Printable View
http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,17...1700409,00.html
If you think global warming is all crap or not, this makes a very interesting read and thought it would be nice to share it with you guys.
So anyway, this should start a nice debate. I'll post my views on it later.
Ok, I’ll bite. This is going to be long, but hey, no one else posted, so I’ll take it upon myself to fill the space (with insightful commentary, of course).
I agree with the author that drastic action needs to be taken to mediate and reverse the effects of anthropogenic climate change; however, I disagree that a national socialist system is the answer. Pure socialism is simply not a viable governmental strategy on a national level. It would be nice - don’t get me wrong - for each individual to work at what he or she is best for the greater good of the community, but it simply wouldn’t work with a group of more than 1000 or so people. Beyond that number, people cease to see the direct effects of their work on the community. Their contribution becomes anonymous and necessarily self-sustaining. Without an interpersonal sense of responsibility – if one slacks off in a small community, it is immediately obvious how this deflection of duty harms the other members of the community who are also one’s friends and neighbors – people return to their natural state of doing the least amount of work to realize the largest gain.
This is what happens in large communities and what turns a socialist ideal into the sort of corruption dominated by cheating and bribing and blackmailing and organized crime found in the former USSR. People need personal rewards as motivation in the anonymous, global modern world, and that is why the capitalist system works on large-scales.
However, one absolutely needs social control of a capitalist system – one needs to institute oversight and accountability, most likely in the form of government laws and regulations. It is this which our current system lacks. Although the US attempted, after the Great Depression, to revise the pure, unchecked and runaway capitalism which had dominated this country during the industrial revolution, those revisions have steadily weakened with an increase in corporate-owned government officials who sell legislation for nice dinners, vacations, and campaign contributions.
Many European countries have instituted more “socialist” programs within a generally capitalist economy such as universal healthcare, free higher education, and guaranteed weeks of vacation-time and have certainly done a better job of protecting their citizens from unethical corporate practices than we have in the US, but still governmental oversight and control of corporate activities is viewed as economically detrimental. Governments are slow bureaucracies and corporations want the ability to react quickly in rapidly-changing market conditions.
This does not have to be so, but with the current fat, slow bureaucratic structure, it is somewhat correct. What needs to happen is an elimination of (or at least a drastic reduction in) environmental externalities which have allowed for the development of situation in which we are mired today.
A possible solution which operates within the capitalist market is a system of emissions trading which takes what are currently externalities such as CO2 and sulfate emissions, toxic chemical runoff into public rivers and groundwater from the widespread use of fertilizers and pesticides, etc, and transforms them into market commodities. Instead of energy companies spewing as many tons of greenhouse gases as they wish freely and without penalty, they would have to purchase emissions credits from cleaner companies if they emit more than a certain government-set limit. This would allow for a fixed global yearly emission (which would ideally be reduced each year), and companies which institute clean technology would be able to make money by selling their unused credits to higher emitters. This gives a real financial reason (the only reason that works within a capitalist system – forget about human health and consideration of consequences that lie beyond this quarter’s bottom line) for companies to invest in and employ new, cleaner technology.
The other problem is local accountability – global corporations have none. They are accountable only to their investors. The executives of these corporations do not care how their employees are treated as long as there are always more to replace any that might quite (of choice or health necessity), and they do not care about community stakeholders who might suffer from degrading health and environmental conditions as a result of corporate activities. And modern governments tend not to care about the poor and downtrodden in their country. Those people don’t contribute to campaigns the way the corporations who abuse them do. In general, a government will only take action to protect its citizens at the expense of corporate interests when not doing so threatens its own survival via negative media attention, public protests, etc.
I absolutely support local enterprises over multi-national corporate operations. They tend to take advantage of natural, local assets instead of forcing the land to be something which it is not through expensive processes (in terms of both economic and environmental costs), they keep profits local and thus benefit the community, and they are subject to local accountability. (A shoemaker in a tiny town is far less likely to engage in unethical practices because whomever he harms will likely know his Mamma and be more than willing to tell her to “have a talk” with her wayward son.) However, reverting back to local economies will undoubtedly result in a lowering of the standard of living which we in the West have been enjoying at the expense of those elsewhere. You can't have oranges in January in Minnesota (or in Essex, I'd imagine) without reverting to long-distance transportation of produce grown in warmer climates. I'm not sure how many people are willing to give up the standards to which they've become accustomed, especially since the most dire consequences of climate change have yet to be realized. It just doesn't seem like an immanent danger, and human beings are notoriously short-sighted.
Also, one must remember that even local enterprises are capitalist enterprises – a manifestation of what seems a kinder, gentler version of capitalism, perhaps, than that which propagates sweatshops and rainforest destruction across the planet, but capitalism nonetheless. Capitalism can work if subject to social oversight and local control. And perhaps I am being to pessimistic of human nature when I state that it precludes the effective functioning of a socialist form of government in a large community, but I kind of doubt it. What works well in tiny tribal communities does not necessarily commute well to countries with populations in the tens or hundreds of millions.
In any case, I doubt anyone read all of that – this post has reached Leo Volont proportions, and I think it’s time to stop. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, I recommend anyone who makes it this far to watch the South Park WalMart episode. As socio-economic commentary on the global, corporate structure, it is truly unsurpassed. You will laugh, you will cry, and you will be sorely tempted to take a hammer back to the TV section of your neighborhood WalMart and look for the little mirror to smash.
i'm not sure if this is old news or not, but it's still pretty interesting:
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/inte...hange-scena.pdf
When I clicked that link I got a message that "That file is damaged and could not be repaired"...Quote:
Originally posted by mongreloctopus
i'm not sure if this is old news or not, but it's still pretty interesting:
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/inte...hange-scena.pdf
weird...here's another link:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-13.htm
it's about halfway down the page called "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security"
:whyme: Do you get that same result or might I have some strange problem with my browser settings?Quote:
Originally posted by Firefox
Not Found
The requested URL /climate/pentagon_climate_change.pdf was not found on this server.
okay, last attempt. try this:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:2y7--...lient=firefox-a
Ok, that link works, thanks. I haven't had time to read the entire thing yet, but will. Do you know who the authors, Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall, are? Researchers in the field, journalists, etc?
apparently there was quite a bit of controversy regarding this "suppressed" report, but i don't remember hearing anything about until someone sent me the link.Quote:
Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.[/b]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Peregrinus")</div>I do too! It wasn't exactly the best thing for the people of Europe during the 30s and 40s.Quote:
I disagree that a national socialist system is the answer.[/b]