Forward-Thinking

Climate change presents the world with a beautiful opportunity to re-empower those voices, the voices of the yin (if you'll indulge me) which we have been gagging, to restore balance within both the human community and the larger ecological community. The potential for this radical reconciliation is my wellspring of energy.

But make no mistake, it also presents the opportunity for the powers-that-be to justify the expansion and tightening of their authority. As I watched negotiations in Poznan, Poland, it became clear from my vantage point (focusing on deforestation issues) that this is a distinct risk we must acknowledge. For what better excuse to trespass upon liberty, to consolidate authoritarian power than the very preservation of the planet? Right now, the only people talking about this risk are those who still insist that climate change isn't happening and is only a global conspiracy. Why aren't those of us who are calling for solutions to climate change talking about it too, for preparedness' sake?

Climate change is a unique problem in that it is, by definition, international. The climate is no respecter of state boundaries. Building walls to the north, south, east and west won't neutralize this threat. The global character of climate change makes its effective and timely resolution, definitionally, a threat of historic proportions to the nation-state system that has governed the world since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

Those of us who are agitating for a forward-looking climate change policy must keep in mind several things:

1. It is clear: we must address climate change -- hard and fast.

2. It is highly unlikely that industrialized sovereign states, the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, will legislate hard or fast enough to avoid catastrophic climate change in high-risk regions of the world. Domestic legislation will not satisfy global imperatives because domestic legislation isn't supposed to satisfy global imperatives -- it's supposed to satisfy national imperatives. Domestic law-making simply wasn't designed to address problems with scopes that are as unambiguously global as that of climate change.

3. Currently, the only institution with a shred of de jure international political authority is the United Nations (there are plenty of others with de facto international political authority, but we're going to ignore them for the time being), but for better or worse, as it stands, the UN has no "teeth". It has no monopoly on the legal use of force. It can only ask, politely, that countries sign, ratify, and implement treaties. Enforcement of law is still under the purview of sovereign states.

4. If we can't rely on domestic action to "fix" climate change, an international body, like the UN, must be invested with real authority, i.e. the legal use of force, so that it can (ostensibly) ensure that individual states reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and thus avoid global catastrophe. Who would invest the UN or some such body with authority? The UN, for example, is controlled by the permanent members of the Security Council, France, China, Russia, the UK, and America. Ultimately, such a choice would be theirs. Many would say that there is no way that you're going to convince all the permanent member states of the Security Council to relinquish, piece by piece or in one fell swoop, the sovereignty of their states -- unless, of course, they see that there are gains to be had by doing so, and these gains outweigh the costs. I do wish that the virtuous, enlightened philosopher-kings at the helm of the Security Council would count the preservation of our common home as gain enough. Sadly, they don't.

5. By gain, of course they mean money, land, and votes. If conceding sovereignty would beget more money, more land, and/or more votes for the puppet-masters, such a concession will be made. And, mind you, there is already lots of cash to be made, land to be acquired and votes to be secured in this erosion process.

6. Empowering the UN in order to address climate change is going to have repercussions far beyond that particular issue. The character of these repercussions will be in large part, up to us.

It is not that the process of political globalization is necessarily bad, but it should be acknowledged that (1) the organizations guiding the process are at this moment decidedly undemocratic and lack transparency and (2) the circumstances under which it's happening are not particularly stable. In times of fear, many look for strong, centralized leadership that promises salvation. Many are willing to compromise their liberty in exchange for alleged security. We've seen it happen time and again throughout history, no? It will be no less so as the heavens and earth begin their wholly-justified revolt against us, only on an entirely new scale.

We must pay attention and consider honestly all the potential ramifications, good and bad, of our endeavor to address climate change. Solve it we must. We must also be nimble, forward-thinking, and prepared enough to cut off at the pass the grave risks that arise from our doing so. Acknowledging and equipping ourselves to meet these risks only makes us stronger.