UN panel says retool world economy for sustainability

Jan 30, 2012
Cooling towers of the coal-fired power plant of Scholven in Gelsenkirchen on January 16. The world can no longer afford to ignore the environmental cost of economic growth and must redefine the very concept of national wealth, a UN panel of heads of state and environment ministers said.

The world can no longer afford to ignore the environmental cost of economic growth and must redefine the very concept of national wealth, a UN panel of heads of state and environment ministers said Monday.

The panel challenged leaders to recognise that "current global development is unsustainable."

"We need to chart a new, more sustainable course for the future, one that strengthens equality and economic growth while protecting our planet," UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said in Addis Ababa to mark the release of the panel's report, which outlines more than 50 policy recommendations.

By 2030, the report warned, the planet will need at least 50 percent more food, 45 percent more energy and 30 percent more water.

These needs are emerging "at a time when environmental boundaries are throwing up new limits to supply," it said.

Continuing along the same path as today risks "irreversible damage to both ecosystems and human communities."

Entitled "Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing," the 100-page report seeks to shape in broad strokes the agenda for the Rio+20 summit this summer.

The June 20-22 event in takes place 20 years after the landmark 1992 Earth Summit that set down the UN conventions for protecting biodiversity and tackling global warming.

Led by Finnish President Tarja Halonen and South African President Jacob Zuma, the 22-member panel said a new blueprint for growth and low-carbon prosperity must be "mainstreamed" into economic policy as quickly as possible.

Social and environmental costs must be factored into how the world prices and measures economic activity, and into a revised measure of wealth that goes beyond the narrow calculus of (GDP), it said.

"Our report makes clear that sustainable development is more important than ever given the multiple crises now enveloping the world," Zuma said in a statement.

Factfile on the ozone layer. The world can no longer afford to ignore the environmental cost of economic growth and must redefine the very concept of national wealth, a UN panel of heads of state and environment ministers said.

The report called for:

-- a new nexus between food, water and energy. "All three need to be fully integrated, not treated separately, if we are to deal with the global food security crisis";

-- a stronger interface between science and policy. "We must define what scientists refer to as planetary boundaries" beyond which human activity could wreck the planet;

-- reducing social exclusion and closing the widening gap of social inequality.

European Union Commissioner for Climate Action Connie Hedegaard, one of the report's authors, said it should be a "wake up" call for action.

"Government support for fossil fuel industry is about seven times more than for renewable energy," she said in a statement.

"We simply can't continue as if business as usual was the cheapest solution. It is not."

Hedegaard said the Rio+20 summit was an opportunity to "kick off this global transition towards a sustainable growth model for the 21st century."

Explore further: When the isthmus is an island: Madison's hottest, and coldest, spots

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Energy, food security to dominate Rio+20: envoy

Oct 13, 2011

Boosting energy efficiency and renewables and providing food for a future world of eight billion will dominate next year's UN Rio+20 conference, the talks' co-coordinator said on Thursday.

World survey suggests major technology changes

Aug 24, 2011

A new global survey by the United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA) suggests that a technological overhaul of production processes worldwide is needed to end poverty and avert the likely impacts ...

Asia-Pacific leaders to cut taxes on green goods

Nov 14, 2011

Asia-Pacific leaders representing more than half of the global economy committed Sunday to cutting tariffs on environmental goods to no more than five percent and reducing energy intensity.

Report underscores advantages of renewable energy future

May 10, 2011

A major new report by the United Nations-supported Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) launched today underscores the incredible environmental and social advantages of a future powered by renewable ...

Recommended for you

Beijing's focus on coal lost in haze of smog

1 hour ago

The soaring, grimy chimneys of the coal-fired power station have belched the last of their choking fumes into Beijing's air, authorities say—but experts doubt the plan will ease the capital's smog.

Stopping the leaks

18 hours ago

When a big old cast-iron water main blows, it certainly makes for a spectacular media event.

Alpine lifelines on the brink

19 hours ago

Only one in ten Alpine rivers are healthy enough to maintain water supply and to cope with climate impacts according to a report by WWF. The publication is the first-ever comprehensive study on the condition ...

User comments : 61

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (28) Jan 30, 2012
Alarmists are a dime-a-dozen.

It should be clear to everyone that the political left are attempting to use AGW as a foot in-the-door for global government, massive redistribution of wealth, and social engineering of energy use.

The only solutions the left are competent in comprehending is big government control and social planing at the expense of freedoms. They will fail, as such social experiments have been attempted before, and are counter to the nature of man.

They are not able to comprehend that these problems will resolve themselves gradually through existing free market forces, which must involve freedom and unregulated competition.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (24) Jan 30, 2012
If a few major nations listen to these knuckleheads in the UN, it would be catastrophic for world economies.
Hengine
4.5 / 5 (17) Jan 30, 2012
Sustainability has got absolutely nothing to do with alarmists or any form of politics. It's about survival and it's going to take a global effort if we want to see our species thrive in 1000 years time.
Peter_Herrel
4.4 / 5 (13) Jan 30, 2012
Brutal to think that people would want to trash the planet we all have to share. If no action is taken by the elected officials of the world then there will surely be nothing left after corporate profits have been maximized.

Some people might not be interested in leaving Earth un-scarred but they are usually the ones with less time left to enjoy it.
Howhot
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2012
[qIt should be clear to everyone that the political left are attempting to use AGW as a foot in-the-door for global government, massive redistribution of wealth, and social engineering of energy use.

Yes we discussed this in depth at the UN/IPPC and since AGW is a global problem with global consequences, it was mandated that the re-education camps be setup where AGW deniers would be sent for a period of time until they gained an appreciation for the predicament they have caused themselves.

The re-education process allows the UN to claim the world citizens property to cover the costs of the re-education process, and pay the loans to the banks now that they have recovered. A large AGW HYPNOTOAD will be provided to all deniers.

Graveltongue
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 31, 2012
Let me get this straight Noumenon, you believe that perpetual, unfettered growth is the only option we have? That on a planet of finite resources we should increase our consumption of its gifts year on year for the rest of time until there is nothing left? And that the free market, the invisible hand, your god, will show us the way? That some 300 year old theoretical mechanism will eventually kick in, win over and restore the balance that this planet so desperately needs to continue to support our existence on it? I'm no fan of the UN but the situation we face as a species is a serious one and what is catastrophic for todays world economic model is good for tomorrows world.
Graveltongue
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2012
There is no such thing as 'unregulated competition' how can there be? Markets need rules, they need boundaries, be they enforced by the 'state' or other interested bodies or by the limits of nature herself. Without regulation we have cancerous, malignant monopolies and 'too big to fail', these are the results of deregulated free market capitalism.
Jotaf
3 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2012
Economy, shmeconomy. If it needs to be restructured so our goals can take environmental costs into account, so be it. The economy was created by us, to serve us, and not the other way around! It's crazy how some revere it as if it was some kind of force of nature.

Also, remember previous discussions about externalization of costs. Eventually we'll all pay for the damage done. The costs of fuel and pollution nowadays don't reflect that.
rawa1
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 31, 2012
We cannot retool economy substantially without implementation of cold fusion. World industry is already using the most economical way of energy production, the only problem is, this way is not sustainable (fossil plants) or very safe (nuclear plants). We are losing every day.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 31, 2012
The economy was created by us, to serve us, and not the other way around!

It was not created by 'us'. An economy is created by individuals who want to trade products and services. It is an emergent system that best responds to change from the bottom up, not the top down.
There is no such thing as 'unregulated competition'

Yes, they are best regulated by the customer and the competition.

deregulated free market capitalism.

