"Green Keynesianism" by mwomersley

Interesting proposal yet somewhat scary and not very realistic. The idea of controlling other nations and 'spreading democracy' has pretty much proven to fail, and to come with a tremendous cost to human life and to economies. The premise that military strength is essential is also questionable, when the hope is to promote a greener world. Just think about the carbon footprint and the environmental damage caused by the weapons industry and military operations around the world. If we keep focusing on the threats to the western world by dictatorships, we may miss the bigger picture, which is that the whole world is threatened by environmental issues. Our planet cannot sustain so many people, consuming and polluting at this rate; Mother Nature will have to keep finding ways to keep the human population under control, and it won't be pleasant. And even without natural disasters, when resources are depleted, there's not enough food and fresh water, and there's a lot of hunger and suffering. I think above all- we cannot and should not try to control other countries or impose our way of life, a lesson to learn from too many wars we've had. Please clarify and elaborate, and try to think of ways to go green, not by controlling and threatening with military actions, but by encouraging peacefully. One important aspect is educating people and raising awareness. I agree with the statement that oppression is counterproductive, and hope we can find better ways to promote a more sustainable global future. Cheers !..

Neither commentator (above) seems aware that both policing and military strength have provided the conditions required for them to even express these kinds of thoughts. As remedy, I suggest a reading of Hobbes, followed by a concerted study of 20th century history.

I should mention that I was not in any way advocating the direct control of other nations such as China or Russia, just that I saw no reason why we should trade with them at prime rates if they are neither democratic nor fulfilling climate obligations. Neither do I believe we should allow either of them to become militarily supreme. There's a vast difference between what I actually argue and what the first two commentators seem to read. Their reaction is primarily emotional. They react to the ugliness of the understanding that military and economic supremacy and democracy are intrinsically linked and linked to climate emission reduction. This is an admittedly ugly way to view the world. But that doesn't make it less true. Visions of a world of peace and light, where we could imagine climate solutions without also having to deal with state power and terrorism might be prettier, but counterfactual. Also, I can easily imagine that if Climate Colab goes "viral" as its originators intend, one consequence will be that both the Chines and Russians will use paid personnel as hackers to criticize suggestions like mine.

I would say that economics is part of the solution to change behavior. People don't change their attitudes solely using economic mechanisms. It's more than that. It's necessary a multi-disciplinary approach. Cultural norms are so embedded that it needs to go deeper than just tariffs or the like. You should create a culture that values nature and then this free trade should be based on demand and supply of environmentally-friendly products such as in countries like Denmark. Sources: http://gggi.org and http://www.greengrowthknowledge.org

On re-reading the comments above, although I still think they are utopian and unrealistic, it occurred to me that they were primarily reacting to some of the ways the ideas were originally presented. This made it appear as if my primary aim was western military domination of other countries, when instead my aim is better democracy in all countries including the west. I rewrote with a view to making this clearer. But I'd still like some comments from readers who are more seasoned in geopolitic thinking, ie, folks who have a more robust, less idealistic or utopian view of how we are to simultaneous confront the likes of the Chinese Communist Party, the United Russia Party, Al Queda, Boko Haram, or other aggressive dictators and brigands, at the same time as we neutralize the political power of anti-democratic, fossil-fuel owning western elites such as the Koch brothers. In other words, more realism, please. Less utopian nonsense.

What drastic and strict actions? I'm proposing nothing more than what is currently required to join the EU. This is a voluntary association. A large non-democratic state like Russia can make all the threats it wants. It isn't going to get to join the climate free trade area unless it can demonstrate meaningful progress towards both democracy and climate emissions reductions. Its exports would then be taxed before they could enter the free trade area. For the record, Russia is not so far from democracy right now. The problem they have is that Putin's United Russia party controls state patronage and the press, not the ballot.

I moved this proposal to the "Global Plan" contest.