The recent Copenhagen Conference on global warming has led to renewed claims that we cannot effectively combat global warming without “global governance,” or perhaps even a full-fledged world government. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon recently claimed that “A [climate change] deal must include an equitable global governance structure” and many other political leaders and environmental activists have expressed similar views. Political scientist Campbell Craig summarized the standard argument for global governance to address climate change in this 2008 article:
[O]ne of the most evident failures of the nation-state system in recent years has been its inability to deal successfully with problems that endanger much or most of the world’s population. As the world has become more globalized—economically integrated and culturally interconnected—individual countries have become increasingly averse to dealing with international problems that are not caused by any single state and cannot be fixed even by the focused efforts of individual governments. Political scientists refer to this quandary as the “collective action problem,” by which they mean the dilemma that emerges when several actors have an interest in eradicating a problem that harms all of them, but when each would prefer that someone else do the dirty work of solving it. If everyone benefits more or less equally from the problem’s solution, but only the actor that addresses it pays the costs, then all are likely to want to “free ride” on the other’s efforts. The result is that no one tackles the problem, and everyone suffers.
Several such collective action problems dominate much of international politics today, and scholars of course debate their importance and relevance to world government. Nevertheless, a few obvious ones stand out, notably the imminent danger of climate change....
Essentially, the argument is that global warming is a collective action problem that only an international entity will have incentives to solve. If not a world government, it will have to be a “global governance” structure that is to a large degree independent of individual governments and has the power to compel them to take necessary measures, such as reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
In my view, such global governance is neither necessary nor sufficient to prevent global warming. As co-blogger Eric Posner points out, an effective climate change deal requires the agreement of only about 20 or so major emitting nations, such as the US, China, India, Russia, and several major European states. Obviously, most of these states would suffer serious harm if catastrophic global warming scenarios turn out to be true. They therefore have strong incentives to reach a deal. Collective action problems are not a serious danger when a solution only requires the cooperation of a few major actors, each of whom knows that their participation is essential to the success of the overall project. There is little incentive to free-ride if the potential “free-rider” knows that the problem can’t be solved without his participation. I have spelled this logic and its application to global problems in more detail here. For a more extended treatment, see Todd Sandler’s book Global Collective Action, which, among other things, shows how cooperation between a few big powers was enough to address the problem of ozone layer deterioration in the 1980s.
Of course, big power cooperation isn’t guaranteed to solve the global warming problem. It has several potential flaws. In each case, however, global governance has similar or even worse weaknesses.
One potential problem is that national governments aren’t always representative of the interests of their people and therefore won’t take full account of the dangers that global warming poses to them. However, any global governance structure is likely to be even less democratic and less representative than national governments are, especially those of liberal democracies such as the US. As John McGinnis and explain here and here, the existing international institutions that influence the content of international law are highly undemocratic, and any new global governance structure is likely to be the same. The personnel of any such entity will be chosen either by relatively unaccountable international elites, or by national governments (with a hefty dose of influence by authoritarian states).
A second danger is that one or more important governments will decide that the benefits of preventing global warming aren’t worth the costs. For example, China and India might decide that severe emissions restrictions pose too great a risk to their economies, and Western nations might be unwilling to make large enough payments to them to get them to change their minds. Obviously however, a world government or global governance agency could also decide that the costs of preventing warming outweigh the benefits. Any such structure would have to take Chinese and Indian interests into account. Moreover, we wouldn’t want to foreclose the possibility of such a decision. The costs of greatly reducing emissions are substantial, potentially even catastrophic. Even to those who, like me, believe that global warming is a genuine danger, it’s not obvious that those costs are necessarily worth paying.
Finally, national governments could underestimate the dangers of climate change; for example by buying into flawed scientific analyses. Here too, a global governance structure could make similar mistakes. Moreover, this risk has to be balanced against the danger that either national governments or the global governance decision-makers could err in the opposite direction: buying into an overly pessimistic view of global warming, and therefore enacting costly measures that turn out to be excessive. Overall, I think analytical error is less likely if we allow different nation-states to reach independent conclusions and make a compromise than if the decision is left up to a single global entity that is more likely to fall prey to groupthink. The recent Climategate scandal underlines the dangers of like-minded small groups falsifying evidence and excluding opposing views. A system of global governance over climate change issues would make this danger more severe, not less. If, at the end of the day, governments continue to disagree over the severity of the global warming danger, those with more pessimistic views could potentially offer side payments to convince the doubters to take more aggressive preventive measures.