BS. Too big to fail is a product of a socialist, state regulated economy. It is NOT an economy regulated by FREE market forces.
GM and big banks tagged as 'too big to fail' were bailed out by taxpayers or they would have collapsed. GM did go bankrupt in spite of govt bailouts.
Pan Am was once the world's largest airline. They were not too big to fail.
Graveltongue
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2012
The TBTF phenomenon is the result of the absence of proper regulation. There are commissions set up to ensure monopolies do not coagulate. It is a Frankensteins monster, the monopolistic interests of the entrenched institutions that run this world. The idea of a sustainable, equitable and free market where every participant has a fair crack at the whip is a fantasy and can only exist in the static minds of blinkered economists and academics.
Graveltongue
1.8 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2012
We cannot retool economy substantially without implementation of cold fusion. World industry is already using the most economical way of energy production, the only problem is, this way is not sustainable (fossil plants) or very safe (nuclear plants). We are losing every day.


Cold fusion has been re-branded. It is now being refered to as LENR; Low Energy Nuclear Reaction. And as far as I can tell, they've cracked it.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 31, 2012
absence of proper regulation.

Monopolies can only exist with the approval of the govt (regulations).
Regulations limit competition.
Nothing is TBTF.
The idea of a sustainable, equitable and free market where every participant has a fair crack at the whip is a fantasy

Govt regulations only make this worse.

A 'free market' means participants are free from state coercion and the state's only function is to protect property rights. It is not the role of the govt to 'level any playing field' or play favorites.
rubberman
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 31, 2012
We cannot retool economy substantially without implementation of cold fusion. World industry is already using the most economical way of energy production, the only problem is, this way is not sustainable (fossil plants) or very safe (nuclear plants). We are losing every day.


Cold fusion has been re-branded. It is now being refered to as LENR; Low Energy Nuclear Reaction. And as far as I can tell, they've cracked it.


Rossi is still really vague with his info. The ECAT newsletter is a scientific joke. ( I wish I had a way to link it so you could see what I mean) He won't name any colleagues, scientists, or Acedemic instituions that he is collaberating with. Nor will he name his "satisfied" customers. I was really hoping he was on the level but he isn't really acting like someone who is.
As far as the article is concerned. Continued use of finite resources is clearly not in the human races best interest....but it certainly benefits the people who control them
kochevnik
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 31, 2012
@ryggesogn2
absence of proper regulation.
Monopolies can only exist with the approval of the govt (regulations).
That's a flat-out lie. Many companies here in Russia became monopolies within a year of foundation. Competitors were bought out or shot up.
Regulations limit competition.
Not necessarily, and so does the market itself. For example, I walked into Staples Center and saw about 4500 people testing for a real estate license. These people wouldn't have been in the market without the state licensing to educate them. So regulation actually pushed them into the career.
Another example of your "perfect" market: Due to Thai floods a disk drive I bought cost $200, while the Gateway computer I'm putting it into cost only $45. The free market ensured that only ONE factory made ALL THE WORLD'S drive motors. Consequently with that factory lost to flooding, drive prices have doubled and are set to triple. The market made a SINGLE POINT of FAILURE, so perfect it is
JijiDuru
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2012
Quoting Noumenon
[...] They are not able to comprehend that these problems will resolve themselves gradually through existing free market forces, which must involve freedom and unregulated competition.


Alan Greenspan sang the same tune for over 20 years. We're so much indirectly indebted to him for the financial crisis and not only.

I can only imagine you on the surgery table with IV bag in one hand and the cell phone on the other trying to negotiate the best insurance rates right before the brain transplant surgery. Guess what? The new brain comes from a poor leftist hit by a republican's Cadillac Escalade...

Market forces at their best, washing brains left and right (a in physical sense)

Go take a walk.
Uri
5 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2012
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 31, 2012
That's a flat-out lie. Many companies here in Russia became monopolies within a year of foundation.

That's what happens with a corrupt govt. Who owned those companies? Were they well connected with the govt?

