Climate Change World Order

demfad

The deterioration of a world order can set in motion trends that spell catastrophe. World War I broke out some 60 years after the Concert of Europe had for all intents and purposes broken down in Crimea. What we are seeing today resembles the mid-nineteenth century in important ways: the post–World War II, post–Cold War order cannot be restored, but the world is not yet on the edge of a systemic crisis. Now is the time to make sure one never materializes, be it from a breakdown in U.S.-Chinese relations, a clash with Russia, a conflagration in the Middle East, or the cumulative effects of climate change. The good news is that it is far from inevitable that the world will eventually arrive at a catastrophe; the bad news is that it is far from certain that it will not.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2018-12-11/how-world-order-ends?cid=nlc-fa_twofa-20181213

Interesting article that examines what creates and ails stable world orders focusing on the Concert of Europe: a century of relative stability between the Napoleonic wars and WW1; and the twin Orders of Liberal Capitalsim and Communism for much of the twentieth century with the Liberal order staggering on until recently.

We seem to be at the end of an order, or during it's slow decline.
An aspect missing from the Brexit debates and indeed around Trump is where are we going?

Can a new stable International order be found now that the US as "benign hegemon" has left the stage for now?

Can the EU lead without a substantial military capability?

Can a State Capitalist nation like China with strict domestic control lead?

Or are we destined to descend into chaos and catastrophe?

I have my own ideas which Ill withold for now.

James Brown

The only thing we have is the thin veil of democracy. There's a reason we have 'two cheeks of the same arse' as they say.
The new world order is the old world order. The players change but it's money and the pursuit of money that drives the world. China is well placed to lead as they have the ability to be of one mind. Whereas in the states, the results are the same but you have two sides favouring their own style and interests. Ireland is a great example of that albeit on a much smaller scale, where the results are the same but which private concerns profit depends on which party is at the helm.
You'd be hard pressed to find a war or military campaign that did not have the lobbyists interests at heart.
The EU is a business. As long as the right people are making money we'll only have corporate hostile military campaign take overs like we've seen in a Arab regions. Putin will not start anything big if it upsets his wallet and in-turn he'll be aggressive if there's a few bob in it. Trump is really a small minded short game version of the same thing.
In short, I wouldn't expect anything much to change except as the environment worsens we turn from oil to water, which will change the landscape as the Arabic regions become less relevant.
The only thing that will distablise these things is any upstart with ideas, who won't play along or be bought, but society has a way of dismissing these people before they get much traction and the media and status quo do the rest. Only in times of great disater is there a chance of real change.
We had that in 2011. IMO, there was an acceptance that things needed to change and change radically. But we we're conned and after a time we all settled back into our uncomfortable familiarity and decided to go for more of the same 'ol same 'ol. The biggest wasted opportunity in Irish political history ground down to arguments of water metering.

johnnyskeleton

demfad wrote:

I have my own ideas which Ill withold for now.

Mod note:

As per the charter, when starting a thread:

Add a comment before or after the post, offering your opinion and/or analysis on the subject.

demfad

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Mod note:

As per the charter, when starting a thread:

(OK, apologies. My own opinion is radical and did not want to direct thread in a certain direction at the cost of other Point of views. Will correct below:)

My own view on a likely world order depends on whether the consequences of Global warming are fully understood by populations in the next few years.

This will depend on how the information and political war we are seeing internationally plays out. My opinion is that a lot of the global slide to the far right had been accelerated due to the threat of radical political and economic change to combat climate breakdown.
As Peter Thiel of Palantir said and I paraphrase: 'Democracy is no longer compatible with capitalism'. The logical place where democracy should lead us in a time of threat to habitation on Earth is at odds with Free market small Government capitalism.
The successful models for Global success in successfully combating climate breakdown involves global integration and cooperation to succeed.
This would be a potential world order, with global rules even laws to align nations. This would most likely by the EU. War would be avoided at all costs to achieve these goals.

The other option is that this doesn't happen. Climate breakdown belief was rooted out of the EPA dept in the US at all levels. Climate change deniers hold positions deep in the US administration including education. The people behind Brexit are all graduated from RW think tanks mirroring sister think tanks in the US being extreme climate change deniers. Russia, Saudi and other oil states are pushing too. Brazil has a new authoritarian climate denying leader also.