The movement to institute global governance as a response to climate change wouldn’t be problematic if such governance did not pose any risks of its own. In fact, however, global governance itself would create potentially grave longterm threats to the future of humanity. These risks might be acceptable if there was no other way to prevent worldwide catastrophe. In fact, however, we don’t need global governance to combat global warming.
PeteP says:
How in the world else can 192 countries hope to get control of trillions of American dollars ?
Of COURSE they need ‘global governance’ ! And ‘gloabl taxation’ paid to that new ‘government’, for them to spend ! PeteP(Quote)
Anon Y. Mous says:
If I owned a major manufacturing facility, and the 20 so called major emitters put in place an expensive energy tax / reduction scheme, then why won’t I just relocate to someplace outside the major 20? Sure, it will be difficult at first because of infrastructure issues, but since I won’t be alone in my efforts, those problems will get solved. Leaving the global warming problem (scam!) unresolved. Anon Y. Mous(Quote)
Elliot says:
I think the last UN report said sea levels would rise between 10 and 23 inches over the next 100 years. At worst, that’s 1/4 inch per year. That’s hardly a tsunami. What’s the problem? What is the specific thtreat to the US? Elliot(Quote)
Glenn Bowen says:
To arms. Glenn Bowen(Quote)
tvk says:
I buy much of your critique but not your solution. The real problem of global warming is that the main victims are the tiny Pacific nations that are getting cut out of the process no matter which way it turns. As a matter of Coasian strategy, the small Pacific nations should be bribing China and Russia to reduce emissions. Obviously, nobody is proposing such a political non-starter. But it is the only strategy which will work.
But this analysis does shed light on why your analysis is also incomplete. True, a global approach must consider the interests of China and India; but unlike a group where China and India are one of 20, in a global group those interests are diluted. And this is important, because the burdens of global warming are not going to be evenly spread. Major emitters either are harmed little (USA, China, India) or positively benefit (Russia, Canada). Non-emitters (tiny Pacific islands) are going to suffer a lot. Devolving the decision-making to a group dominated by those who basically benefit practically ensures that no meaningful reduction will take place, even if they impose serious externalities on those cut out.
Of course, the rejoinder is that a globalized process will still be dominated by the group of 20 simply because they have all the power. But that is just an indication that the problem is intractable. Not an indication that a small-group approach will work. tvk(Quote)
Ilya Somin says:
If I owned a major manufacturing facility, and the 20 so called major emitters put in place an expensive energy tax / reduction scheme, then why won’t I just relocate to someplace outside the major 20? Sure, it will be difficult at first because of infrastructure issues, but since I won’t be alone in my efforts, those problems will get solved. Leaving the global warming problem (scam!) unresolved.
Infrastructure issues are a big deal, expecially when you consider that they include legal and political infrastructure, as well as physical. MOreover, much of the emissions is not production but consumption, which can’t be moved. Ilya Somin(Quote)
DangerMouse says:
“Do we need global governance to combat global warming?”
No, because global warming is a scam. Thanks for asking, though. DangerMouse(Quote)
Ilya Somin says:
I buy much of your critique but not your solution. The real problem of global warming is that the main victims are the tiny Pacific nations that are getting cut out of the process no matter which way it turns. As a matter of Coasian strategy, the small Pacific nations should be bribing China and Russia to reduce emissions. Obviously, nobody is proposing such a political non-starter. But it is the only strategy which will work.
These tiny Pacific nations won’t have much influence in any conceivable global governance structure either. Indeed, they stand a better chance of exercising influence through the US in a small group setting, since the US uses some of them for bases, and values others as vacation spots for American elites.
But this analysis does shed light on why your analysis is also incomplete. True, a global approach must consider the interests of China and India; but unlike a group where China and India are one of 20, in a global group those interests are diluted. And this is important, because the burdens of global warming are not going to be evenly spread. Major emitters either are harmed little (USA, China, India) or positively benefit (Russia, Canada).
This assumes that the US, China and India would not be harmed by global warming, which is doubtful. If the alarmist views are correct, the coastal areas of these nations, which contain a large part of their population, might suffer greatly. Ilya Somin(Quote)
LarryA says:
Bingo. The people I’ve heard float proposals for world government have invariably presumed it would be run by people like them with plenty of power to make everyone else do “what needs to be done.”
I’d much rather have national governments with even a limited degree of competition, at least until there are other planetary governments available. LarryA(Quote)
Jim says:
global warming is a hoax. Jim(Quote)
kidneystones says:
The operative word is ‘belief’. The topic of global warming is suspect discourse, at best.The only real question is whether western businesses and governments will allow academic frauds to hobble development.
