Ein Folk, Ein Ecosystem, Ein Fuhrer.

If national governments are not up to the challenge supposed, and local level governments would be more fragmented and less effective, still what makes you think an even bigger uber-national government is going to be any better at living with nature? This just continues the dream of an earthy paradise to be gained from vesting more and more power in a bigger and bigger central government. But the functionaries of the government are delegates of the sovereign. Reduced to its absurdity, how will that sovereign obtain the knowledge of the abundance and distribution of all species including the microscopic ones, and of how they will be affected by human action, and of how best to balance human wants as against other human wants and values now and in the future?

Besides, if the government is to be democratic, then the same people who are allegedly causing the problem, will comprise the sovereign power. If the problem is their greed or short-sightedness, a government comprised of them will be no advance on the original problem.

And what is 'living with nature' supposed to mean? I ate a steak yesterday - delicious it was. But I know the cow didn't volunteer to end her life at my table. Did I violate a tenet of living with nature, and some people think? Should I be forced to comply with their opinion.

The author has jumped to the conclusion that the problem is about power arrangements. It doesn't seem to occur to him that the problems in issue should be solved by *not* using raw power as the basis of a solution. If the problem is the follies of collective action, then assuming a collectivist response, and imposing a bigger collectivity, is hardly indicated. The modern nation-states are the successors of prior states, which originate from the feudal system in Europe, and their colonial offspring. What reason is there to think that this arrangement, or its successor, is likely to produce optimal decision-making about how to reduce conflicts over resource uses

“Copenhagen provides yet more evidence that the current constitutional regimes are incapable of resolving global problems.”

The real problem is the supreme arrogance of some human beings who think that they can ‘solve’ what nature hands out. Blaming other humans and natural events for climate-change is the real ‘folly’.

This author is chairman of “…an organisation dedicated to sustainable globalisation and the creation of a secure relationship between man and nature.” Anyone who believes globalisation is a good thing and also believes he and is fellows can create a “secure relationship between man and nature” is a dreamer. Man can be bullied and fooled into acting foolishly for a time, but nature cannot be manipulated by mere mortals.

Bo Ekman’s claim that: “The continual struggle of nations to assert their own interests ends up hurting common interest” is dangerous and maniacal. This article is just another attempt at pushing for world government wherein people have even less say in their lives than they do now – handing over to remote, not directly-elected schemers set up somewhere in Europe. Surely the chaos and weakness of the European Community is proof of the dangers and threats to sovereignty.

Ekman admits that all attempts to ‘avert’ climate-change have been complete flops. He recognises that the IPCC and science in general have lost credibility, but then welcomes a decision by the IPCC and that other corrupt and incompetent ‘world’ organisation, the United Nations, to set up an ‘independent’ review by a Netherlands-based group.

How can anything coming from another mob, set up by, or even touched by, the IPCC and the UN be of any use! Even without the taint of both of those organisations, why should another group of people be trusted when so much of the climate-change lies and mistakes were brought into public arena by people who were ‘trusted’ and believed at the time.

There is no “relentlessly globalising world” there are relentless people doing the globalising and there is nothing democratic about them. Multinational business is the winner; countries rich and poor and their sovereignty are the losers.

There are many reasons for global governance. Climate change, avoiding future wars, a truly global police force that might help prevent further atrocities in Africa or Afghanistan (as just 2 examples), global legal and taxation systems that could regulate and monitor multinationals that are now more powerful than many nations, global energy rules, global health systems, a global currency that would save a trillion dollars a year in currency exchange transactions, and more than anything, a reduction in military spending! According to a 2005 speech by Professor Ian Lowe, just 5% of the world’s military budget could ensure everyone on earth had access to the main human needs. That is, 5% of the world’s military budget could provide everyone with fresh water, adequate nutrition, basic shelter (NOT McMansions for all!), security, education, medical and family planning assistance.

If we had a truly democratic and transparent world government, with “Nations” becoming “States” in a global Federation, then I bet we could cut far more than 5% off the military budget. Or is that *transform* the military budget? Because surely, in a post-national world, the military would gradually become more of a humanitarian and emergency organisation, akin to both a global police force and “The Thunderbirds” (International Rescue). And that is something worth striving for!

This movie recently screened at an important EU Parliamentary meeting. The message is out there. Africa is slowly working towards amalgamating various economic zones into one economy, and as surely as the economy unites the political and bureaucratic structures will follow (as we have seen in the EU). In a similar vein, various Asian and South American economies and leaders are discussing local amalgamations into a "South American Union" and "Central Asian Union".

It may take a generation or so, but global government is possible.
And I for one am excited.

http://worldvotenow.com/

Oh, I forgot to link to the EU discussion.

http://worldvotenow.com/news/19-presentation-of-world-vote-now.html

The Brussels declaration is here.

http://worldvotenow.com/downloads.html

Well, the article shows at least some modicum of sense in that it acknowledges that the Copenhagen Conference was just never going to produce an effectve, enforceable agreement for limiting emissions. There are still difficult people, like myself, who have very good reasons for thinking that one was not necessary in the first place. However, this is all now moot as its just never going to happen. If you believe in the global warming case then the solution is adaption and that's it..

The failure of Copenhagen was simply a demonstration of democracy at work. Rudd and his fellow leaders couldn't summon up (or fake) the level of support at home that would have forced them into brinkmanship and delivering ultimatums. Without that motivation they were prepared to let the whole thing fall over rather than risk political crucifixion. Luckily for us -- since we dodged the bullet of supra-national taxes and restrictive agreements with no tangible benefit to anyone.

Chalk up one great victory to the Internet, and the countless forums like this one where people can rally together and pool their information. The whole playing field has changed as a result -- as Rudd and Barack Obama, for instance, have already found to their cost. If you want to see what 'world government' looks like, then this is the place to start looking.