If this side gains global influence or even enough to paralise the saliency of climate breakdown among politicians and citizens globally then we may see a multi-polar authoritarian globe heading towards inevitable global disruption as climate change wreks havoc on resources, sea levels, eco systems and climates causing mass mass immigrations and resource wars.

4068ac1elhodqr

demfad wrote: »

(OK, apologies. My own opinion is radical and did not want to direct thread in a certain direction at the cost of other Point of views. Will correct below:)

My own view on a likely world order depends on whether the consequences of Global warming are fully understood by populations in the next few years.

This largely means 'SFA'. The GW/Climate issue is merely a volountry mix of PR/goodwill, natural progress, cost-savings, carbon-taxing and attempt to diminish power from traditional ME oil rich states.

Yes, the climate will change, it always has. Islands aren't going to sink within the next 20yrs, or biblical floods appear (Unless there is a super-volcano). 50-100yrs might see more significant changes, but technology will solve those issues, well before then. Even 15yrs will see hardly any diesel cars being sold, so 'green' is just natural evolvement.

The general concept of a NWO is more to do with capitalism, control and globalisation of markets.

The EU is about to further expand towards the Balkans. But by 2060 it will likely take the actual full union of an enlarged EU (then still smaller than India) - with the US & Can just to compete with the sheer might of China's 28% ownership of all global wealth.

By then ('60) GB will be behind Brazil, so Brexitland will have rejoined the EU 2030c. India (18% world trade) may well also overtake the US (16%) hence the need for the 'E-A Atlantic Union'.

China built 200 (x13 more) skyscrapers than the US this year, and will soon have the world's 1st true mega-city of 130m people, the size of GB. They will also soon have x19 new powerful super-city clusters.

If China should join with India & Rus that's 50% of world GDP right there.

LuckyLloyd

Very interesting as always demfad. I completely agree that we are looking at man made / accelerated climate change that potentially threatens humanity as a whole. Gore / Bush was 18 years ago, had that gone the other way (arguably the right way) the most powerful position on earth would have been held by an avid environmentalist / climate change advocate. Instead he lost, and the US went to war over oil in the middle east using false presences. The exposure of the falsities from that 2000 - 2008 has since been manipulated to stoke the anger necessary for Trump and Brexit. It feels to me therefore that we passed a major tipping point at the very outset of the century, of which the ramifications are only becoming clear.

This is giant stuff though, and it's very difficult to take the necessary amount of steps back from Trump / Putin / Brexit and every other lower level event to view the big issue in a global context. As a consequence I'm not sure if this thread will garner good debate.

RandomName2

demfad wrote: »

where are we going?

Can a new stable International order be found now that the US as "benign hegemon" has left the stage for now?

Can the EU lead without a substantial military capability?

Can a State Capitalist nation like China with strict domestic control lead?

Or are we destined to descend into chaos and catastrophe?

Making far-flung political and social predictions is an almost impossible task. Small changes can have large consequences.

Nobody could have predicted Gavrilo Princip, but everyone could have seen that the Balkans were waiting for a catalyst. Nobody could have predicted the Second Reich's late bid for colonies in Africa and Asia, but anyone could have seen the consequences of it trying to exercise its maritime strength to guard these possessions.

America under Trump isn't really isolationist. Not really. Trump is dealing with the Saudis, bombing Syria, supporting armed forces in dozens of countries, much like his predecessors. Whether Trump is indicative of a particular trend though (or just a flash in the pan) is impossible to say at the moment.

What one can see today as being things to watch are the continuing rise of China and India, the mutual dependence of multiple economies, the impact of automation, the increasing pressure on the biosphere. What sort of consequences will be reaped from any or all of these things: who knows?

FreudianSlippers

Daniela Scruffy Sandlot wrote: »

This largely means 'SFA'. The GW/Climate issue is merely a volountry mix of PR/goodwill, natural progress, cost-savings, carbon-taxing and attempt to diminish power from traditional ME oil rich states.

