as well. Fancy that…on both sides of the debate there are people who have other motives for all this stuff.

-XT

11

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
No. You can vote for whom you like, but the politicians will just ignore you and listen to the corporations once in office.
[/QUOTE]

OK. Fair enough. I agree that a corporations can, and do, lobby governments. Corporations also create products, employ people, give to charities, pay taxes and help build communities. The threat of corporations pulling themselves out of communities given overly stringent environmental targets is real. I’m sure India or China would be more than happy to take them.

12

[QUOTE=Leaffan]
OK. Fair enough. I agree that a corporations can, and do, lobby governments. Corporations also create products, employ people, give to charities, pay taxes and help build communities. The threat of corporations pulling themselves out of communities given overly stringent environmental targets is real. I’m sure India or China would be more than happy to take them.
[/QUOTE]
And if they are laid waste in the process, how are they better off ? From what I’ve heard, China’s doing itself massive ecological and environmental harm.

If the cost of attracting corporations is ruin ( not that I buy that ), then it’s not worth it. Money is important, but it’s not the only thing in the universe that matters. And sacrificing the long term for the short is foolish.

13

Not to many years ago I both heard and read several times that the rich part of the world (about 20% of the population) consumed about 80% of the energy.

14

[QUOTE=Wildfire**MM]
Not to many years ago I both heard and read several times that the rich part of the world (about 20% of the population) consumed about 80% of the energy.
[/QUOTE]

And now that things have changed, do you still think that is so? IOW, have you looked at a demographic population map of the world (hint: have you looked at China and India and their respective populations)?

-XT

15

[QUOTE=xtisme]
And now that things have changed, do you still think that is so? IOW, have you looked at a demographic population map of the world (hint: have you looked at China and India and their respective populations)?

-XT
[/QUOTE]

But the rich countries doesn’t use less today that it used 7-10 years ago

16

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
No, that’s more likely to be the cost of NOT stopping global warming. We either pay a smaller economic price now; or a much larger one later. Normal people can understand that, but the elite is too insulated from reality to grasp the concept of consequences.
[/QUOTE]
According to this article, models show that the total global cost from current projections of global warming is about 1% PV of future consumption, and that a carbon tax (the most economically efficient way to reduce pollution) would improve the global economy by at best 0.17%. Given inefficiencies in any tax administration, I think you’re exaggerating the choices here.

17

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And if they are laid waste in the process, how are they better off ? From what I’ve heard, China’s doing itself massive ecological and environmental harm.

If the cost of attracting corporations is ruin ( not that I buy that ), then it’s not worth it. Money is important, but it’s not the only thing in the universe that matters. And sacrificing the long term for the short is foolish.
[/QUOTE]

If there was an easy answer with little cost impact I’m sure we could all live with it. But there isn’t. From here in order to meet original Kyoto protocol commitments Canada would have to:

There’s little doubt that oil, as a viable transportation fuel, will be gone in this century. There are other reasons that corporations would want to be looking at, or investing in, other fuel sources without governments directly mandating it.

I want to be employed in the mean time.

18

Of course they don’t…if they used less then they wouldn’t BE rich countries. It’s what you don’t seem to get…it’s not about the money, per se…energy is what drives our CIVILIZATION. Without it we are back to pre 19th century technology…with all the bad things that entails.

The point is that your assertion that 20% of the population use 80% of the energy is in error considering China and India have considerably more of the total world population just between them than that figure…and are using considerably more energy than they once did as well. I would guess that the US, Europe, Canada, Australia and the pacific rim economic powers alone make up more than 20% of the population for that matter.

-XT

19

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
The question should be will capitalism doom us. Strangely that is how it was answered. Unbridled capitalism will destroy us all.
The people can be convinced to do the right thing. Corporations can not.
[/QUOTE]

Or, capitalism could save us all! Funny how this corporation was convinced to do the right thing by good old fashioned capitalism.

20

The fact is that many corporations are now calling on the federal government to regulate CO2 for a variety of different reasons. One is that they want the certainty of knowing what commitments they need to meet, another is they want the uniformity of regulation at the federal level rather than a patchwork of different regulations at more local levels, and still another is that they really want to cut their carbon emissions but want it to be done on a level playing field where any costs they incur in doing this don’t put them at a competitive disadvantage. There have been various articles on this although I seem unable to track any of the more general ones down now; however, [url=]here is one that discusses this issue in regards to one particular power company: