I've been doing some research for an essay I'm writing and stumbled upon an article that is quite chilling.. It i written by a prominent Australian
academic / International lawyer...
The point of the article is to argue that 'climate change' should be identified as a 'threat to the peace', so as to bring it within the scope of
Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
If this is done, the security council may make resolutions and impose sanctions on nations who do not comply or if deemed necessary, use military
Here is a small extract to wet you whistle:
Climate change challenges the fundamentals of not only our current capitalist system but also democracy as the preferred polity. This is because
democracies, by definition, find it difficult to take strong action that is not popular with the public. If a democratically elected government
introduces changes, even necessary changes, that are unpopular with the electorate, it risks defeat at the next election. Democratic governments may
respond to the will of the people, but it is highly unlikely that people will demand measures that reduce their mobility, their use of technology or
their access to electricity. It is even less likely that people will demand change that may mean the end of their own paid employment. In their
recent book, The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy, Shearman and Smith argue that ‘liberalism has overdosed on freedom and
liberty’. An ecological philosophy of humanity must place survival and the integrity of ecological systems much higher up the list of important
values. According to Shearman and Smith, democracy leads to social and environmental decay because its leaders are short-term caretakers and
career seekers; the interests of politicians are at odds with the leadership we need of them. The Rudd Government in Australia won the election in
part because of its preparedness to take action on climate change and yet the electorate in Australia, as in many other countries, has baulked at
paying substantially higher prices for petrol. A rise in petrol prices is nothing compared to the changes forecast as a result of the confluence
of climate change and peak oil.
I quite respect the writer, I've met her on a number of occasions and she is a good person, I recall she was quite outspoken about the illegal nature
of US invasions / interventions in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.
the science behind climate change is correct and the predictions are accurate ( 4 - 6 degrees average global warming by around 2100) then
the need for action, even if it involves the subversion of democracy is warranted.
Imagine if you lived on a small island and the resources were running out - lets suppose the resource is trees.
Suppose without trees the entire population will perish. (can't fish, make spears, boats, houses..)
Suppose that there are only a few hundred trees left and that if people don't stop over exploiting the resource it will be depleted soon.
Suppose that democratically, it would be impossible to impose a mandate requiring people to not cut down any trees if this would mean short term
The only way it would be possible to save the society is with authoritarianism.
- Would you not impose a dictatorship to save the entire population in the long term?
In regards to climate change, if
A: the situation is as bad as suggested and without drastic mitigation action, there will be disaster causing billions of deaths.
B: Such drastic action is politically unfeasible in a democratic system
Then global authoritarianism would be warranted in order to prevent cataclysm.
Do you agree?
Link to the full article is here: www.austlii.edu.au.ezproxy.lib.uts.edu.au...
PS.. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree that democracy and liberties should be thrown out the _.. But that is because of my skepticism as
to the predictions made about the impacts of climate change.
If I believed what the UN / World bank tells us about climate change, then I would agree that democracy and liberties need to be limited to achieve a
a more important goal.
Even the UN agrees that there is a chance (albeit small) that natural forces are to blame for climate change..
imagine if we all gave up our liberties to cut emissions, the it turned out emissions did not contribute to climate change.. Fark....
On a similar note... expecially interesting I think for Australians
-We recently have had an Emissions Trading Scheme introduced in Australia.. ..This was done by a Prime minister who
A: Holds government by only a bare majority
B: Promised not to bring in an Emissions Trading Scheme.
Now this would be fine if the next government could just repeal the legislation.. however this is unlikely.
The instruments that are issued, Carbon Units are considered 'personal property'.. This means that if a successive government wished to repeal the
legislation and get rid of the Emissions Trading Scheme, they would have to provide just compensation for the Units that had already been issued, this
would be enormously expensive and likely economically and politically unfeasible.
There are a couple of other mechanisms in the Act as well which seek to make the legislation impervious to future attempts to repeal it... how
successful they are we will see..
If it is future proofed, then we have a conundrum - We are stuck with a law that can't be repealed that was put in place by a leader who barely had
the peoples mandate and who promised not to do it.
Democracy has been subverted in Australia.
- (although it was subverted long ago - see Whitlam)
love to hear your thoughts people.. I reckon you guys in the America would be up in arms if this happened in your country... Here nobody really
cares.. After it was pushed through, everyone stopped whinging.
edit on 28-1-2013 by bigdohbeatdown because: spelling corrections