Yes, the climate will change, it always has. Islands aren't going to sink within the next 20yrs, or biblical floods appear (Unless there is a super-volcano). 50-100yrs might see more significant changes, but technology will solve those issues, well before then. Even 15yrs will see hardly any diesel cars being sold, so 'green' is just natural evolvement.

There is a mountain of scientific evidence that debunks this nonsense.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

I've changed the title to reflect the specific issue

ancapailldorcha

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There is a mountain of scientific evidence that debunks this nonsense.

I agree but do you have any links? I fancy doing some reading on the subject. Can try and find some myself later otherwise.

Subcomandante Marcos

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I agree but do you have any links? I fancy doing some reading on the subject. Can try and find some myself later otherwise.

https://sci-hub.tw/

Knock yourself out.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I agree but do you have any links? I fancy doing some reading on the subject. Can try and find some myself later otherwise.

Found this:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Should probably have just used Google. Thought FS might have had some specific references in mind.

FreudianSlippers

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I agree but do you have any links? I fancy doing some reading on the subject. Can try and find some myself later otherwise.

Breaking down the post:

Daniela Scruffy Sandlot wrote: »

This largely means 'SFA'. The GW/Climate issue is merely a volountry mix of PR/goodwill, natural progress, cost-savings, carbon-taxing and attempt to diminish power from traditional ME oil rich states.

This is nothing more than a conspiracy theory, so I'm not going to jump down that rabbit-hole

Yes, the climate will change, it always has. Islands aren't going to sink within the next 20yrs, or biblical floods appear (Unless there is a super-volcano). 50-100yrs might see more significant changes, but technology will solve those issues, well before then. Even 15yrs will see hardly any diesel cars being sold, so 'green' is just natural evolvement.

Honestly, the onus shouldn't be on me to disprove this point. The scientific consensus is that man-made climate change is real and poses a significant danger; the onus should be on a person making an absurd statement based in zero factual science to support a claim such as this.

However...

1) Let's first see who concurs with the following:

Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s,
Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause,
Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects, and that
People could manage future climate change impacts through intense efforts at reducing further warming while preparing for any unavoidable climate changes.

Probably easier for the sake of time / reading to just link to the well-referenced Wikipedia Page which is summarised as

Since 2001, 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in 2007.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_scientific_organizations_of_national_or_international_standing

And in opposition?

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[24] no national or international scientific body rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Opposing

2) Here is an almost point-by-point scientific answer to the red herrings raised in the post.

3) Here is NASA providing a mountain of evidence.

4) Here is an explainer of the CO2 problem.

5) Here is an explainer on ocean temperature and rising.

6) Here is an answer to the "it's not really happening" argument, citing and relying heavily on the NOAA report (to which they also helpfully link).

7) Here is a basic summary of everything from the Royal Society.

8) Here is an interesting article to help understand the mindset of the climate change denier in the US.

4068ac1elhodqr

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This is nothing more than a conspiracy theory, so I'm not going to jump down that rabbit-hole...

Sorry, but you 'auto-post climate change-denier' replies, are generally extremely boring, long, high-horse-esq, and most importantly are irrelevant to the essence of OP's theme/question, and thus any subsequent replies.

The OP is indicating wheter or not the issue of climate change/warming/cooling, is a 'world geo-political tool', they even specifically mention an 'eu army, brexit, trump'. Even capitalsim and communism.

The amount, and speed, of man-made climate change is largely irrelevant to this, and will have little effect on the status of an eu army, brexit, trump and market conditions.

Being 'green' is to a large part just natural evolvement, and market progress. All my power tools no longer require petrol or combustion. This is not because of the desire to save trees. But instead, because they are simply now better and cheaper, to buy and maintain than the carbon fuel marketplace alternatives.

Folks such as Commonwealth Fusion System believe that (cold) nuclear fusion is on the brink (15yrs) of being realised, thanks to new superconducting materials.

Typically that timeframe was generally expected to be 30yrs. Perhaps the best thing people can do (instead of arguing over chart projections and taxes), is actually support technological driven projects to speed carbon-fuel replacements.

demfad

Daniela Scruffy Sandlot wrote: »

Sorry, but you 'auto-post climate change-denier' replies, are generally extremely boring, long, high-horse-esq, and most importantly are irrelevant to the essence of OP's theme/question, and thus any subsequent replies.

