We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

“Transnational enforcement powers …”

Bishop Hill and WUWT are both making much of this:

To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers.

If CAGW-inspired regulation is to make any sense, it must be universal. There must be a World Government. There are those of us who have long believed that this was why CAGW was devised in the first place.

Time was when economic success was believed to result from such “cooperation”, and to impossible without it. So, the language of tyranny was economics. Then – alas for the tyrants – it became clear that economic success and tyranny are opposites, although that lesson has still to be completely learned.

Now, the language of tyranny is a different kind of “science”.

13 comments to “Transnational enforcement powers …”

  • PersonFromPorlock

    When people who tell you x for reason y tell you x for reason z, their interest is in x, not reasons.

  • Schrodinger's Dog

    I do not doubt for one second that just about any British government would sign-up for this. However, anyone who seriously attempts it will likely find out what “Get stuffed” are in Mandarin Chinese and Urdu.

  • Alsadius

    Well of course the Brits would be up for this – they’ve certainly made the best attempt at it so far. It’d be just like the good old days.

  • Dom

    Here’s another quote that should bother everyone. For some reason, I find this worse, since you can see any number of western governments following this advise:

    “A general implication of these findings [that alternative energy can not fully replace fossil fuels] is that polices aimed at addressing global climate change should not focus principally on developing technological fixes, but should also take into account human behaviour in the context of political, economic and social systems.”

    You have to pay for the full article, but Francis Sedgemore (who approves!) has a post on it and a further quote:

    http://sedgemore.com/2012/03/will-alternative-energy-displace-fossil-fuels/

  • Alisa

    However, anyone who seriously attempts it will likely find out what “Get stuffed” are in Mandarin Chinese and Urdu.

    Oh, but don’t you know, we have always been at war with Chinistanasia.

  • Paul Marks

    The Chinese and Indian elite may (eventually) prove to be quite favourable to this idea – thinking they will be able to control any proto world government.

    Mr Cameron will be told (by all the “great and good”) that he must keep involved in all this in order “to have influence”.

    It may be done via the E.U. anyway.

    Of the big countries in the West – Harper in Canada may veto it (as he did the world financial trading tax).

    But I can not see anyone else doing so.

    As for the whole Agenda 21 “environmental justice” stuff.

    It comes from the same stable as “social justice” and “racial justice” and “critical racial theory” and “critical” everything else (law……).

    The normal alliance of Marxists and establishment “liberals”.

    This stuff is actually getting boring.

    Like a group of people who walk around shouting “Our secret plan to destroy civilization is…..” whilst carrying a giant sign with “Death To The West” written upon it.

    However, as this stuff is repeated so often (I come upon it almost every day – and Kettering, Northamptonshire is hardly a world ranking metropolis) that the idea may be to feed boredom.

    And to feed despair.

    “Just go ahead, destroy civil society and create a world wide totalitarian nightmare – just stop talking about it”.

    This may be the reaction they hope to create.

  • Paul, you may be right.
    Do you remember the awfully long building up to the Iraq war? By the end i was shouting at the television “just go ahead and have your bloody war and get it over with!!!”
    Terrible, but true

  • Alisa

    Speaking of war.

  • Michael Lorrey

    The Chinese and Indians are actually for it IF it involves the western countries handing over to them more of their GDP. CAGW is about more loot for dictators and corrupt third world bureaucrats, period.

    (a WUWT contributor)

  • Sam Duncan

    species-wide alteration in basic human behaviors would be a sine qua non, but that kind of pronouncement also profoundly strains credibility in the chaos of the political sphere.

    No, it profoundly strains credibility full-stop. If you’re contemplating a measure that requires “species-wide alteration in basic human behaviors”, then you can forget it. Regardless of its merits, it just isn’t going to happen.

    You’d think a century of catastrophic, bloody, failures to create a “new man” of one sort or another might be a clue.

    Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?

    No.

  • Sam Duncan

    Do you remember the awfully long building up to the Iraq war?

    Surely you mean “the intemperate rush to war”, wh00ps?

  • 'Nuke' Gray

    So if we have a war on Global Warming, all governments will get more powers! Gosh, no politician could be that evil, could they?

  • Paul Marks

    whOOps – yes.

    Alisa – not just war.

    As you know these Emergency Powers can be activated without war.