Something interesting for you all

Hi.

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 force.

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.[30] 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.[31] 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’.[32] An ecological philosophy of humanity must place survival and the integrity of ecological systems much higher up the list of important values.[33] 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.[34] 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.[35] 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.

If 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 economic deprivation.

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.

And

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...

Interesting read..

PS.. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree that democracy and liberties should be thrown out the window... 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.

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.

In the USA the way to make a pseudo-permanent law is to add an amendment to the constitution through ratification and holding a constitutional convention, not making authoritarian edicts.

If that happened I would accept it as the law of the land. But a one world government is not the solution, the bigger government gets, the less efficient if becomes in dealing with the problems it is presented with.

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.

I also don't believe anyone should forget the fact that every species is subject to extinction at some point or another, climate change or no climate change. We're quite small in the scope of this world let alone the universe.

To destroy freedom and raise up an authoritarian government to rule over us (that could never, ever go away lest climate change happen again) all would make the world no longer worth saving, in my opinion. What kind of legacy would we be leaving for the future generations?

The problems associated with climate change are many.
To begin with, we have already past the critical point of no return, it's a downward slope from here.
No matter how clean developed countries become, there is still the third world with huge populations and dirty old school technology. Some scientists are saying that large parts of the Earth will be uninhabitable by 2300ad.



We are currently witnessing the greatest extinction rate of flora and fauna in 65 million years.
The Holocene extinction event began at the end of the last ice age, but the last 100 years it has increased dramatically due to the industrial age.


Ocean acidification is also a major problem that threatens to wipeout the lower food chain in the seas and oceans. Small creatures such as plankton rely on calcium to develop their shells and exoskeletons. As co2 in the atmosphere combines with sea water it turns the ph levels more acidic. This causes weak structures as the calcium is weakened or disolved. The oceans have gained 30 percent in acidicy.


This shell above was submerged in sea water at current ph levels for 45 days.

I think the UN taking over the reins is far to late, swift action was needed 20 years ago.

Edit note: The shell was left in sea water with a ph level projected for 2100ad.

reply to post by LeLeu


Good....god, I can honestly say I've seen few things as disheartening as the picture in reference to what current pH levels do to the bloody shells.

Thank you for showing it, I'm reading up on the acidification subject and I can't believe I've never seen or heard about this before.

I think this image might be the most effective display I've ever seen in regards to climate change. Keep on spreading it around!

Plankton are the building blocks of the ocean's ecosystem if I'm correct, without them...

reply to post by TurtleSmacker


Yeah, pretty scary hey
Here is a link to an Australian goverment site about the matter of ocean acidification
National oceanic and atmospheric administration

reply to post by LeLeu


hey You're right that 'we've past the point of no return', however it is likely that mitigation can certainly limit the damage done...

(if you house is on fire you can still put it out to save half you house and stop it spreading to the neighbors. ..)

Mitigation action will seek to limit the climate change / warming / what ever... not stop it... the hope is that over perhaps 500 or 1000 years levels can be returned to something near normal... but it is not a short term option.

Arguably, if democracy is by passed, warming could be kept below 2 - 4 degrees in the next 100 years..

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

.

Not necessarily.. too many vested interests...the people aren't the best at being informed and knowing what is good for them - look what people eat.

Climate change is a long term issue (100 - 1000 years), the body politic is democratic nations are unlikely to vote for action if it means they will be hurt economically in the short term.. its game theory... free ride and hope someone else deals with it. In fact no action is the smart thing for individuals and for nation states, but collectively, it may be disastrous for future generations.. its very hard to compel people to give up something in the now for some indeterminate good some time in the future...

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.

The reason world government is needed for this issue, is that without the co-operation of the vast majority of the world, efforts by the rest of the world will be ineffective. Security council provides a way to compel..

BTW, when we say 'world governance', traditional structures will remain in place.. its just that they will take orders in respect of environmental policy from the UN... and in turn make domestic laws regarding emission levels. Nations could ignore the UN, but this would risk economic isolation (sanctions) or in the worst case, military blockades or other coercive uses of force..


UN is already world governance.. .

I agree with you that centralism is generally a bad thing, we need strong states.. or in the case of a global federation, we need strong nations...