The OP is indicating wheter or not the issue of climate change/warming/cooling, is a 'world geo-political tool', they even specifically mention an 'eu army, brexit, trump'. Even capitalsim and communism.

The amount, and speed, of man-made climate change is largely irrelevant to this, and will have little effect on the status of an eu army, brexit, trump and market conditions.

Being 'green' is to a large part just natural evolvement, and market progress. All my power tools no longer require petrol or combustion. This is not because of the desire to save trees. But instead, because they are simply now better and cheaper, to buy and maintain than the carbon fuel marketplace alternatives.

Folks such as Commonwealth Fusion System believe that (cold) nuclear fusion is on the brink (15yrs) of being realised, thanks to new superconducting materials.

Typically that timeframe was generally expected to be 30yrs. Perhaps the best thing people can do (instead of arguing over chart projections and taxes), is actually support technological driven projects to speed carbon-fuel replacements.

The best thing that people can do is get accurate data on climate change and act accordingly.
If human caused climate change will cause the cataclysmic affects that the 99% of suitably qualified scientists say it does then the world needs to act accordingly to avert damage that renders habitation impossible.

If you want to look at another angle to show this as likely true consider this: The people who will be financially hurt most by climate change economics are spending 10s of billions of dollars to invent a contrary argument, to install climate deniers in the most powerful global positions.
There is a climate denier as POTUS as Secretary for EPA. The Brexit campaign was conceived over the last decade by Climate change denying think tanks. Little noticed was that Andrea Leadsom as Brexit environment minister is a sceptic. Gove has connections to these RW think tanks and to denier Rupert Murdoch. New Brazilian dictator is climate denier. LePen, Wilders, AFd etc etc all weak on this issue and ofcourse Russia itself.

The latest warning is that we have 12 years to avert a 1.5' increase which would cause a chain reaction of carbon release to reach 5-6' with Cataclysmic consequences. An integrated world where we use only what we need and services fill most of our needs is required.
If we believe the Scientists on Climate change then there can only be two general orders: The Climate change world order or some version of Cataclysm where elites might control small areas in highlands (esp Islands) insulated from chaos (eg Peter Thiel and NZ South Island).
The old order is gone. I would argue that the fascistic world push is to stop democracy taking civilisation where it needs to go. This is the ultimate and final battle between personal greed and communal welfare.

To give the fascists their due: At least they have turned up for the correct fight.

4068ac1elhodqr

^Again, 'climate change' (warming/cooling) has very effect on the established (or next) 'world order'.
It has no bearing on 'brexit'(wft)', the eu.army, or trump getting voted in again, as alluded to in the OP.

No one here is denying, or on the other hand, able to accuratley assess the effect of cc in 20/50/100yrs.
'Green' solutions are not only market driven going forward, but a natural evolvement.

People such as me don't replace all their entire lighbulb stock with LED equivalents in order to save the polar bears,
but do it becuase they (now) are simply: cheaper, better, safer, longer-lasting and reduce impact on bills by 90%.

If there was one country however that needs a finger pointed at it, this would be China.
Who recently designed, opened and manage a new coal mining quarry in Africa, with a 50yr min use/stock timeline.

Meanwhile the US along with MIT & private investors (Gates) invests towards the earliest reality of cold-fusion reactors.

James Brown

Daniela Scruffy Sandlot wrote: »

^Again, 'climate change' (warming/cooling) has very effect on the established (or next) 'world order'.
It has no bearing on 'brexit'(wft)', the eu.army, or trump getting voted in again, as alluded to in the OP.

No one here is denying, or on the other hand, able to accuratley assess the effect of cc in 20/50/100yrs.
'Green' solutions are not only market driven going forward, but a natural evolvement.

People such as me don't replace all their entire lighbulb stock with LED equivalents in order to save the polar bears,
but do it becuase they (now) are simply: cheaper, better, safer, longer-lasting and reduce impact on bills by 90%.

If there was one country however that needs a finger pointed at it, this would be China.
Who recently designed, opened and manage a new coal mining quarry in Africa, with a 50yr min use/stock timeline.

