Monday, December 14, 2009

Worst Case Utopia

"Worse cases scenario if climate models are incorrect... energy efficient lifestyles, clean air, clean water... win win ."

This gem was provided to me from an anonymous poster but I have heard it all before from the left. It is bunk as I shall do my best to explain.

OK, so there is no global warming, the models are incorrect etc... what liberals want to do will result in good stuff, improved energy efficiency, clean air, clean water, less reliance on energy from rogue nations etc... and that is the liberal worst case scenario.

My worst case scenario is, warming or not aside, the likelyhood that government will control our lives to an unacceptable extent, even more so than they do already. And this government will be an international one, not one that can be unelected by us. We all use energy to survive and all energy use will be subject to government control. So the worst case scenario for me is that an unaccountable international government comprised of the worlds tyrants will greatly control our lives.

Of course the possibility of governments run amuck does not frighten the left, because, of course, never in the course of history has any government ever failed to fairly and justly meet the needs of its citizens. So we have nothing to worry about on that score. Everything will be OK once we put the United Nations in charge of our lives.


Anonymous said...

I wrote that..interesting response.

Here's my take:
Having the voice of the 'people' is crucial in any democracy... and is, in effect, its very definition.(provided there is perfect information-- Bush's deregulation of the FCC really hurt us)

These students, and the youth delegates in Copenhagen are invested in having these voices heard... and they're having fun (those darned youth! :)

The scenario I laid out is presuming that the democratic nations of the world involved in addressing climate change are indeed democratic... which may be a topic for a different discussion.

If we let the talking heads, lobbyists, and corporate movers decide for us.. than, yes, your premonition may indeed become a sad reality. There has been a tendency throughout US history to centralize power..
1. slay the buffalo (free)/raise cattle (controlled)
2. grow only corn and soy.. import real food (centralized through subsidies/GMO/soil fertility)
3. centralized power production (coal, nuclear, natural gas- subsidies) renewables- few subsidies
4. Build a fossil fuel-based civilian economy (oil- not much of which comes from here, and a very centralized commodity)

Anytime our very existence depends on something not easily 'at-hand'- we are vulnerable...

The examples I provided in -my liberal utopian fantasy- are a vision of what can be.. if our voices are indeed heard, that's democracy... and some people/industries fear it. really.

I believe that most people have the same hopes for our families, neighbors, communities, states, nations, and world.. just different ways of going about it.

I agree that we are over regulated in many respects.. but it seems the role of government is to protect that which cannot protect itself... not talking seat-belt laws either... but children, animals, wildlife, victims, refugees, and the 'environment' -where we live- ... you get the picture...

Does anyone remember before the creation of the EPA and the clean water act in the 70s, how the lakes and rivers around here were atrocious.. the skyline brown with soot... I mean.. just look at the changes that you've observed in your life.. look at LA's air quality.. and again.. I agree, in some areas we are way over-regulated, and some of these decisions need to made on a local or state level, but there is a role for government, and there is indeed a need for us to keep it in check.

Let our voices be heard.. support those doing the good screaming for us.

Anonymous said...

PS- thanks for keeping up this blog, I know it takes some effort..

Though we may disagree on many levels.. it's refreshing to have a chance to hear people's ideas..

Denis Navratil said...

Thank you anon. Yes we need to hear the "voice of the people." However, the more centralized and distant the government, the fainter the voice of the people. Conversely, the more local the governing body, the more responsive it is likely to be. The most local governing body is a free and responsible individual. The more decisions are taken from free and responsible people, the fewer free and responsible people there will be. Authority handed over to distant elites never seems to work as well as hoped. In my view, this is because elites, while they may be brilliant individuals, are no match for the collective wisdom of millions of free people acting in their own best interests. I once heard an example which illustrates this point. Who's job is it to feed New York City? Why is there no panel of elites overseeing the production and distribution of food in New York? Of course the answer is that there is no need for such a brilliant person or commitee because the problem of feeding New Yorkers is by and large handled by millions of anonymous individuals going about their business. Now I am not suggesting that there is no role for government, there is. It should be limited and we should be rather skeptical when the elites seek more power and control for themselves, with our best interests at heart, of course. So when said elites want to control the energy sector on the basis of unproven, even suspect evidence, we ought to beware. As such, when I see easily misled youth aligned with such causes, I worry about the state of education and the future of freedom. Most if not all really bad/violent political movements relied heavily on impressionable youth. This one is no different IMHO.

Wayne C said...

The whole Global warming scam is nothing more then Big Government+Big Business+ Big Unions in the largest power grab ever. Easily within a year the Feds could control much more of our lifes then we could ever have thought, from what temp we keep our homes at, to what we eat and who we buy it from.
I have never been more scared for my freedom then now.
However I may lose but I plan to go down fighting.

Anonymous said...

I agree that individuals acting in their best interest makes the wheel turn.. the invisible hand... And am equally leery of hyped up popular movements.. take the Khmer Rouge as an example of how bad things can get... given that... consider the youth momentum in fighting for Civil Rights in the US, the simultaneous colapse of colonial control of the world, the protests against the Vietnam War.. there were youth-driven movements.. and though we could argue about the long-term results, the reality is that they provided the energy that you and I cannot, we work, raise families, pay house payments... we've got more on the line. Given that, I can see how their efforts can be mis-appropriated... which makes it ever crucial to have a true, sound democratic process with real information backing it..

Empowering the youth, and balancing the information is the key.

I agree that local control is crucial, and see the youth movement as supporting that...

Your example of food arriving in NY is good, people feed themselves, people make a living feeding people.. the food arrives via federally support highways/trains/infrastructure.

That infrastructure is what's being discussed in the energy sector.... and I do have my doubts that everyone will be off-grid, because it does shake up the power structure a bit.. but the potential is there, giving individuals the ability to 'feed' themselves with rational decisions, with a federally support infrastructure.

Fear of centralized, remote government is a healthy fear, in my opinion, and ensuring a youth/civilian voice throughout any process International/national/state/local is key to not only the success of the effort, but the assurance of accountability.

I am all for national/state/local sovereignty and really see the exercise of democratically protect rights to gather and protest as a great thing for us.. and the youth.

This whole 'scam' theory needs some real evidence... where is it?

As far as the scientists and folks I know working in Antarctica, the evidence is pretty clear...

Something has to give.

Anonymous said...


Wayne C said...


Climategame you know the emails that tell how to lie about the numbers. NASA refusing to follow the law and give up the data they have.

Anonymous said...

Oh, the emails from one research institution using statistical analysis that were chopped up and edited out of context?.... but what about the 2485 (or more)other geologists, anthropologists, Oceanographers, geo-physicist, climatologists, chemists, biologists and so on that also make up the research body of the IPCC? Hum.... they're in on it too right?

and the indigenous communities around the world that still have their history to share... them too right?

And again, either way.. back to the liberal utopian democracy with national/state/local sovereignty.