I work with a variety of business people in Asia exporting car parts and metals. Virtually all firms are concentrating their marketing and sales efforts principally towards Russia, Eastern Europe, China, and India. Any suggestion that Russia, China or India have any intention of allowing western liberals to constrain their own economic growth is ludicrous.
The economic caravan is moving on while the dogs bark. kidneystones(Quote)
SC Mike says:
I don’t know what an “equitable global governance structure” is, but I suspect that it means that I will have to give up my wood-burning fireplace, charcoal grill, fireworks, guns, and power tools.
In other words the proponents of “equity” know no limits and seek to avoid the accountability of the ballot box, freeing them to control everything all the time. They will try to eliminate incandescent bulbs in favor of mercury-laden CFLs until they realize their mistake and force me to adopt other technologies that also don’t work with my dimmer switches.
Oh, wait, that’s already happened! SC Mike(Quote)
byomtov says:
As a matter of Coasian strategy, the small Pacific nations should be bribing China and Russia to reduce emissions. Obviously, nobody is proposing such a political non-starter. But it is the only strategy which will work.
Why? Who awarded China and Russia (or the US) the right to sink small Pacific nations?
And how in the world can those nations come up with enough money to make it worthwhile for China and Russia (and India and the US) to cut emissions? byomtov(Quote)
tvk says:
These tiny Pacific nations won’t have much influence in any conceivable global governance structure either.
Agreed. But that does not rebut the need for global involvement in the solution, it just requires better global governance–one that actually involves the tiny Pacific island nations. We agree that no such global governance regime is likely to occur. I think we disagree, however, on whether it is necessary to solve the problem. If you cut out the main victims from input into a regulatory regime, the regulatory regime is not going to take their interests adequately into account. Just like if you have land developers writing takings law in state legislatures.
This assumes that the US, China and India would not be harmed by global warming, which is doubtful.
It requires no such assumption. It requires assuming that U.S., China and India will be harmed less, which means they will take only the small amount of mitigation measures that prevent flooding of their cities, and not help the tiny Pacific islands. Moreover, we should be talking net harm (after considering the benefits accruing to these nations). This is a classic externalities story. Emitters feel all the benefits of emission (economic development) and suffer only a small portion of the costs (flooding cities). Thus they will not price in the full cost of their activity. This Economics 101 conclusion doesn’t require assuming that the producer of the externality suffer no cost. It just requires assuming that they suffer less than full cost, and the major emitters indisputably will suffer less than full cost. tvk(Quote)
PeteP says:
“Non-emitters (tiny Pacific islands) are going to suffer a lot”
A tiny island is a dumb place to build a country. Do not expect it to last as long as a continent. PeteP(Quote)
DangerMouse says:
I should’ve also added: global governance is a scam too. It’s the quickest way to sell yourself into slavery. DangerMouse(Quote)
rxc says:
You left out one additional problem — It is also possible that the people who want to be in control will continually generate false “problems” to keep themselves in control. And they have to continually generate “solutions” as well, especially when the people do not behave in the ways that they (the controllers) believe is best.
This is the road to totalitarianism. rxc(Quote)
EvilDave says:
More accurate to say:
We Need “Global Warming” To Create “Global Governance”! EvilDave(Quote)
SC Mike says:
It’s not that “global warming is a hoax,” but that climate change is real but neither determinate nor controllable by humans. Natural processes are vastly more powerful that what man can muster as the 1991 Mount Pinatubo event demonstrated.
“The effects of the eruption were felt worldwide. It ejected roughly 10 billion metric tonnes (10 cubic kilometres) of magma, and 20 million tons of SO2, bringing vast quantities of minerals and metals to the surface environment. It injected large amounts of aerosols into the stratosphere—more than any eruption since that of Krakatoa in 1883. Over the following months, the aerosols formed a global layer of sulfuric acid haze. Global temperatures dropped by about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F), and ozone depletion temporarily increased substantially.”
One might expect that the uncertainty of natural catastrophes should introduce a measure of modesty into the calculations of those who know better, but there’s little indication of that.
Moreover, were all nations to agree to Kyoto restrictions today, they would merely postpone the warming that the models predict by less than a decade! Add to that the fact that recent experience indicates that the models are wrong and one gets one of two impressions: either we are doomed or we can probably cope as well as the polar bears have over the millennia.