Meanwhile the US along with MIT & private investors (Gates) invests towards the earliest reality of cold-fusion reactors.

Many people would go for the greener option even when it is more expensive. It's like anything, if we all put ourselves first we'll end up in a bad way as a whole. Trump certainly gains backing and support based on his denial of climate change. It enables him to bring in policy that favours the oil lobby, which he is personally invested in.

4068ac1elhodqr

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Many people would go for the greener option even when it is more expensive. It's like anything, if we all put ourselves first we'll end up in a bad way as a whole. Trump certainly gains backing and support based on his denial of climate change. It enables him to bring in policy that favours the oil lobby, which he is personally invested in.

And China is invested in the coal industry of Africa, but no one's complaining.

Then there's the fracking industry in the uk, hardly good for the environment or water table, again no real complaints.

Trump's one priority is likely the economy, that's what will get him re-elected: jobs not sobs. The trade war with the likes of China may even help the environment, reducing steel dumping (overproduction). Not to mention slowing the shiploads of discount plastic 'stuff' that fills the shelves of every shop.

Again all this is meaningless in any concept of the 'world order'.

As Hawkings suggested 'The one idea that would transform society' - in regards to cold fusion. This should be mankinds primary focus in cutting global carbon emissions, and eventual movement towards free, safe, cleam energy.

demfad

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Found this:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Should probably have just used Google. Thought FS might have had some specific references in mind.

Here is a summary for policy makers of the recent report.

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/summary-for-policy-makers/

There is graphics etc on the site.
This report omits a lot though. Eg the Gulf stream may divert in the shorter term if temperatures keep rising which might cool/freeze(?) our western shores in Winter. I think baby seals are cute, I dont want to think they are tasty.

demfad

Daniela Scruffy Sandlot wrote: »

^Again, 'climate change' (warming/cooling) has very effect on the established (or next) 'world order'.
It has no bearing on 'brexit'(wft)', the eu.army, or trump getting voted in again, as alluded to in the OP.

To progress the debate rather than just saying the above isn't so can you say WHY you believe it isn't so?
So for example the main funders of Trump were the Mercer Father/Daughter duo Robert and Rebekah.
https://maplight.org/story/tax-return-shows-mercer-family-fueled-climate-skeptics-last-year-with-more-than-4-million/
They poured $4m into climate denial groups in the US this year. Trump was also heavily backed by other climate denier networks (Kochs, Heritage Foundation etc). The value of Putin's contribution to Trump's election was clearly decisive. A decicive intervention by a climate denier.

Most of Vote Leave's £7m allocation was paid to Mercer affiliated AggregateIQ. Infact, All Leave campaigns paid money to aggregateIQ.
Official Vote Leave, Global Warming Policy Foundation, Taxpayers alliance and several other (the major UK) Climate denying groups were based in 55 Tufton street London.
Aaron Banks poured £8m into Brexit. THis looks almost certainly to be funelled from Russia. Another decicive intervention by a global climate denier.

No one here is denying, or on the other hand, able to accuratley assess the effect of cc in 20/50/100yrs.
'Green' solutions are not only market driven going forward, but a natural evolvement.

Your claim is baseless. Scientists are able to accurately predict climates on distant planets and indeed send spacecraft to same. The best equivalent scientists can accurately predict earths climate and have done in their recent report.

People such as me don't replace all their entire lighbulb stock with LED equivalents in order to save the polar bears,
but do it becuase they (now) are simply: cheaper, better, safer, longer-lasting and reduce impact on bills by 90%.

You are talking about methods to make people who would not voluntarily choose climate friendly options to choose them. This could include outlawing dangerous products or making them unprofitably expensive.
The end result is that consumption of these products are eliminated.

James Brown

Daniela Scruffy Sandlot wrote: »

And China is invested in the coal industry of Africa, but no one's complaining.

Then there's the fracking industry in the uk, hardly good for the environment or water table, again no real complaints.

Trump's one priority is likely the economy, that's what will get him re-elected: jobs not sobs. The trade war with the likes of China may even help the environment, reducing steel dumping (overproduction). Not to mention slowing the shiploads of discount plastic 'stuff' that fills the shelves of every shop.