I walked into Staples Center and saw about 4500 people testing for a real estate license. These people wouldn't have been in the market without the state licensing to educate them. So regulation actually pushed them into the career.


The only reason these people wanted to sell real estate is because they had to take a test to get a license?
If no real estate license were required, I suspect there would be many more trying selling real estate.

Alan Greenspan was an agent for the govt controlling the money supply and the economy by adjusting interest rates. What free market?

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 31, 2012
Hey Koch, you know how the Koch family started their fortune? Building oil refineries in USSR.
From that experience, the old man educated his now billionaire sons on the evils of socialism. They listened quite well.
Koch, you didn't learn any lessons about the evils of socialism?
kochevnik
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 31, 2012
That's a flat-out lie. Many companies here in Russia became monopolies within a year of foundation.

That's what happens with a corrupt govt. Who owned those companies? Were they well connected with the govt?
Maybe you were still wearing diapers, but there was no ****ing government in Russia in 1991. So you're full of it as usual. Besides, WTF do you think corrupted the government? It was "biznussmun" bribing officials.

The only reason these people wanted to sell real estate is because they had to take a test to get a license?
If no real estate license were required, I suspect there would be many more trying selling real estate.
No, these people were made aware of the market's existence by the Department of Real Estate. They didn't know a title from a bible beforehand. DRE creates the market for them. Selling homes is mystical to most of these immigrants.
kochevnik
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2012
Hey Koch, you know how the Koch family started their fortune? Building oil refineries in USSR.
From that experience, the old man educated his now billionaire sons on the evils of socialism. They listened quite well.Koch, you didn't learn any lessons about the evils of socialism?
Evils, or a century of profits? You can't have it both ways ryggesogn2.

Besides, the old man peddled his wares in the US, and the free market told him to go **** himself. He failed capitalism and has to team up with comrade Stalin to get back on his feet.
Jotaf
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2012
It was not created by 'us'. An economy is created by individuals who want to trade products and services. It is an emergent system that best responds to change from the bottom up, not the top down.


I agree, it's an emergent system, but it's subject to our rules. Any law you pass can have an impact. I also agree it's easier to change from the bottom up, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't influence it at all. It just means that the best course of action is often to influence consumer behavior, which is a bottom-up approach.

States can create monopolies, but unfettered capitalism creates them too. A corporation starts buying out others, and when they're of similar sizes, they merge. It's an agglomerative system.

There's also an incentive to starve start-ups of necessary resources (see the patent war, for example), before they become a threat. Without good rules in place, you can't have a number of companies playing nice with each other for dozens of years.
Jotaf
5 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2012
On topic, this report shows a lot of good intentions but it's the sort of goal that has been announced for years. When the time comes to make actual decisions, the status quo will prevail.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 31, 2012
unfettered capitalism creates them too. A corporation starts buying out others, and when they're of similar sizes, they merge. It's an agglomerative system.

When has this ever happened?
By the time the US govt got around to breaking up Standard Oil, they were losing market share to competitors. The Sherman Act was not needed.
Some businesses may merge, but they do so to more efficiently provide the product.
I challenge you to provide an example of any monopoly that obtained that position without the force of the state.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 31, 2012
"Fred C. Koch earned an engineering degree at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the 1920s. In the late 1920s Koch invented a new and more efficient method for the thermal cracking of crude oil,"
"Fred Koch's innovation was apparently good enough to draw upon him the wrath of the major oil companies. Protective of their tight control over every aspect of the oil business, the majors began a series of lawsuits against Fred Koch that would last 20 years and involve over 40 separate cases, eventually being resolved in 1952 when Koch won a $1.5 million settlement. Then as now, the international oil business was in the hands of only a few firms, which meant that Fred Koch would encounter the same obstacles wherever oil was bought and sold."
"Fred Koch offered to build oil refineries in the Soviet Union that would be more efficient than those in the West. "
http://findarticl...9123628/
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 31, 2012
"By the late 1940s Koch had achieved a truce with his adversaries in the oil industry and begun assembling bits and pieces of business in the Midwest. Having been burned severely by the majors the first time around, Koch carefully avoided head-to-head competition with the industry leaders, instead developing a knack for discovering unexploited niches and an ability to turn a profit on even the smallest orders."
http://findarticl...9123628/
It's understandable that a little guy like Fred Koch and his sons are attacked by the socialists as Fred invented a new process that threatened the 'progressive's' oil industry. Recall how the auto companies attacked Tucker?
Fred Koch is a prime example of how industry and govt collude to squash competitors.
It is ironic Fred Koch earned his nest egg from communists, but it IS the fault of the 'progressives'.
Reminds me of how Deming, rejected in the US, jumped started Japan in the 50s.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (12) Jan 31, 2012
I bet the socialist scientists are quite perturbed when they find out Koch Industries is a major donor to MIT.
I hope it annoys Chomsky.
kochevnik
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 31, 2012
By the time the US govt got around to breaking up Standard Oil, they were losing market share to competitors. The Sherman Act was not needed.
Standard Oil is still in full operation. All the trucks be it Arco, Exxon, Chevron, Mobil all fill at the same refinery. Only the additives are different. They sure fooled tools like you, though! Keep living the lie!
"Fred C. Koch..
That's what I said. This isn't Wikipedia.
I bet the socialist scientists are quite perturbed when they find out Koch Industries is a major donor to MIT.
He should fund the Lennist dept. of Russian universities, given that's how he made all his wealth. No gratitude.
Davecoolman
1.6 / 5 (14) Jan 31, 2012
UN Agenda 21 = Sustainability = Maximum control over every aspect of your lives. These UN/EU/Socialist don't give a rats arse about the environment or the poor people of the world. They lost the global warming BS war, now they move onto plan B which has always been plan A. If anyone can read what Agenda 21 means and defend it then you are a socialist, Agenda 21 = George Orwell's 1984 = hell on earth and lot's of MONEY for the elite. Open up your eye's!
Howhot
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 31, 2012
Davecoolman; I think you have lost your mind.
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2012
Yea, and it's the Oil Industries that are so pushing against the AGW facts R2. You have to worry about weather these folks are lying to you.
kochevnik
Feb 01, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tzmtj
5 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2012
dave,

that you denounce socialism AND capitalism in the same sentence then retort with 'open your eyes', is astounding. open your eyes to what?
is there benefit to move toward sustainable development?
rubberman
4 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2012
dave,

that you denounce socialism AND capitalism in the same sentence then retort with 'open your eyes', is astounding. open your eyes to what?
is there benefit to move toward sustainable development?


Umm...that word sustainable looks pretty attractive! Put it in front of words such as food stocks, energy sources, clean water......erection (for the wife)

For the human race to survive, the resources we use to do so have to be sustainable, it's a pretty simple concept to understand.

And yes, Coolman has lost it.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 01, 2012
I here that now AGW zealots are trying to have TV meteorologists who don't toe the party line fired.
Our goal is nothing short of changing how the entire profession of meteorology tackles the issue of climate change, the group explains on their website. Well empower everyday people to make sure meteorologists understand that their viewers are counting on them to get this story right, and that those who continue to shirk their professional responsibility will be held accountable.

Read more: http://dailycalle...l8kKMFhL

"Held accountable"
Who is holding the AGWites accountable?
Will the AGWites force the offenders to where a yellow 'D' or a red 'S'?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 01, 2012
Standard Oil is still in full operation.