-In regards to third world nations in Africa etc, that is sort of a fallacy... developing nations emit a tiny portion of total emissions.. china included.

On a per Capita basis, Australia, the USA and a number of oil rich Arab states emit the most... That being said, it is the USA that needs compelling to do something, they keep arguing the developing world must do more, however the developing world emits very little, they cannot cut their emissions by much.

-en.wikipedia.org...

-en.wikipedia.org...

China and India, although they emit huge amounts as nations, they have huge populations. per capita their emissions are quite low. the African countries not including South Africa barely make up 5 percent of total global emissions. The hard work must come from the developed world; the west.

If (and only if) the science is correct, then continued high level emissions by the west represent a genuine security threat to nations that will be effected by climate change. For some nations like the Maldives and Tuvalu, climate change represents an existential threat. Some developing nations accuse the west of waging 'low level chemical warfare' on them for the last 100 years..

reply to post by bigdohbeatdown


I'm convinced.

It seems that we have to reverse deforestation to the point where our carbon output vs what is taken in reaches equilibrium or at least try to lower the damage as much as we can.

More trees = Less Co2 = Lowered ocean acidity, combined with reducing fossil fuel use might help?

I agree our inability to develop sound environmental policy is a threat to the human race, but half the people here don't believe in climate change, and the corporations are too greedy to take action. I'm not quite sure what the solution is here, or if there is one.

As I mentioned before though, perhaps creating a constitutional amendment might help, put a cap on emissions through the amendment and offer tax incentives to corporations that stay below the level.

more UN crap
scientist through the ages have changed their minds more then once on this issue
are we heating up?
are we facing a new ice age?
several h.a.a.r.p. facilities exist although it's "top secret" privy to know what this technology offers
just what is suppressed by patent offices worldwide?
the UN uses psychological warfare aimed at the left brain...emo psy-ops
have you any studies in opposition
are you a scientist with a degree yourself
reason i ask is the world is beyond flooded with reports by qualified scientist


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

the other issues could easily be addressed if humanity wasn't contending with world war 3 that the UN currently since 1945 has us in

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 poverty?
ending hunger?
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

as far as this rocks temp/climate cycles...that is what they are cycles

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?

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 poverty?
ending hunger?
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

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. Ending poverty and patent suppression are in fact key considerations. They call it 'technology transfer', ie giving developing nations free passes to use intellectual property. the goal being that they can skip fossil fuels and go straight to renewables, which is not financially viable for them if they have pay for the IP rights..
ending wars and preventing wars is also a huge part of it...

In regards to corporations; the can be held to account, but only if there is political will. Presently directors owe a duty of profit maximization to shareholds.. that is the point of carbon taxes and trading schemes, to make the polluters pay, and therefore avoid polluting. (polluting will become expensive thus they will be compelled to use better technology and innovate which would not have been profitable without an ETS. Not being accountable will be bad for profits with a well designed market mechanism.)

Trading schemes intend to force corporations to be accountable for their pollution.

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

yeah okay, al gore is full of #e, so are half the numbers being bandied around by the ICPP. Yes, its BS some of it... but its BS for the greater good, the point is to scare people into action.

I am sure you would agree that Humans are rooting up the environment of earth way too much.

Climate change law, while its stated goal may be bull #, its real goal - saving the environment, is not. If the world continues with 'business as usual', the world will be so far up #e creek without a paddle it really will be too late to stop.

Destruction of the environment is a MARKET FAILURE. The UN wants to fix it..

If global warming is BS, then oil spills, ocean dumpage and various other bad things for the environment are real. International climate change law has an objective to try and fix all of this, these are things that cannot be done without international cooperation and some kind of global governance.

If we just hope people and corporations will start taking responsibility then nothing will happen.

Laws will not touch natural people's rights.. They are intended to work on the supply stream.. they will make inputs cost more and spur innovation to limit emissions and polluting activity during production. Laws are intended to discourage use of fossil fuels and encourage the use of renewables.

Renewables are simply too expensive without a market mechanism, energy from fossil fuels is cheaper. !!! Its not all that evil.

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?