Again all this is meaningless in any concept of the 'world order'.

As Hawkings suggested 'The one idea that would transform society' - in regards to cold fusion. This should be mankinds primary focus in cutting global carbon emissions, and eventual movement towards free, safe, cleam energy.

Profits win out over what should be common sense, that's not new or proves anything other than people put short term gains over long term loses. Not new in politics either. When the wealthy or 'world order' begin to feel a bite in their pocket they'll react, the point is it'll be too late.

demfad

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Profits win out over what should be common sense, that's not new or proves anything other than people put short term gains over long term loses. Not new in politics either. When the wealthy or 'world order' begin to feel a bite in their pocket they'll react, the point is it'll be too late.

By their decisive impact on Brexit, Trump etc. I would argue that they intend to capture democracies so that there will be no bite in their pockets at all in their lifetime.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Profits win out over what should be common sense

What does this even mean!?

James Brown

demfad wrote: »

By their decisive impact on Brexit, Trump etc. I would argue that they intend to capture democracies so that there will be no bite in their pockets at all in their lifetime.

They'll shift from oil to water most likely. The average punter won't fare any differently but the conflict maps will change and new players will likely appear.

4068ac1elhodqr

demfad wrote: »

By their decisive impact on Brexit, Trump etc. I would argue that they intend to capture democracies so that there will be no bite in their pockets at all in their lifetime.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

They'll shift from oil to water most likely. The average punter won't fare any differently but the conflict maps will change and new players will likely appear.

And what does these two above statements even mean!?

Climate change has had 'zero' impact, on 2016's choice for Brexit.

And long term climate change, will have very impact on whether or not Trump get elected in 2020. Fundamentals such as econonmics, security & jobs will as always be foremost on the everyday minds of everyday citizens, not the welfare of polar bears.

As the title of this topics alluded to 'Climate Change World Order' (whatever that is) - does the OP suggest the next 'world order' will be based purely upon future environmental policy? Such nonsense if so.

FreudianSlippers

Daniela Scruffy Sandlot wrote: »

And what does these two above statements even mean!?

Climate change has had 'zero' impact, on 2016's choice for Brexit.

And long term climate change, will have very impact on whether or not Trump get elected in 2020. Fundamentals such as econonmics, security & jobs will as always be foremost on the everyday minds of everyday citizens, not the welfare of polar bears.

As the title of this topics alluded to 'Climate Change World Order' (whatever that is) - does the OP suggest the next 'world order' will be based purely upon future environmental policy? Such nonsense if so.

It's rare that I agree with you on... probably anything tbh, and I expect we're coming from different angles on this - but I concur with you on this point.

demfad

Daniela Scruffy Sandlot wrote: »

And what does these two above statements even mean!?

Climate change has had 'zero' impact, on 2016's choice for Brexit.

And long term climate change, will have very impact on whether or not Trump get elected in 2020. Fundamentals such as econonmics, security & jobs will as always be foremost on the everyday minds of everyday citizens, not the welfare of polar bears.

As the title of this topics alluded to 'Climate Change World Order' (whatever that is) - does the OP suggest the next 'world order' will be based purely upon future environmental policy? Such nonsense if so.

I have already shown with substantiation that the MONEY behind the Trump and Brexit was almost exclusively supplied by and spent on entities owned by climate change deniers. I have shown that the groups behind these campaigns are climate change deniers. These are verifyable facts.
If you continue to call these assertions "nonsense" without any substantiation or without addressing the substantiation I have given I wont reply to you. Ive asked you twice now.

Trump has withdrawn from the Paris accord, and has purged the EPA of non climate change deniers while installing a climate change denier as Secretary.
The hard Brexit that is being pushed for with alignment with US regulation will burn EU environmental regulations.

No-one is claiming that Climate change was a major concern for voters in Brexit or Trump. However, it is a major concern for the money behind both.

James Brown

Daniela Scruffy Sandlot wrote: »

And what does these two above statements even mean!?

Climate change has had 'zero' impact, on 2016's choice for Brexit.