Then repeal the Sherman act, it failed.
By the time the Sherman act was used against Rockefeller's Standard Oil, market forces, aka COMPETITION, has already reduced Standard Oil's market share.
But that is typical of govt. Write a law to fix something the market has already fixed. But this way the govt takes credit and acquires more power.
The only sane solution is the one proposed by Rand in Atlas Shrugged, businesses need to close. If the govt want's to run the auto industry let them. Same for oil. The govt does such a wonderful job with education and health care, put govt bureaucrats in complete charge of the factories and refineries. We will have paradise on earth.
rubberman
4 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2012
Great history lesson about a non sustainable resource and it's glorious international past Rygg! What's your point?
So far your posts trash the American gov't, russian gov't, the socialists, free market restrictions,AGW,socialist scientists, climate scientists of non socialist background and Kochevnik. I'm just asking for your point because you haven't made one yet.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 01, 2012
Great history lesson about a non sustainable resource and it's glorious international past Rygg! What's your point?
So far your posts trash the American gov't, russian gov't, the socialists, free market restrictions,AGW,socialist scientists, climate scientists of non socialist background and Kochevnik. I'm just asking for your point because you haven't made one yet.

Did you miss the part that it was entrepreneurs like Rockefeller that found a better, cheaper way to replace the dwindling supply of sperm whale oil? Or Edison who invented a way to replace kerosene lamps? Or Fred Koch who invented a cheaper way to make gasoline?
Entrepreneurs operating in a free market economy find solutions. But without accurate price information, there is no incentive to find a solution. Govt subsidies distort prices leading to failures like Solnydra and the Volt.
Free people to innovate and get govt out of the way of the market incentives to innovate.
rubberman
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2012
Agreed people like Rockefeller and Edison pioneered solutions that drove humanity forward, but in todays society if you invent something that signals the end of an antiquated predacessor to your invention, and that predacessor has billions of dollars of liquid assets, your screwed! You mentioned Tucker...perfect example. Hence the reason Governments have to be the ones who drive these changes. I trust them as little as everyone else but none the less, in the end they will do (or at least promise) what keeps them in power. I would love it if the LENR tech. from Rossi was on the level! He's public enough that money wouldn't make this invention go away, and we would have the added bonus of not having to listen to sock puppet monster go on and on about it. The volts not a total failure....it just had the unfortunate fate of having to be crafted by GM. Give it to Toyota, let them fix the issues with it and it would work.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 01, 2012
Governments have to be the ones who drive these changes

But govts don't really drive the change, and typically they drive off some cliff in the wrong direction.
When has govt been successful in driving change?
The computer industry has been the greatest change driver in history. It was not govt that drove that change. Sure, the DoD invented an internet to ensure they could launch nuclear weapons and the defense industry invented computers to crack codes. But they had no vision of WiFi or laptops or smartphones. IBM failed to see the power of personal computers.
No, typically govt lags real change but tries to jump out in front and claim they led the change.
Prices provide billions of feedback signals to billions of people every day that motivate individuals to change. Too often govt blunts those signals, like 99 weeks of unemployment and bailing out banks just as they did in the 80s S&L debacle.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 01, 2012
You know govt tried to drive change in China and million of baby girls were murdered.
The Romanian govt tried to drive change by banning abortions and contraceptives leading to millions of abandoned children.
The US govt drives change in its medical insurance leading to retaining and higher medical costs.
Govts are very bad at forcing changes that result in a positive results for individuals.

"Falling homeownership and prices reflect the worst housing downturn since the Great Depression. And while there are signs that the housing industry's downturn may at least be nearing a bottom, the impact of the collapse will be evident for years to come, economists say."
http://www.usatod...tialskip

But the CRA with the govt sponsored enterprises were supposed drive changes in home ownership. Boy, did they!
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 01, 2012
"This is why it is exceedingly important for all Americans to respond with outrage to what the president and his allies are doing to demonize and stigmatize David and Charles Koch. They have been the targets of the multiyear, carefully orchestrated campaign of vituperation and assault described aboveand much more. It has been choreographed from the very top. When the president personally takes leadership, his political surrogates and army of allies in the press and Congress quickly and surely follow the direction and tone he sets.

