In this thread Jshore, Evil Captor and I are trying to debate the economic system foundations of the Kyoto Protocol.
My contention is that it is founded on Socialist economic principles.
I thought it deserved its own thread.
My question is, since Kyoto is an attempt at regulating the worldwide market on carbon energies, it must have some basis in one/some/all economic system(s), like Capitalism or Socialism etc, so what are the economic system(s) that Kyoto is founded on?
Wouldn’t the basic principle be derived from what we call “mixed economies”—i.e., market economies with some government regulation?
I mean, the Protocol is specifying certain regulations for a global carbon market, so it’s obviously not compatible with pure capitalism which rejects all government interference in markets whatsoever.
But the Protocol is structured around market mechanisms for voluntary trading in emissions, so it’s obviously not compatible with pure socialism, which AFAICT would require all emissions decisions to be planned by centralized government.
So, some of each, then?
Ah, having now read your posts in the linked thread, I think I have a better idea of what you’re driving at.
You seem to be arguing there that a global atmospheric emissions control protocol is inherently socialist because it subjects economic activity (putting wastes into the atmosphere) to government regulation (having caps and trading procedures for atmospheric emissions).
In a pure-capitalist system such as your libertarian viewpoint seems to favor, this wouldn’t be possible because the government wouldn’t be allowed to regulate such activity.
But then, in such a system, everything would have to be private property of one sort or another, so nobody could externalize any costs by dumping wastes into a “common” or “public” resource like the atmosphere.
How are you going to privatize the atmosphere? I don’t see a feasible way to do it. The only alternative, then, if you want to reduce atmospheric emissions, is to declare the atmosphere a globally shared “commons” and regulate its use by international cooperation.
I suppose you could argue that the very idea of any kind of “commons” or publicly shared property is inherently socialist, but I really don’t see how you could describe something like the atmosphere or the oceans any other way.
One could, but then one runs into the issue that making up your own language is not conducive to communication with others:
The third definition is somewhat vague, but I don’t see how Kyoto can be considered to be demanding either 1 or 2. Many people, especially Americans, seem poorly educated as to the actual definition of the word “socialism.”
Local exploitation of resources leads to local problems. Global exploitation leads to global problems. City and county governance can, for the most part, deal with local problems. What form of governance/cooperation can be invoked to deal with global problems?
I’m largely convinced that global warming is a fact, and a fact that requires determined, if not urgent, attention. Some form of international cooperation is compulsory, sooner or later. Whatever form that takes, its seems unlikely that it will fit neatly within any of our anachronistic notions like “socialism” and “capitalism”.
We can’t piss on the Goddess forever. Even a Mother’s love has its limits.