And long term climate change, will have very impact on whether or not Trump get elected in 2020. Fundamentals such as econonmics, security & jobs will as always be foremost on the everyday minds of everyday citizens, not the welfare of polar bears.

As the title of this topics alluded to 'Climate Change World Order' (whatever that is) - does the OP suggest the next 'world order' will be based purely upon future environmental policy? Such nonsense if so.

Looking ahead myself. Pretty obvious by the lack of past tense I would have thought. Denying climate change makes Trump backers a lot of money. You don't know this?
We know most with a vested interest in oil are either denying or ignoring climate change. We know people generally think short term and most of us don't have the luxury of long term planning. Circumstances will change and so too will the landscape, political and environmental.

FreudianSlippers

That's hardly a "new world order" though.

demfad

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's hardly a "new world order" though.

The US hegemony is fading, more rapidly than expected under Trump.
The world order since after WW2 is over. Whatever comes next will be a new world order or possibly a new world disorder.

Hegemony requires power to back it up. Is not cataclysm due to climate breakdown a greater threat? Unless the world cooperates this is what awaits us.

Can climate change stabilisation be accomplished without defining the world order?

Climate change stabilisation would have to have primacy over Capitalism.
War would have to be avoided.
That necessarily means sharing of energy resources. It means population stabilisation which means global education.
There are many repurcussions to sustainably achieve what needs to be achieved.

One thing is for certain the old world order is gone.
Whatever the new world order is either it fails to halt global warming with cataclysmic results. Or it succeeds in which case (I would argue) it would be in the group 'Climate change world orders'.

This is what I would like to discuss/develop

James Brown

The current 'world order' is personal profit driven. We see poor policies that make the right people money while not being the best moves for society. This will continue sadly. When oil begins to lose value, we'll see a change, but unless we move towards replacing it on a global level, that will only happen when it runs out. Policies are generally not made in the public interest above all else IMO and certainly not made with a long term view in mind. We need to make the environment profitable and not by merely using it to create a tax cash cow.
We need to restructure 'the way we do business'. Complete transparency an and end to corporate lobbying etc. With dictators like Putin, we can only hope for democracy in Russia some day.

As regard 'world order' the term has connotations of the Illuminati but it's as good a name for any for the few who control the planet for their own personal gain.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The current 'world order' is personal profit driven. We see poor policies that make the right people money while not being the best moves for society. This will continue sadly.

Until we get Star Trek replicators, this ain't changing.

When oil begins to lose value, we'll see a change, but unless we move towards replacing it on a global level, that will only happen when it runs out.

Except, fundamental and basic economics tells us that's not how it works.

Oil is at a 17-month low, not because supply is down but because demand is down due to increased substitution internationally from oil to other sources (largely shale LPG).

Citi's projections show that this trend will continue for the foreseeable/forecast-able future

Policies are generally not made in the public interest above all else IMO and certainly not made with a long term view in mind.

We are seeing a rise in support for a "Green New Deal" in the US, which somewhat invalidates this point.

In fact, the removal of subsidies in many countries (including China) have resulted in massive shifts from oil. These are policy decisions.

We need to restructure 'the way we do business'. Complete transparency an and end to corporate lobbying etc. With dictators like Putin, we can only hope for democracy in Russia some day.

As regard 'world order' the term has connotations of the Illuminati but it's as good a name for any for the few who control the planet for their own personal gain.

We're moving away from oil producing nations and groups having as much power as they had, and I know "power abhors a vacuum" but I don't think a reduction in the power of this group will lead to a NWO of some other (???who???) group.

demfad

Some time has passed since this thread was last commented on.
Now the green party has been largest in Germany for 3 consecutive polls.
They could be in power soon or force other mainstream (they are mainstream now) parties to adopt green policies wholesale.

The energy and dirty oil required to transport goods across Oceans will be taxed/levied/regulated out. Instead of globalisation, production will return closer to where consumption occurs.

This new planet 'Protectionist' order should succeed in the west, where people are lost in low paid jobs and consumerism.
The overton window will shift within the framework of green policy.

The Right Wing battle of the bulge with Trump and Brexit will likely fail especially if the EU (which leads global regulation) is not pulled sown.