The misuse of government power to damage or demean one's political enemies is abhorrent and the very antithesis of a free society and a government of laws, not men"
http://online.wsj...222.html
But is is the socialist way and supported by many who post here. Hottie wants to send people to 're-education' camps. Other AGWites are targeting meteorologists.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 01, 2012
"California is re-running the same delusional program that it ran in 1990 (Yes, 22 years ago) when "Specifically, the Air Resources Board (ARB) required that at least 2 percent, 5 percent and 10 percent of new car sales be zero-emitting by 1998, 2001 and 2003 respectively."
"It is long past time (about 100 years past) that planners drop the fatal conceit that they can plan the automobile market, predict technologies, predict consumer preferences, and pick winning and losing technologies in the marketplace. Of course, then they'd have to find a real job."
http://www.realcl...493.html
Govt MUST drive change?
rubberman
4 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2012
But govts don't really drive the change, and typically they drive off some cliff in the wrong direction.
When has govt been successful in driving change?

First part of the above is more often than not correct. But when they do get it right, landmark events take place. Answers to the second part would be sputnik, the moon landing, the myriad of National parks in both Canada and the US....Examples post 1970? Not too many. Most politicians do what they do because they can't do anything else, so now we have a political system in place that more often than not (and in most countries) have people in power who bow to the pressure applied by those with cash..... You have to remember, government bailouts happen after some pretty intelligent people analyze what the trickle down effect will be if the government does nothing, then points it out to them.
kochevnik
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2012
ryggesogn2 reported for spamming.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 01, 2012
But when they do get it right,

Does this balance out the damage? I think not.
And I could argue that the govt got parks and the space program 'right'.

who bow to the pressure

But if the govt did NOT have the authority, did not have the power, there would be NO incentive to bow to any pressure.
Govts continually fail to do the most basic functions of protecting private property, which most would not argue with (protecting private property), but then proceed to meddle in areas they should not and screw it up, like causing the Great Depression and our present one.
Howhot
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2012
But if the govt did NOT have the authority


Read the preamble to the constitution of the United States of America. It begins with "We the People"
Thrasymachus
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2012
I don't know why people continue to take marjon aka ryggeson seriously. He's been outed several times as a radical anarchist. His political and economic ideas make about as much sense in the real world as rawa's dense foamy aether ideas do in physics.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2012
But if the govt did NOT have the authority


Read the preamble to the constitution of the United States of America. It begins with "We the People"

Read the rest of the Constitution as it fills in the details.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2012
I don't know why people continue to take marjon aka ryggeson seriously. He's been outed several times as a radical anarchist. His political and economic ideas make about as much sense in the real world as rawa's dense foamy aether ideas do in physics.

The present socialist/statist policies are creating liberty and prosperity for all? No? I wonder why.
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2012
The present socialist/statist policies are creating liberty and prosperity for all? No? I wonder why.


Typical political dodge R2. If you can't label it, or the argument is lost, just stick the word socialist in there. That is so WEAK my man, so weak.

ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2012
The present socialist/statist policies are creating liberty and prosperity for all? No? I wonder why.


Typical political dodge R2. If you can't label it, or the argument is lost, just stick the word socialist in there. That is so WEAK my man, so weak.


Most of the EU and the US is bankrupt from over spending other people's money.
And that IS socialism.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2012
Hottie, here are some lessons on economics you probably didn't get in govt schools.
http://www.freetochoose.tv/
Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2012
UN panel says retool world economy for sustainability


In my book that's almost a declaration of war. If this notion gets beyond the "UN panel of heads of state and environment ministers" then at the very least we should kick them out of NY to Belgium. Of course, that won't happen, but one should always try to have happy dreams.

Ah, pitchforks and torches... Bright & Shiny!
rubberman
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 03, 2012
The present socialist/statist policies are creating liberty and prosperity for all? No? I wonder why.


