One great problem with this approach is that there is not just one problem. There are many. Climate change due to putting emissions into the atmosphere, overpopulation due to decrease in infant mortality, opposition to population planning by reactionary churches and many other factors, proliferation of armaments due to primitive hatreds, desire for profit and many other factors, decrease in amount of arable land due to population patterns etc.

The replacement of some of Peter Garrett’s functions by Penny Wong was most reasonable. She realises as a politician that there are competing interests that she must take into account. Peter Garrett is not an expert but an informed layman who has a sense of urgency about the problem. Experts in various areas are not needed to govern as they do not have the necessary wisdom and feeling for the cut and thrust of politics to govern. What is needed are politicians who are aware of the problems, have the humility to consult experts in areas they have to legislate and the ability to set priorities for the most pressing needs. Politicians should have the education to evaluate the testimony of scientific experts but need not be experts themselves.

A scientist led the Australian Democrats for a while. John Coulter was probably the most competent person in science to ever lead an Australian political party. He was also passionately committed to deal with the effects of global warming. However, he was a failure as a political leader. I attended a session where Dr. Coulter spoke. During question period a man asked about the evidence for carbon dioxide levels in coring of Antarctic Ice. The rest of the session consisted of the techniques for taking the corings and evaluating the results. Coulter simply got sidetracked in a discussion of technological minutiae that was not relevant to the broader issues.

I believe that government by technocrats would be a step backward from our present system.

“While the success of governments in responding to the global economic meltdown is still unknown, we can already see that they have completely failed to deal with those intractable issues, global warming and fossil fuel depletion.”

This self-evident fact is not at all surprising; governments can do nothing about climate change (they have merely been conned into believing they can by grant-hungry scientists), and fossil fuel replacement is up to the private sector. As oil was supposed to run out in 2002 (more scientific propaganda), but it didn’t and is still going strong, the private sector doesn’t see the need to spend money on the problem – if it really is a problem.

Globalisation was one of their big mistakes, and this author foolishly wants politics to be ‘globally based’ too; another step towards disaster and world government. You need only look at the EU to see the silliness of that. And, Rudd, flying off to global talk fests with his absurd cockiness and tailor-made wave from the door of a RAAF aircraft looks pretty silly too.

Peter McMahon things more of this would be a good thing, including, horror of horrors, a world government based on the corrupt and incompetent United Nations! Worse still, he is probably stuffing young heads with this nonsense. He would also like Rudd’s idea of touting for Communist China to take a leading role in this world ‘government’, presumably.

“Just how such an institution could work is a difficult issue”, opines McMahon. Let’s hope it is TOO difficult for the sake of the entire world.

“Our politicians lack the ability and resolve to formulate meaningful policies and our political system is too prone to manipulation by the mass media.” True; but this person wants them replaced with a group of maniacs who want to rule the world.

Small wonder we see such incompetent graduates coming out of universities.

Leigh, looks like you have knocked out all your afore mentioned failures with nothing left.

So looks like it is time to bring in Immanuel Kant's recipe for Perpetual Peace, comprising a Federation of Nations.

Which indeed, was the scientific reasoning that first, the League of Nations was based on, and later the United Nations.

But any political philosopher will tell you that both have been buggered up by singular national intrusion - first the League by Greater Britannia and the UN by Pax Americana.

Finally, might now mention that Peter McMahon's formula could indeed comprise what we all know as multi-lateralism, just another term for globalisation.

Cheers, BB, Buntine, WA.

Peter, at first reading I actually warmed to your article. However, for reasons I couldn’t initially identify I read it again and then again. Each reading made me less comfortable as I realized there was a superficial layer of seemingly common sense, overlaying a wide range of political complaints at which you throw an ideological answer.

The answer you propose is “politics and government that is globally oriented, information-rich and open to input by relevant expertise.” If that is your answer I wondered what the question was.

The question you pose seems how do we solve the problem of “climate change, fossil fuel depletion, pandemics and the global economic meltdown”? You also raise a sub question of how we can stop governments from making political decisions.

The first two “problems”, climate change and fossil fuel depletion, feature prominently and often, therefore I suspect your thrust is that politicians are not supporting your perspectives on these two issues, because they are making “political decisions”. Therefore we should replace them, not just in Australia, but also the political leaders of the G7 nations that fail your ideology.

I was also disturbed by your “assumption close” on the key problems. It’s a very old tactic but still draws some of us in, the old fear, uncertainty and doubt. Your assumptions are that AGW, global financials, fossil fuel depletion and pandemics are a real and immediate threat that “must” be addressed by the politicians you want to replace. Tut, Tut Peter.

Much as it may distress you to take a peek into the real world, AGW is losing support, the science behind it flawed. There is no such thing as “settled science or scientific consensus”, they are contradictions in terms. The global financial crisis will be solved by financial means, not handouts to the demand side. Fossil fuel depletion and pandemics will always be a threat; fortunately we have two things going for us, scientists and investors.

The prospect of a global political body made me shudder and left me scrambling through Karl Marx and Max Engels.

Well said Leigh.

A brilliant article IMHO.

McMahon has skilfully highlighted many of the problems of the current political-economic system. Lately, I've been wondering if the Australian political system is even more unlikely to produce good leadership than the US one ... at least in the US, there is _some_ chance a wise president will be elected and appoint a good cabinet. While I see the benefit of local regions being represented at the national level, it almost ensures being governed by a cabinet of populists without a deep understanding of their cabinet areas.

The previous comments trying to cast Peter's argument in terms of appointing technocrats seems spurious to me.

I see signs of positive change though. I think Labor, despite their current dominance, are 'running on empty' in terms of vision and drive. A "new politics" may very well be emerging right now on the 'net and elsewhere. Which is why it's particularly crucial to oppose Labor's current internet censorship plans, whatever name they dress them up as.

The problem I have with this article is that the author condemns government for problems that have only been apparent for a short time; less than a year in the case of the GFC. And contrary to the claim of failure, there is very substantial effort under way to address these problems. Solar power is progressing towards grid parity, and battery technology may soon offer economic storage, making the electric car viable.

I will be waiting a few years before revising my optimism in human ingenuity.