Eco-loons say: time to put democracy 'on hold'

[Mouroux]

James Lovelock on the value of sceptics and why Copenhagen was doomed
James Lovelock on the value of sceptics and why Copenhagen was doomed | Environment | guardian.co.uk


"We need a more authoritative world. We've become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It's all very well, but there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example – where you can't do that. You've got to have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it. And they should be very accountable too, of course.

But it can't happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems. What's the alternative to democracy? There isn't one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while."

-----

Of course he is asking the impossible... how can you put democracy on hold, when it has never really existed? Example? Copenhagen was supposedly a failure... and yet the "authoritative" powers that be simply went right ahead with their plans to implement cap&trade, carbon taxes, and various other schemes. There is no real debate, just theatre for the masses. All of the key geo-political decisions were make by the uber-rich, behind closed doors, decades ago.

[PAD1OH]

since when was James Lovelock more than one person?

[Mouroux]

PAD1OH, your question implies that you accept Lovelock is a 'eco-loon'! As to my saying eco-loons... obviously Lovelock is not alone and clearly he is representative of a group opinion/group-think: he comments to the effect that 'we're very tribal', 'we' being the eco-loons, plural.

[Tombo]

since when was James Lovelock more than one person?

Lovelock is obviously a high profile example, but isn't the only one. For example:

Hidden doom of climate change | Courier Mail

This is because the implications of 3C, let alone 4C or 5C, are so horrible that we look to any possible scenario to head it off, including the canvassing of "emergency" responses such as the suspension of democratic processes.

It is understandable. The alarmism has been cranked up to the point where this idiotic movement - and we are talking the supposed "scientists" here not just the media - is telling people that the world will end. if you buy into threat, then a suspension of democracy is a credible proposition.

Unfortunately it is a false premise and the alarmism is not warranted.

[Tombo]

It isn't hard to find more support for such a concept:

Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: An Inconvenient Democracy: A Guest Post by Nico Stehr and Hans von Storch

"We need an authoritarian form of government in order to implement the scientific consensus on greenhouse gas emissions" according to the Australian scholars David Shearman and Joseph Wayne Smith their book The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy

The well-known climate researcher James Hansen adds resignedly and frustrated as well as vaguely, "the democratic process does not work".

[PAD1OH]

Unfortunately it is a false premise and the alarmism is not warranted.

It's a pity you haven't been able to win your case that the concern isn't warranted.

your view isn't shared by the majority of scientists, policy makers and now a increasingly significant portion of industry.


as for halting democracy, I think it's not going to (or should) happen. I would like to believe that intelligence can flourish in a democracy and we can muster enough cop-on to respond to the challenges that face us.

A state of emergency is probably an acceptable reposes to an immediate and short term problem like a natural disaster but transitioning to a low carbon economy is longer term.

I also don't believe that a low carbon economy can only be delivered by government and many things have to happen outside of the functioning of "democracy"

[TheEndIsNigh]

It really is chicken little stuff. And of course the folk set to benefit are the self same corporations currently reeking eco-havoc. BP for example are big promoters of carbon off-setting and stand to make a tidy sum.I bet they can't wait for Barack to pass his lunatic carbon tax bill that will be pushed as a result of the Gulf disaster."Never let a good disaster go to waste" said the BP sponsored Rahm Emmanuel,One of Barack's chief,if now former, advisors.

[Tombo]

It's a pity you haven't been able to win your case that the concern isn't warranted.

your view isn't shared by the majority of scientists, policy makers and now a increasingly significant portion of industry.


as for halting democracy, I think it's not going to (or should) happen. I would like to believe that intelligence can flourish in a democracy and we can muster enough cop-on to respond to the challenges that face us.

A state of emergency is probably an acceptable reposes to an immediate and short term problem like a natural disaster but transitioning to a low carbon economy is longer term.

I also don't believe that a low carbon economy can only be delivered by government and many things have to happen outside of the functioning of "democracy"

Stand back everyone.

Idiot reversing.

[Libertarian Contrarian]

"A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."

Audubon magazine, interview with Ted Turner, 1996

[Libertarian Contrarian]

""This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.""

Jacques Cousteau in an interview with the UNESCO Courier for November 1991