Will the isle of Tuvalu have to relocate its population because I use charcoal to cook my dead cow? So far the sea level has not risen and one wonders if the nation’s for help cry has more to do with mismanagement than nature. SC Mike(Quote)
Gene Madison says:
It’s never been about global warming. First off, the argument is usually CO2 which is the effect of Global Warming, not so much the cause. Second off, the man behind the Global Warming scheme is an Oil Billionaire. Why? Because it benefits the green movement to increase the cost of Fossil Fuels as to make it more expensive than the alternative. Where does that money go? Mostly in their pockets. In addition... Many of them are invested heavily into the “Green Energy” technology... which coincidentally the #1 country in production of green energy technology happened to award a Nobel Peace prize to our sitting president.
I see a scam... and enough Americans may fall for it... If only they would read the Constitution, and know the limitations of our government cannot (by treaty) create a Global Government, or be bound by anything that isn’t valid to all “Intents and Purposes” (aka Preamble) found in the Constitution... but ignorance makes a limited government unlimited in power... I only hope that the intellectuals get off their high horses and realize the truth.
If that is even possible.. those who think they know it all, rarely take a second look. Gene Madison(Quote)
Do We Need Global Governance To Combat Global Warming? | Liberal Whoppers says:
Tweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Do We Need Global Governance To Combat Global Warming? -- Topsy.com says:
bbbeard says:
It must have escaped Craig’s notice that most countries in the world are not democracies, including major CO2 emitters like China. So: (A) why would anyone think a global government invented by those miscreants would be responsive to the interests of their people? and (II) Why do you think it would be good for the freest and most prosperous nation on earth to hand over its economy to a bunch of thugs?
The only hope for a clean future is freedom. Lacking freedom, all we will ever see is a downward spiral of slower growth, poorer people, and a degraded environment. Think not of a hundred Katrinas, but a thousand Chernobyls. Before you can hope that people will sacrifice for — i.e., purchase — a cleaner environment, you have to have economic development. You have to have an economy robust enough that people can believe all their children will grow up healthy and happy (China obviously fails that test today!) Until you have that level of prosperity — a level that is only achievable in a free economy — this conspiracy for global green domination is nothing but an excuse to seize power.
BBB bbbeard(Quote)
GCA says:
How is that that global warming became the default position? Its main proponents have been discredited and serious doubt has been cast on the research. The empirical evidence the warmists tout — summer polar ice melts and retreating glaciders — is equivocal at best. Yet most of the academics here continue to accept the premise. Is it not better to start from scratch and first determine whether or not the problem has a real chance of existing? Ever heard of Bjorn Lomborg? Fixing known real problems makes more sense. GCA(Quote)
AlanDownunder says:
Nah, it goes “We deny global warming because the solution entails global governance”. AlanDownunder(Quote)
Martinned says:
I’d like to echo tvk’s comments: the original post misstates the concept of a collective action problem. The fact that a country like the US feels both costs and benefits from its decisions isn’t enough to avoid the problem. Since it feels all of the costs but only part of the benefit, it is going to underinvest.
(Assuming the US represents 25% of worldwide CO2 output, imagine a commons with 4 farmers, one of which is the US. They’re going to overuse the common resource, even though each of them experiences nonzero marginal costs and benefits.) Martinned(Quote)
Tracy W says:
Ilya misses another point — what powers would this global governance system have to enforce its laws? After all, existing nation states have not managed to stop the drugs trade despite substantial efforts going into it. Many countries, including China and Russia, have widespread corruption which can mean large disparities between what the law says and what actually happens. If national governments can’t enforce their will, how could a global government be expected to do so? Tracy W(Quote)
lgm says:
Global governance isn’t happening, at least not in time to combat global warming. It took Europe decades, even after they had decided in principle that European governance was a good idea. This post clearly illustrates that the world has not decided in principle in favor of world governance.
There are two precedents in recent history that give hope. One is the ozone hole. This involved a combination of voluntary cooperation and negotiated agreements (formal treaties?).
The other is world trade. Countries understand that they will get good partners if they are good partners. Admittedly some countries push the envelope (China (manufacturing), US (agriculture)). But they clearly understand that there are limits to what the world will tolerate. It is encouraging that this kind of cooperative/competitive spirit seems to be taking hold in global warming. Individual agents are deciding on their own to take the appropriate steps even without global treaties, to say nothing of global government. lgm(Quote)
bpbatista says:
Do we need global governance to protect us from the depredations of rabid unicorns and dispectic elves?
