Under socialism, the workers’ state can impose mandatory emissions controls and implement emissions reduction technology in a coordinated fashion. The worst case scenario of global warming can be averted.
Such mandatory controls would need to be worldwide, not just nationwide. The question, as always, is how could such a global government be implemented – especially since we don’t have decades for this to happen. Action is needed now.
We need some kind of worldwide controlling body that has the power to mandate climate control changes because it’s highly doubtful that private enterprise will do it en masse on their own because of the cost. Such a controlling body would also have to be composed of highly competent (and non-corruptible) people. It would have to be able to build consensus and implement the changes in a way that made the players want to participate. Again, we don’t have time for conflict and violent disagreements, as the climate change clock continues to tick.
Also, solutions won’t scale worldwide. What works in the US won’t work in, say, Bangladesh. There are probably hundreds of millions of people who burn animal dung and chop down trees for fuel. While this is ecologically disastrous when done on a large scale, a governing body can’t tell them to stop doing so without providing alternative, clean fuel – not unless they want protests and uprisings. Here in the States, forcing coal plants to close would be politically impossible unless new sources of energy have already been created.
Somehow, we need worldwide consensus on climate change, then mandating the changes becomes relatively much simpler.
I quiver in fear when I hear the phrase “world wide government.” Coming as I do from the “Live free or die” state, I’d much rather change voluntarily. Still, I recognize that most people (and industries) don’t feel the same way: they’d rather someone forced them to change. We could reduce U.S. emissions by a third or more without much effort at all– and without any government mandate– but it’s “too much work” so we won’t.
As to where you’re going to find cometent and uncorruptible people– and a steady source of them for years to come, in the face of global power– I don’t know. It hasn’t worked very well on a national level. In that sense, smaller government (not larger) is more effective.
So you’re trying to balance two different and opposing concepts: large authoritarianism (with teeth) vs. small, competent democracy. Good luck.
I don’t think it can or should be mandated by force. The blowback would be too extreme and it wouldn’t work anyway.
It has to be something like the unspoken agreement that we all stop at red lights because this allows us to drive without getting killed. Yes, this is mandated and the government can enforce it, but mostly it works because everyone agrees such regulation benefits everyone.
Somehow we need to do that sort of thing on global warming.
(cue voice of SNL’s Tommy Flanagan) – Yeah, socialism, that’s the ticket. Seeing how it worked so well in the Soviet Union, and let’s not forget the workers’ paradise in North Korea. We should all be so lucky to live in countries such as these, run by “highly competent” and, ah, “non-corruptible” people. Needless to say, whenever anyone is trying to save the world, how can that person be corrupted?
Sigh. In virtually every country but the US people understand that socialism doesn’t mean you support thuggish regimes.
You did know that Leon Trotsky was appalled by Stalin and that Trotskyites were instrumental in getting the truth of what Stalin was doing out to the world at large, right?
From Peter Camejo
Agreed, Stalin was a greater criminal than Trotsky. As to your claim about citizens in “virtually every country,” those of the former Soviet bloc are all too aware of the connection between socialism and thuggish regimes.
No, Comrade, we don’t need a world body telling country one to do, people need to make the decision on their own, buy more hybrid cars, then car companies will make more of those, the market will shift. Implementing these controls will destroy the economy, besides we do have time, just because gore says it does not make it true.