War isn't really the intent, its more the threat of economic sanctions that would compel nations to sign and ratify certain treaties. War is just a legal possibility once climate change is brought within security council jurisdiction. But War is not the intent.
The author goes over why it is unlikely that war would result..

however I would concede that you may be right that depop is a 'hidden agenda'. Depopulation strategies are often discussed.. but it usually centres around handing out condoms in developing nations and ensuring open access to abortion..

I do agree, that there are elements within academia and politics who would be willing to take more drastic measures, however this is not the intent of the UN ICPP as far as I know.

Population levels are expected to peak at 9 bil, there are efforts to try and make it peak earlier, that's no controversy. But like i said, it is not ripping infants from mothers arms and gassing people. it is providing contraception and promoting urbanization.

Myxomatosis for humans could not be that hard to create.. If someone wanted it done, me thinks it would have been done.

I have a friend doing a PhD and he writes and frames policy for Government. The PhD is on Climate Change in relation to refugee predictions and the role of western governments who ethically have a responsibility to act as the largest emitters.

The projections and numbers ain't pretty and many countries will see refugee movements as security risks, not to mention the effects of climate change on food and water security from region to region.

Its a huge topic, the IPCC forcastes are moderate compared to many other predictions.

Most militaries in the west are preparing or studying for these eventualities.

You can find many papers on this topic online.

Great OP S and F.

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
impossible
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
www.thenewamerican.com...

please come back and tell me you read that...do it for humanity
tell me you considered how it must feel to be removed at gunpoint from your home away from all your comforts
have you ever slept a night of complete dispair or suffered forced homelessness at GUNPOINT
have you ever looked at a gun pointed at you...add the note
"that this is by a "peace keeper"...move or die"

have you studied the difference of knowledge and wisdom
without experience all you'll ever have is knowledge
until you experience the problems of the world...you will never bear wisdom of them
play a homeless person
live in poverty without connections
play a nobody
but know this

to some
this is life
not a choice

you may find deeper levels of a really-really huge word called humility

Originally posted by bigdohbeatdown

Renewables are simply too expensive without a market mechanism, energy from fossil fuels is cheaper. !!! Its not all that evil.

Its not cheaper, it is artificially lowered via subsidies in Australia.

This has a number of effects, it makes innovation lazy, makes us dependant on one source of energy, and creates an unbalanced market place for alternative energy that cannot compete with a subsidized competitor.

If the subsidies were removed from fuel and coal you would be screaming bloody murder.

The carbon tax in Australia is ment to generate billions to fund alternatives, but its only a small percentage of what the government pays out in subsidies on fossil fuels.
We are paying, yes you and I the tax payer, over 9 billion dollars to Fossil fuel and mining companies over the next few years.
Look up the Fuel Tax Credit Scheme.
Look up Accelerated Depreciation in relation to the big Mining Companies and see how these breaks and subsidies go to huge profit raking multinationals.

Its policy like this that makes it cheaper and more profitable to keep the status quo on fossil fuels and cripples any real competition or innovation for alternatives.

Just something to consider.

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
impossible
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
www.thenewamerican.com...

Yep. Agenda 21, coming soon to a town near you. All that is going on now in the US, is preparation for this.

"Yep. Agenda 21, coming soon to a town near you. All that is going on now in the US, is preparation for this."
but we should be talking about the weather...right...

reply to post by lasvegasteddy


Everyone seems to wonder what the end goal is for the insanity that's called the US government, along with others. The answer is out for anyone to see. It is AGENDA 21.
Please, anyone that doesn't think this is real. Do some research on agenda 21, compare it to these insane things going on right now and it seems to be a good fit. All the gun talk and the United States constitution basically becoming just a little meaningless book, is just in preparation for the implementation of this. Seems pretty obvious to me anyway.

I just want to say that maybe the reasons are for the good of humanity. I am not debating the real reasoning behind it. If people want to feel all cozy thinking that the UN are good guys that will save the world, then good. I highly doubt this is the case. Fact is that the link posted above with what the UN is doing in Brazil, will be happening across the world eventually and when they come strolling into your town. I highly doubt that people will be thinking they are the good guys anymore, if the did before. If its for the good of the world or because they just want global control we really don't know but the end result for most humans isn't good under the plan.