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.

I share your excitement Eclipse Now as the grass roots movement for a new world order takes hold. Time's come for the world's experts to be given leadership roles, tasked with engaging communities everywhere to find the right global and regional solutions.

The United Nations has failed spectacularly. It's score card is filled with a succession of failures, ineffective at crafting, then implementing the kind of effective and equitable multi-lateral responses needed to deal with the diabolical challenges that the world faces today. The planet's integrated environmental, economic and military systems demand a new way of governing.

The veto powers given to UN's Security Council members have brought the UN into ridicule and irrelevancy as deals are negotiated by G2, G7 or G20. Continue on the current path and Iran will get its nukes, China, the US and India will accelerate future generations into catastrophic climate change, and by year's end Sudan will plunge again into civil war. Another financial meltdown, already in the making, will hit next time with the impact of a force 5 hurricane.

It's more good luck than good stewardship that our highly volatile system of national sovereignty hasn't already produced a nuclear winter, a global pandemic or another great depression.

We live in high risk period of history where all our global systems of governance are fatally flawed, evident in crisis upon crisis with ever growing severity. Only a world government accountable to us all can deliver a new system of global decision making that has the capacity to consult widely, drawing on the best and brightest solutions to usher in a new era of sustainable and harmonious living.

For the two thirds of the world's population that currently struggle at or below the poverty line, the change can't come soon enough. For the rest of us, new opportunities for brilliant minds and dedicated individuals will open up. Change is inevitable but the change-over will be stormy as tin-pot dictators and bufoon politicians are swept aside.

Nothing significant happened because the political will simply wasn't there.

Nothing is likely to happen until there is some sort of catastrophic event or series of events that make them realise that the situation is serious enough to warrant a decisive response.

I even doubt that anything will happen until the next generation takes over and the reaction will be more one of coping with the effects rather than avoiding them when we had the chance.

I wouldn’t be so bold as to call it a conspiracy (besides,the world warming worriers seem to have an exclusive license to use that term!),
but there does seem to be a high correlation between belief in AGW and commitment to socialisation of the globe.

Like a campaigning politician, Eclipse Now, promises “global energy rules, global health systems, a global currency …fresh water,adequate nutrition, basic shelter … security, education, medical and (timidly!) family planning assistance.” if only we’d let him implement his progressive tax.

5% of the military budget – sounds enticing, eh!
Many have seen enough Michael Moore docudramas’ to salivate at the mere mention of draining the dastardly military-industrial-complex.
But what do suppose would happen in the long run (?)
The first five year plan would consume 5% of the military budget
The next five year plan would call for 25% .
And by the third five year plan, they’d have drained the military and be needing to tap other sources of excess & waste …like, why you have to five bedroom house for your six person family, when the twenty-five person Ram family in India has only one room!

Just like the green revolution which was supposed to provide a permanent answer to the have-nots hunger, and which in the final analysis was more of a stop-gap measure. It’d likely be only a temporary salve, and one that encouraged free riding.

In spite of all the leftist noise about Capitalist & Colonial exploiters (victimisers) & victims (all the rest).The nation state provides one of our best means of linking inputs with outputs --rather in the same way as most go ahead businesses have separate centres of responsibility.

Viva la national state!

Horus,
I think at first a world federation of States would operate kind of like the EU.

Of course there would be large aid packages at the beginning, but given large enough security forces across the troubled regions of the globe, hopefully combined with education and development, the local people in failed states would eventually contribute to the global economy.

I assume you believe in the power of markets? Tell me, how good did the markets solve WW1 and WW2? If Hitler's Panzer division rolled into London, and you saw some idiot standing there yelling "Don't worry, the marketplace will solve it!", don't you think he'd just sound insane?

Markeplaces don't work in places where people have little or no security, and can't grow their own food. If you can't eat, you don't have a market.

I can only dream of a world where 25% of the military budget is given over to permanently ridding the world of hunger and easily preventable diseases. It would revolutionise failed state marketplaces, and who knows what they would contribute to human knowledge, science, art, education, software, the human endeavour?

Wouldn't that be preferable to wasting it on super-high military budgets? If not, what's wrong with you?

I dont know whether it's a carry over from the sixties flower-power or some more potent flower-power (C17H19NO3), but so many of our dreamers seem sold on the idea that us getting together in one bit unit will be cosy & solve all our problems-- it ain’t necessarily so:

-- Many who were sweet-talked into voting for the amalgamation of smaller councils with promises of economies-of-scale producing lower rates etc --- never got to see those lower costs, but inherited an administration distant,bureaucratic and disinterested in their smaller centres.

--NATO has problems with some nations (being accused of) not pulling their weight.

--And the EU no doubt has many benefits, but we are seeing there are some heady costs too; an obligation to bail out less prudent members states eg Greece & complications with immigration controls. The federations you barrack for don’t have one Greece , they have dozens : : Zimbabwe , The Congos …( it might be easier to name those that aren’t basket cases)

Any federation will face the same –I wont help you raise or harvest the wheat, but I’ll help eat it--that undermined Copenhagen.
How will you persuade everyone to come to the party.—short of force.
You might interest the Have-Nots -- Tutu & his mates will attend any party as long as its not BYO.
But if there’s a door fee for the Haves --- how do you persuade them?

Wait, wait it’s coming to me …
You create a bogey man.
You tell horror stories : 6 metre sea rises ; sinking islands; endless summer heatwaves…then you tell the Haves they’re responsible.

Aw Shucks, Eclipse, now I get it—quite ingenuous!
Your real motivation isn’t GHG emissions --you real intent is to surreptitiously obtain funding for your new world order!

If you’d told us that in the beginning we wouldn’t have needed to beat about the bush with all there IPCC comedy-capers. Now you’ve got Kevy & Wongy & Pete believing in all about AGW fairytales --- they wont be happy chappies when their electorates find out that they have been had!

Nice little bit of trolling there, but nothing you've said:

* actually counteracts the physics or chemistry of climate science,

* or disproves that just a 5% reduction in military spending in a more secure, globalised Federation could meet all our development needs bringing those countries out of devastating poverty and helping them contribute to the world economy.

9/10 for paranoid schizophrenic reality denying hallucinations, but only 1/10 for factual content or effort.

In other words, there is no *secret* plan, it's all out in the open!
http://www.worldcitizens.org.au

In the meantime, I'll leave you with the words of Albert Einstein.

"“In my opinion the only salvation for civilization and the human race lies in the creation of a world government, with security of nations founded upon law. As long as sovereign states continue to have separate armaments and armament secrets, new world wars will be inevitable.”

Albert Einstein