The UN released another big report on global warming this past week. It was about what you might expect from the UN. The quality was high, the science was reasonable and well-supported, and the conclusions were cautiously and diplomatically stated. The bottom line was that the problem is real, but with enough international cooperation, the nations can get together and keep this thing from becoming a mega-catastrophe.
Yea, that’s the old-tyme UN religion at work. It’s nice to see that the UN still dreams the dream. But the reality is that this dream has gone nowhere over the past half-century. Perhaps the UN is a century or two ahead of its time. The nations of the world basically DO NOT want to cooperate on a world-wide basis. They’ll cut deals with each other to meet immediate problems or objectives, but as to “one-worldism” . . forget about it.
I agree with the UN that it would be a really good time for one-worldism to get started, given the big mess that global warming might very well create in another 50 or 60 years. But there’s a quaint little American song from the days of World War 1 that describes the international politics of global warming: “How Ya Gonna Keep Em Down On The Farm, After They’ve Seen Paree”. How is America going to convince the developing nations in Asia and elsewhere that they’ve got to shoot for a standard of living lower than what Americans have (and won’t give up), because the world can’t afford for their citizens to create as much greenhouse gas as the average American does? It’s too late for that; the whole world knows about American prosperity, and wants its share as soon as possible.
Even if American technology manages to cut the average American’s “carbon footprint” by 20%, the world is cooked once Asians and Africans en mass reach even a “reduced” western level. There’s eventually going to be starvation and desperation over wide tracts of territory; that sort of thing usually leads to war. And war usually leads to more war, along with economic decline. With enough war and poverty, even the big nations (including the USA) are going to be in trouble. We’re not talking here about extinction of the human race, but we may well be in for a reversal of civilization, something akin to the Dark Ages.
I’m sorry to be so pessimistic, but I think that people need to grasp just how big the implications of this global warming thing are. It’s not going to be solved technically and painlessly like the other air pollution problems were (e.g. CFC’s). It’s going to require soul-searching about just how high-on-the-hog any one nation can live. It may truly mean that the standards of material wealth in America will have to go down; to prevent absolute chaos, this would somehow have to be done in a fair way, one that hurts the rich more than the poor.
One way or another, there are going to be big changes from global warming — worldwide changes. Perhaps this is the crisis that will finally let the UN and “one-world thinking” have its day. The rich nations don’t like one-world thinking, but once they see that their wealth and power can’t survive a world catastrophe, maybe that will change. At the very least, the maligned and disrespected UN will finally be able to say “told you so”.
Jim,
As usual I still think that if big business would clean up its (their) act there would be a lot less of a “carbon footprint” in this world. And I would think that would start with our trade with China. With all the toxic materials coming out of China–e.g., lead in toys for one, toothpaste tainted with radiator fluid for two–why does big business keep doing business with China? And if China would cut it’s “carbon footprint,” not from the standpoint of the little guy trying to get his next meal, but from the standpoint of big business in China, that would help way more than a bunch of little guys buying different bulbs for their homes.
I also wonder how much of the “going green” that’s pushed on people in general is coming from big business. I do know that the bulbs that are supposed to last 10 years and that are supposed to reduce the carbon footprint of the little guy are putting money in Com Ed’s pocket–at least here in the Midwest. I keep harping on this, but I see no one else even mentioning the problem with big business.
Then as to “starvation and desperation over wide tracts of territory”: Don’t we already have exactly that in Africa and some other parts of the world?
I remember learning about Malthus in 5th grade: His prediction that the population of the world would soon become so large that there would be no food left for the people. And here we are 65 years later with even more people around than we had then.
As to America living high on the hog: SNL had a skit a week or so ago on the WGA strike. A guy making $20 million bemoaning that there just wasn’t money enough to go around for the writers who were making “only” $200,000 a year. Yes, I can see the definite injustice between the $20 million and the $200,000. But how about the massively greater number of people who make only $20,000–or even $50,000 a year? Nowadays, $50,000 is lower middle class. I’m not saying a good dose of asceticism won’t do America some real good–but the dose of asceticism needs to be directed towards the few who make the most money. In Chicago until recently (I think they have changed the practice in the last few years) recycling was advocated–but people had to BUY the so-called “blue-bags” that recycles were to be put into. What family that can barely make enough money to pay bills and eat will spend money on recycling? Made absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. They did end up with a better system in some of the suburbs (and maybe Chicago has it now) where the village or town GAVE the people containers in which to put materials to be recycled. And people certainly do cooperate in recycling. I know I do.
And further I think that before global warming “gets” us, a major recession will “get” us. I do not like all the indicators that tell us the economy is headed for a recession. Once the housing market goes down, it’s the harbinger of the rest of the economy taking a dive; and once the housing market goes down, it takes a very long time for it to rebound.
This sounds close to a rant, if not being an outright rant. Sorry.
MCS
Comment by Anonymous — November 18, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
Jim,
As usual I still think that if big business would clean up its (their) act there would be a lot less of a “carbon footprint” in this world. And I would think that would start with our trade with China. With all the toxic materials coming out of China–e.g., lead in toys for one, toothpaste tainted with radiator fluid for two–why does big business keep doing business with China? And if China would cut it’s “carbon footprint,” not from the standpoint of the little guy trying to get his next meal, but from the standpoint of big business in China, that would help way more than a bunch of little guys buying different bulbs for their homes.
I also wonder how much of the “going green” that’s pushed on people in general is coming from big business. I do know that the bulbs that are supposed to last 10 years and that are supposed to reduce the carbon footprint of the little guy are putting money in Com Ed’s pocket–at least here in the Midwest. I keep harping on this, but I see no one else even mentioning the problem with big business.
Then as to “starvation and desperation over wide tracts of territory”: Don’t we already have exactly that in Africa and some other parts of the world?
I remember learning about Malthus in 5th grade: His prediction that the population of the world would soon become so large that there would be no food left for the people. And here we are 65 years later with even more people around than we had then.
As to America living high on the hog: SNL had a skit a week or so ago on the WGA strike. A guy making $20 million bemoaning that there just wasn’t money enough to go around for the writers who were making “only” $200,000 a year. Yes, I can see the definite injustice between the $20 million and the $200,000. But how about the massively greater number of people who make only $20,000–or even $50,000 a year? Nowadays, $50,000 is lower middle class. I’m not saying a good dose of asceticism won’t do America some real good–but the dose of asceticism needs to be directed towards the few who make the most money. In Chicago until recently (I think they have changed the practice in the last few years) recycling was advocated–but people had to BUY the so-called “blue-bags” that recycles were to be put into. What family that can barely make enough money to pay bills and eat will spend money on recycling? Made absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. They did end up with a better system in some of the suburbs (and maybe Chicago has it now) where the village or town GAVE the people containers in which to put materials to be recycled. And people certainly do cooperate in recycling. I know I do.
And further I think that before global warming “gets” us, a major recession will “get” us. I do not like all the indicators that tell us the economy is headed for a recession. Once the housing market goes down, it’s the harbinger of the rest of the economy taking a dive; and once the housing market goes down, it takes a very long time for it to rebound.
This sounds close to a rant, if not being an outright rant. Sorry.
MCS
Comment by Anonymous — November 18, 2007 @ 6:45 pm