Fighting ever-hotter summers may require a global government

15 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Fighting ever-hotter summers may require a global government

As Suzuki frequently reminds us it is time for radical new approaches to prevent us from being destroyed by the earth’s natural forces

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-we-might-need-a-global-government-to-fight-ever-hotter-summers

JKR

Maybe the UN could be reformed and given jurisdiction over international affairs?

NorthReport

That veto power thingy would have to go!

JKR

The US, China, and, Russia might not all agree to the giving up of their vetoes. Maybe reform could still be undertaken?

NorthReport

It had done good but the veto power is what has discredited the UN more than anything else 

 

JKR

How can the 5 vetoes be taken away without being vetoed by the countries that already have the vetoes?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

People who think that if we only had a world government then we'd all get along are neglecting the fact that it's because we don't all get along that we don't have a world government.  In other words, we literally don't want one.  Regions secede and countries split all the time.  How often, in recent times, have we seen even just TWO sovereign countries say "we're choosing to join together as one and share our decisions and powers, in the interest of a better government for both of us"?

Just for fun, let's merge India and Pakistan under one government.  If that can be done, perhaps adding in all the other countries would be feasible too.  If not, how would adding all the rest of the countries make it more feasible?

We have enough trouble choosing good governments in our little countries and provinces and cities.  Now we want to go global?  Sorry, but that deserves a LOL.

Pondering

The US military is bigger than everyone else's combined for a reason. The only world government possible would be the US government. They will never bow to anyone else. I also echo Magoo in the difficulty in running just one country. 

Renewable energy, despite the best efforts of the fossil fuel industry, will win the affordability contest. It's developing expotentially now. The problem is we already have a lot of climate change locked in. I don't believe it's possible for scientists to accurately predict the tipping point. There is no time to waste. 

To a large extent people are right that even if Canada uses a lot per capita in the grand scheme of things we contribute a drop in the bucket of climate change. We have to head off the developing countries. The only way to do that is to offer them cheaper alternatives to burning fossil fuels. We have to develop the renewables. 

R.E.Wood

Pondering wrote:

To a large extent people are right that even if Canada uses a lot per capita in the grand scheme of things we contribute a drop in the bucket of climate change. We have to head off the developing countries. The only way to do that is to offer them cheaper alternatives to burning fossil fuels. We have to develop the renewables. 

Yes. That's an excellent statement, Pondering. Canada should be at the forefront of global development in renewable energy. The questions flow from that declaration: How can that be made to happen? Where does the money come from? Who needs to spearhead this -- the federal government, in partnership with...? Where in Canada do we focus this push (perhaps in areas like Alberta and Saskatchewan, where the economies are hurt most by the decline of the oil industry)? Etc... These are the kinds of questions that the NDP needs to come up with answers to, and campaign on. Not just Singh's vacuous "Love & Courage", but concrete propositions that will lead Canada to the global fore in renewable energy, growing our economy at the same time, and not leaving anyone behind, and certainly not throwing any provinces under the bus (as Singh has done).

Pondering

R.E.Wood wrote:

Pondering wrote:

To a large extent people are right that even if Canada uses a lot per capita in the grand scheme of things we contribute a drop in the bucket of climate change. We have to head off the developing countries. The only way to do that is to offer them cheaper alternatives to burning fossil fuels. We have to develop the renewables. 

Yes. That's an excellent statement, Pondering. Canada should be at the forefront of global development in renewable energy. The questions flow from that declaration: How can that be made to happen? Where does the money come from? Who needs to spearhead this -- the federal government, in partnership with...? Where in Canada do we focus this push (perhaps in areas like Alberta and Saskatchewan, where the economies are hurt most by the decline of the oil industry)? Etc... These are the kinds of questions that the NDP needs to come up with answers to, and campaign on. Not just Singh's vacuous "Love & Courage", but concrete propositions that will lead Canada to the global fore in renewable energy, growing our economy at the same time, and not leaving anyone behind, and certainly not throwing any provinces under the bus (as Singh has done).

The Leap Manifesto contains the general blueprint it was just poorly written and introduced from a marketing perspective. 

Singh is far from perfect so if there were another suitable candidate I might support them but there isn't. At the moment Singh seems to be the best option. Trudeau was far from ideal when the Liberals elected him. 

When the years past with his refusal to introduce policy his numbers tanked to the point when he was in 3rd place at the beginning of the election period. While he was praised for his debate performances they were dreadful. He won because the Harper government was long in the tooth. People wanted change. Singh is facing a very different situation. He hasn't got the Trudeau name and the Trudeau government has only had one term which is very unusual in Canadian politics. 

Singh hasn't done everything right but the NDP's current popularity or lack thereof has more to do with the lay of the land than it does with anything the NDP is or isn't doing at the moment. In 2015 there was a question for awhile as to which party was best placed to defeat the Conservatives. The Liberals won that battle then so now they are still considered the best bet for defeating the Conservatives. That places the NDP in a terrible position for this round. They will have a better chance at the 2 term mark and even better at the three term mark. So, the NDP needs to be positioning itself for that. 

Opposing the pipeline was the right move from that perspective because over the next 4 to 8 years the pipeline will either fail to go through or will cause much strife and probably violence on FN lands in BC. 

I hope that Singh remains leader for another election cycle because I think regardless of his personal qualities the optics of dumping him so soon will look bad on the NDP. 

Sean in Ottawa

I do think that it would take considerable global cooperation to avoid catastrophe. I also think that humans are likely doomed becuase they won't do it. I wish I could be more optimistic. We are relying on an as yet unknown scientific breakthrough to counter behvious that is out of control.

In the news this last week the Trump Administration basically said that we may as well give up since global warming is happening anyway and we might as well make money until we are literally cooked. And that is the so-called leader of the so-called free world.

thinkerman

Mr. Magoo wrote:

How often, in recent times, have we seen even just TWO sovereign countries say "we're choosing to join together as one and share our decisions and powers, in the interest of a better government for both of us"?

Well, Mr. Magoo, how about the European Union? It has continued to grow and deepen over more than half a century of steady integration. When the Iron Curtain fell, the countries of eastern Europe couldn't ditch their new-found sovereignty fast enough in their rush to join. 

There is no reason why the democracies of the world couldn't get started on a project of federation outside of the UN. It would not be like a national federation. It would be more like a non-contiguous European Union, but with its own characteristics.  This would help stabilize new democracies and the rule of law, would provide a framework for a global carbon tax, and a base tax for transnational corporations. Think positive.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
It has continued to grow and deepen over more than half a century of steady integration. When the Iron Curtain fell, the countries of eastern Europe couldn't ditch their new-found sovereignty fast enough in their rush to join.

We've similarly seen what happens when a member country starts feeling like they're getting the short end of the stick.

Thing is, a body like the EU does not, and will not, replace the sovereignty of a member country.  It may, for example, force them to accept something like a common emission standard, until such time as they no longer want to and leave (or threaten to leave, or carve out an exemption, or whatever).

Anyway, good luck.  But Canada voluntarily joining a world "Pollute Less Club" is not the same as a "global government", which is really what I was commenting on.

Pondering

The US has the world's largest military by far. Nobody is going to tell them what to do. Any Global Government would be led by the US. Russia would probably not submit to a global government led by the US. There will be no global government. 

Ultimately renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels in the long run. Can't stop progress.  

NorthReport