Typical political dodge R2. If you can't label it, or the argument is lost, just stick the word socialist in there. That is so WEAK my man, so weak.


Most of the EU and the US is bankrupt from over spending other people's money.
And that IS socialism.


The US and EU have their money woes because of uncontrolled spending without income to support it. Spending money you don't have is more of a capitalist trait than a socialist one Rygg. If you want to blame someone for the state of world affairs, find out the 20 most profitable companies on earth and blame them, and all who supported them through purchase of their goods and/or services. If you have a credit card, blame the guy in the mirror.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 03, 2012
"The United Nations wants a world tax imposed on all financial transactions to fund a global model of social services that will provide needy people with a basic income, free healthcare, education and housing."
http://www.infowa...he-poor/
Another UN plan to slow economic growth.
Will 'basic income' be prorated based upon the member nation?
How will 'poor' be defined?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 03, 2012
Spending money you don't have is more of a capitalist trait than a socialist one

No, it is not.
A capitalist may borrow money but he must persuade the lender he will receive a return on that money. Corporate bonds have ratings and can be traded.Capitalists also sell shares in their company.

Govts too sell bonds but they can simply create money out of thin air to pay them back. They can also FORCE their citizens to pay more in taxes to pay back the bonds. Or the govt can simply say bugger off and not pay.
The only money any govt has is other people's money. Govt can only take wealth from those who create it.
Capitalists must create wealth to pay back their bonds or they will default, maybe go bankrupt and their assets would be liquidated to pay back the creditors.
Except if you were a Govt Motors Company bond holder. The fed govt just refused to pay and they were screwed. That is the socialist way, wasting other people's money.
Howhot
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2012
If I was the UN, I would request a tax on CO2 emission such that a country could be charged a tariff for the estimated CO2 used in the creation of the product. I know the US would probably object to such a position being one of largest producers of CO2 and products, but think about it with respect to CO2 reduction. It's a pretty fair tax.

I'm all PRO-UN with these guys taking on the AGW deniers. Al Gore really did have it right after all. He pointed out the hockey stick in "Inconvenient Truths" which has unfortunately proven real. Yeap R2, all of your cram-it on the GOV makes all of the sense in the world until you don't have any kind of GOV at all (in which case you an anarchist).

Compared to anarchy, I choose the AL-GORE USA Constitution.

Howhot
4 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2012
Tariff CO2, Tariff CO2, Tariff CO2.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2012
"It makes us recognize why it is impossible to study or understand collective bargaining or labor problems in isolation; or to understand wages apart from prices or from interest rates or from profits and losses, or to understand any of these apart from all the rest, or the price of any one thing apart from the prices of other things."
"He demonstrates repeatedly how statist interventions in the market economy bring about consequences which, even from the standpoint of those who originally advocated the interventions, are worse than the state of affairs they were designed to improve."
http://www.thefre...italism/
So the UN have people with 'perfect knowledge' who can predict the actions of billions of people so there will be no adverse unintended consequences?
kochevnik
2.8 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2012
Most of the EU and the US is bankrupt from over spending other people's money. And that IS socialism.
Actually as implemented that is Catholicism and Zionism.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 05, 2012
So true:
"I think it is safe to say that the basic fallacies of the state socialist system have not really permeated through to public consciousness. "
"But in our everyday politics, we still seem to be unable to make up our minds about the moral superiority of the free market. We are still ambivalent about the value of competition, which remains a dirty word when applied, for example, to health care. We continue to long for some utopian formula that will rule out the possibility of inequalities of wealth, or even of social advantages such as intelligence and personal confidence.

The idea that no system not even a totalitarian one could ensure such a total eradication of unfairness without eliminating the distinguishing traits of individual human beings was one of the lessons learnt by the Soviet experiment. "
"Communisms fatal error was in thinking that morality resided in the mechanisms of an economic system rather than in the people who operated them. "
Telegraph, 5 Feb12.