|
|  |
|
|
|
| |
| Jan 22, 2010 3:00 am |
|
Global issues - governance |
Ken Hilving
| |
I have concerns about any global government, especially the idea of a STRONG global government. I am surprised that anyone unhappy with the U.S. foreign involvement or with China's dealings with Tibet, or with a transnational Muslim movement, or with the former U.S.S.R., or the former British Empire would support such an idea.
Yet we do have global issues dealing with humanity and the survival of many of us.
The issue of climate change and human impact on the environment is an example.
Let me toss up an idea for everyone to bat around.
_____
A critical failure of proposed international treaties has been a failure to first establish a measurable baseline. To maintain that baseline is a combination of reduction by those whose per capita contribution exceeds it, and a limit on growth of per capita contribution on those below it. That per capita amount should know no borders, and an increase in population has to come with an associated reduction in per capita amount.
(An individual anywhere in the world is no less important or more important than any other individual. This sets a level playing field for all of us.)
In effect, this creates a global solution based on individuals at whatever level of individual responsibility their local culture dictates.
(I have no interest in debating the individual versus group role/value. I will respect whatever you or your culture determine is right for you, and ask you to do the same for me.)
Now if you want to continue with national borders and add population control to sustainability, use current population by nation in setting national baselines. Increases in national populations will require citizens in those nations to reduce their per capita amounts. Decreases in national populations will likewise allow a growth in the per capita amount for their citizens.
(It is not my role to tell you how to procreate, or not. As long as you are willing to take responsibility for your approach, to reap the benefits or bear the hardships, its your decision.)
How each nation approaches solutions is left to each nation. Failure to meet the per capita limits is met with international assistance if requested. Such requests do result in some loss of independence. After all, they are turning their problem into "our" problem. If they appear to have a working solution but need funds, funds are the correct approach. If not, a working solution should be provided or cooperatively sought.
(Ignorance is corrected with knowledge, and we may not collectively have that knowledge. We can work to find it, though, if we are all willing.)
Some nations may choose to ignore their cap. The answer is international economic isolation - play fair or play with yourself. Nations that don't support such sanctions find themselves isolated as well. This is something any and every nation can choose to do today. Of course, those who are adamant about solving global issues will also adjust their own polluting to offset those who won't. It is only a short term adjustment.
(I don't believe it is my right to tell others how to live, but it is my right to choose who I will deal with.)
Since science does not have all the answers, the formula is reviewed and updated at no less than five year intervals. Transparently.
No global governance is necessary. Local cultures are respected. Benefits in innovation, cultural changes, or individual actions are reaped directly by those innovating, changing, and acting. Solutions occur at the point of the problem, by those closest to the particular problem.
In addition to a transparent review and revision of the baseline, the "global" organization also acts as a resource library of solutions and activists.
The trading of "credits" is by no means restricted with this. It is simply another potential approach in a host of local, regional, national, and international approaches possible. The objective is the driver, not the method.
I think this addresses my concern with global governance, addresses the issue of agenda based science, and takes a cooperative approach to common problems.Private Reply to Ken Hilving (new win) |
|
| |
|