The answer to my question and yours are the same. bpbatista(Quote)
Sara says:
This would be global government. Sara(Quote)
ShelbyC says:
Wanna bet? In fact, if production is moved, consumption will be moved. It’s he who does the producing that does the consuming. ShelbyC(Quote)
A. Zarkov says:
Indeed. Here is a graph of the global sea ice area versus time since 1979. Note the sea ice area today is about the same as it was 30 years ago! So what about all this melting the alarmists keep screaming about? It’s in the northern hemisphere as this graph shows. The northern sea ice area began to trend down in about 1996. The mean is down about 1.5 million square km from the mean before the trend. Neglecting the outlier in 2008, the max minus the min is down about 3 million square km. On the other hand, sea ice area in the southern hemisphere is up from 1979 as this graph shows. The decrease in the northern hemisphere about cancelled by the increase in the south.
Let’s remember the north pole ice is sea ice while the south pole ice rests on a continent. But the ice in Antarctica has been thickening over all. Next year a satellite goes up that can measure ice thickness to 1 inch using radar. Then we will know if ice mass is decreasing. Antarctica has 90% of the world’s ice mass. That’s where the action is. A. Zarkov(Quote)
A. Zarkov says:
Not in China. They produce– the US consumes. A. Zarkov(Quote)
ShelbyC says:
Well, they consume much more than they did before they started producing as much. And much of what they’re producing is in exchange for defered consumption of US production. ShelbyC(Quote)
A. Zarkov says:
The following countries emit about 3/4 of the total CO2 emitted: China, US, India, EU, Russia, Japan, Germany, and the UK (UK in EU?). This is where the action is– why would we need a global government? The African countries each emit less than one-tenth of one percent. This is typical for the Third World. It does not need to be included in any kind of emission control system because the Third World is irrelevant.
What about the flooding? Sea level raise comes from melting ice and thermal expansion of the oceans. The IPCC predicts about a 30 cm rise in the next 100 years! Is this a problem serious enough to wreck our economy about? Of course some scientists challenge the 30 cm as being too low– 1 meter is more like it. If the US should lose a little coastal land over the next 100 years, we will just live with it, and migrate inland a little. Then again it might not happen all. Or it could happen despite CO2 emission controls. That would a big disaster– wreak your economy so you have more troubling coping with the sea level rise. A. Zarkov(Quote)
A. Zarkov says:
Do you really think the US will re-industrialize enough to pay back its debts to China? What will we export to them that they can’t make themselves– cheaper? A. Zarkov(Quote)
ShelbyC says:
Ya got me. I’m just defering to the collective judgement reflected in the value of the dollar. ShelbyC(Quote)
Vader says:
Patrick Henry famously asserted that he would rather have his life taken than his liberty. Is it so radical to suggest that we would rather face climate upheaval than a worldwide government that is all but certain to be tyrranous? Vader(Quote)
Martinned says:
It is my distinct impression that the vast majority of people would rather have life than liberty, if for no other reason than that liberty isn’t very useful to a dead person. (Not that I’m accepting the premise of this comment... There is no reason to assume that a global government should be more tyrannical than a continental one like the US or the EU.) Martinned(Quote)
A. Zarkov says:
How about all the Americans who volunteered to fight in WWII? They were willing to sacrifice themselves for other peoples liberty. Your statement shows no awareness of the concept of self-sacrifice.
There is every reason to assume that. Look at the kind of governments we find in the Middle East, Africa, Asia (with a few exceptions) and South America. Democracy is either weak or non-existent. Our western values come out of the Anglo-Scottish and French enlightenment. Most other countries don’t have that heritage and it shows. A world govenement would be a tyranny. Americans would never accept it. Any American government that supported such a thing would get voted out or overthrown by force. A. Zarkov(Quote)
Eli Rabett says:
There was a rather convincing draft in WWII. Eli Rabett(Quote)
A. Zarkov says:
Yes there was, but many people didn’t wait for the draft– they volunteered. Some young boys lied about their age and enlisted. Others went to Canada to enlist where the qualifying age was lower.
The we have the founding fathers. Leaders like Washington, Adams, Franklyn, Jefferson, Hamilton etc who risked everything. Had the British won, they would likely have been hanged. Don’t you think liberty was an important motivating force behind their actions? A. Zarkov(Quote)
Dennis N says:
We haven’t even determined whether, on the whole, a warmed world would be better or worse than a cooler one. The Medieval Warming Period was a period of great agricultural prosperity. Greenland earned its name.
