It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
If climate change is indeed happening, then it is a problem that calls for informing people on the matter, and then the votes will come
Some claim a one-world government would be progress, I disagree. If one man presiding over a country (monarchism) didn't work, why should one government presiding over an entire planet be any different? The smaller and more personal government gets, the better it tends to work.
aquaponics...planting more trees...keeping fools from dumping massive tons of iron in the ocean in name of climate control resuce
wouldn't more pertinent issue be
what can be done about fukushima?
ending patent suppression?
ending the banking and Vatican control of people and governments to end wars be more so important
this rock has plenty of room
we have minds that can overcome many a hurdle
once we address the true priorities of humanity first...the elitist takeover in progress
so let me ask you
do we need more fear or threat upon humanity
in name of humanity
have you truly studied both sides of this UN you plan to push
some 30,000 signed a petition to sue al gore over climate control...there is a website easily found on this
you could go there and in name of being unbiased look up a couple scientist to converse with for better insight
Originally posted by NowanKenubi
Instead of making war against a nation, and it's people, why not regulate the corporations that do the damage? Do we really need a bag 3 times the size of its contents when we buy groceries?
Do we really need one size portions of food, for those too "lazy" to even cook?
Do we really need to build things that will break after a given time because, hey, the industry has to keep on rollin'?
We need to rethink how corporations work. Corporations wanted to have the advantage of real persons, it's time they also took the responsibilities that go with it...
To me, the idea of warring to save resources is simply a hidden agenda of depopulation, however nice the author may be. I mean, the war WILL take up lots of resources, no?
Originally posted by bigdohbeatdown
Renewables are simply too expensive without a market mechanism, energy from fossil fuels is cheaper. !!! Its not all that evil.
Originally posted by lasvegasteddy
you miss something here when you reply with...
"All of these things are great, but impossible without global co-operation. All of these things that you have listed are within the scope of Agenda 21's goals"
please validate to me or anyone else why....this is "impossible" without global co-operation
you do realise it was once taught and believed the world was flat
are you to grow up oneday...hop in a boat only to find out...you wasted your life believing "flat world beliefs"
one can go through life as closed minded as one wants
the bankers UN have you down for the count until you wake up from close-minded teachings with hidden agenda's
the biggest problem mankind and humanity faces is
the UN and one world government
you write from a comfty place...ya know...a home...water...electricity.
stop for one minute in your life
with all the empathy you can muster
put yourself in the very shoes of current agenda21 forceablly being implement as you read in this article
try and think what it must be like to be a brazilian...this is done at gun point in name of peace
do it...try and feel the humanity these brazilians are now going through in this article