It didn`t need Global governance to ban DDT and kill 40 million people in the third world, mainly children.

Has a polity ever existed absent other, competing, polities?

Seems somehow unnatural.

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).

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.

EvilDave: More accurate to say:
We Need “Global Warming” To Create “Global Governance”!

AlanDownunder:
Nah, it goes “We deny global warming because the solution entails global governance”.

Richard Aubrey: Alan.Nah, “We deny global warming becauses it isn’t happening.”

… 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.

Martinned: It is my distinct impression that the vast majority of people would rather have life than liberty

Heh. You Europeans. :-).

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.

Martinned: 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,

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:
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.

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.

Vader: 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?

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. ;-) )

Eli Rabett: There was a rather convincing draft in WWII.

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?

Martinned: 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.

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.

Martinned: There is no reason to assume that a global government should be more tyrannical than a continental one like the US or the EU

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.

Vader: 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?

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.)

A. Zarkov: 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?

Ya got me. I’m just defering to the collective judgement reflected in the value of the dollar.

ShelbyC: And much of what they’re producing is in exchange for defered consumption of US production.

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?

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: Not in China. They produce– the US consumes.

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: It’s he who does the producing that does the consuming.

Not in China. They produce– the US consumes.

GCA: 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.

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.

Ilya Somin: MOreover, much of the emissions is not production but consumption, which can’t be moved.

Wanna bet? In fact, if production is moved, consumption will be moved. It’s he who does the producing that does the consuming.

the agreement of only about 20 or so major emitting nations, such as the US, China, India, Russia, and several major European states

This would be global government.

The answer to my question and yours are the same.

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.

(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.)

EvilDave: More accurate to say:
We Need “Global Warming” To Create “Global Governance”!

Nah, it goes “We deny global warming because the solution entails global governance”.

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

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.

“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.