The only thing we know, is that things will change. Zero change is never an option. (Damn! That sounds like a political slogan. ;-) ) Dennis N(Quote)
Martinned says:
Volunteering to fight in a war involves accepting only a small chance of death. Human beings have a miraculous ability to misrepresent probabilities in their decision making, which is why they purchase lottery tickets for example. The fact that one might die doesn’t become “real” until someone actually starts shooting. Martinned(Quote)
A. Zarkov says:
That all depends on when and where. Doolittle’s famous raid over Tokyo was extremely dangerous and the crew knew full well the kind of risk they were taking.
While it’s true that some young men think they’re immortal and do foolish things– in general troops that go into combat are really scared. That’s why Bertolt Brecht in his play Drums in the Night (I might have the wrong play here) painted the soldiers faces white.
As for lottery tickets, buying one ticket is rational in terms of expected utility. That’s also why people over bet the long shots in horse races, which creates an exploitable market inefficiency (this might not be true anymore because the track takes have gotten too high). A small win is not life changing and boring whereas as a big win is. A. Zarkov(Quote)
Eli Rabett says:
There were volunteers, there was also a draft. There were volunteers in the Vietnam war era.
Be that as it may, without some way of stopping offshoring, production can be moved to places where there is no regulation on emissions. Which is the reason for Eli Rabett’s simple plan to save the world
Nations wishing to make major progress on decreasing greenhouse gas emissions should introduce emission taxes on all products. These taxes should be levied on imports as well as domestic goods at the point of sale, and should displace other taxes, such as VAT, sales taxes, and payroll (e.g. social security, health care) in such a way that tax revenues are constant, and distributed equitably.
These should be introduced as an Emissions Added Levy (avoiding the bad jokes). EAL would be imposed on sale for emissions added in the preceding step and inherent to the consumption of the product, as would be the case for heating oil and gasoline. Manufacturers would pay the EAL on electricity they bought, and incorporate this and the levy on emissions they created into the price of the product they sell.
Imports from countries that do not have an EAL would have the full EAL imposed at the time of import. The base rate would be generic EALs based on worst previous practices in the countries that do have EALs, which would be reduced on presenting proof that the actual emissions were lower. Eli Rabett(Quote)
ShelbyC says:
Heh. You Europeans. :-). ShelbyC(Quote)
AlanDownunder says:
... and it is purely coincidence that just about every denier is about as internationalist as John Bolton.
At least Evil Dave cut to the chase, Richard.
Not that strategic multilateralism and green entepreneurialism can’t be useful in default of effective global governance. Even a shift in some advanced nations from brown corporatism to green corporatism could achieve a great deal. AlanDownunder(Quote)
kidneystones says:
A Zarkov and ShelbyC write...
Wonderful short exchange. Here’s my take: China will continue to import raw materials and quality products it cannot produce itself. Choice is an important component of the free market and Chinese demand for non-Chinese produced products will continue. The question of whether the US can actually re-industrialize fast enough to repay its debt to China is fascinating. The short answers appears to be, no.
So how does the US repay its debt? Does China write down the loans? Does the value of the dollar continue to drop? Would China take devalued US dollars at face value?
One thing seems clear, competition for markets is as intense as ever, credit and cash problems notwithstanding. From the outside the US appears to be standing still or going backwards.
I was horrified America elected the current President. However, I was ready to concede that he might be better on the economy than McCain.
I’m no longer so sure. kidneystones(Quote)
John Moore says:
There seems to be some short term assumptions in this long term plan — such as which countries will be major economic powers (and hence emitters/consumers).
50 years ago China, Japan and South Korea were poor. Who is to say that some South American country (Brazil?) doesn’t become a major player in 25 years, while one of the others (say, Russia with its rapid demographic decline) fades away?
Besides, it’s a moot point. The changes needed to make a difference are so dramatic that the only way anything significant will happen (short of some terrible catastrophe) is through technological progress, not forced emissions reductions (and the latter is an extremely inefficient way to encourage the former). John Moore(Quote)
Desiderius says:
Global governance requires a global polity.
Has a polity ever existed absent other, competing, polities?
Seems somehow unnatural. Desiderius(Quote)
Robuk says:
[O]ne of the most evident failures of the nation-state system in recent years has been its inability to deal successfully with problems that endanger much or most of the world’s population.
It didn‘t need Global governance to ban DDT and kill 40 million people in the third world, mainly children. Robuk(Quote)
cost per action google says:
Hello. This is kind of an cost per action google(Quote)