The election of the European Parliament will take place in less than three months (from 4 - 7 June 2009). These are the biggest trans-national elections in history as elected candidates will represent 500 million Europeans.
It is also an ideal opportunity to encourage election candidates to sign the pledge to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments. No doubt the Simultaneous Policy organisations will be announcing the campaign and tools to help with this in due course.
In the meantime, it is possible to find the list of election candidates on party websites. I have started sending message like the following to candidates:
---
Congratulations on being the lead candidate on the party list for our regions European Election.
I am contacting you to ask your position on the Simultaneous Policy campaign. I am also sending you the pledge form for supporting the Simultaneous Policy campaign in case you have not signed this already.
As Gordon Brown and other leaders have been heard to say repeatedly in recent weeks and months: “Global problems require global solutions”.
The Simultaneous Policy or Simpol campaign brings people together around the world to discuss, develop and approve the policies they wish to see implemented. Anyone can take part in this process by signing up as a Simpol Adopter, which is free to do. This democratic and transparent process is ongoing. In the last annual vote conducted in October 2008, the top five issues identified by Adopters were: Climate change, The power of transnational corporations, Environment, International financial markets and other financial issues, Governance (global and national).
You can find further details in the policy section of http://www.simpol.org.uk/
Politicians are asked to sign a pledge agreeing in principle to implement these policies alongside other governments when all, or sufficient, other governments have made the same pledge. Until such time that implementation can be triggered, it is business as usual: doing as much as we can unilaterally, while trying to address these pressing issues through attempting to forge international deals and facing down powerful vested interests that play governments off against each other, threatening disinvestment if their agenda is not followed.
If you add your pledge to those already received from other politicians at both national and European level it will move us closer to being able to implement policies that have the backing of the people of the world. The Simultaneous Policy is to be coherent package that can break through the obstacle of destructive competition between nations to move the world into a new era of constructive cooperation. The pledge is provisional as the policies can only be finalised when there is sufficient global support as they need to address the situation faced at that time and all people of voting age will be given a chance to approve or reject the package.
The campaign is undeniably ambitious, but conventional policy making has failed to address global problems adequately and may be unable to do so. By signing and returning the attached pledge you are indicating you are prepared to give the Simultaneous Policy approach a try as a parallel strategy. The pledge can also be downloaded from:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/Pages/PDF/candidatesform0108.pdf
Adopters undertake to encourage their preferred party to support the campaign. Those without a party preference undertake to give a preference to any candidates at elections (within reason) who have signed the pledge. Hence the campaign makes addressing global problems an election issue and signing the pledge can provide an advantage to those candidates that have done so. In the run up to the election, Simpol’s website will indicate which candidates have signed the pledge.
Please let me know if you will sign the pledge and if so, any statement of support you would like to communicate to voters in our region. If you do not wish to sign the pledge, I would be interested to know why as I can see no disadvantage from signing. As global problems threaten to run out of control, it is surely worth a try.
Global problems do indeed require global solutions. It will be wonderful if those are introduced in the immediate future. But if that does not happen it will be wonderful to know that the Simultaneous Policy approach has your support as a parallel strategy.
Showing posts with label lobbying politicians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lobbying politicians. Show all posts
March 8, 2009
June 20, 2008
How to send a quick message to the US Presidential election candidates
"In free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns."
Benjamin Franklin
"[It is] the people, to whom all authority belongs."
Yesterday I asked which of the candidates for President of the United States of America will respect the sovereignty of the people. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/06/us-presidential-election.html
You can send a message to your preferred candidate - or all of them - asking for support for the Simultaneous Policy campaign (read yesterday´s blog if this is new to you).
Here is a quick and easy form you can use:
http://www.simpol.org/voteusa.html
Select ´all candidates´, John McCain, Barack Obama or enter the name of another (I guess these will be added to the list once they are formally declared). You can change or edit the suggested message which I´ll include here:
---
The United States of America, like all democracies, is founded on the principle that its government represents the interests of we, the people. Yet in the globalized world governments too often put business interests first and foremost, fearing the country could otherwise lose investment and jobs to competing nations. Whether it is trade, climate change, sustainability, conflict, or any other area of global importance, we, the people, want our voices to be heard and respected. The Simultaneous Policy (SP) provides a way, by bringing people together around the world to discuss, develop and approve the policies we wish to see implemented to address global problems. Simultaneous implementation of SP, after approval by the people of my country, will ensure that necessary action is taken and we will not be put at a competitive disadvantage. When I come to vote, I want to know which candidates respect the will of the people and have pledged to implement the Simultaneous Policy when all, or sufficient, other governments have made the same pledge. I call on you to make this pledge.
---
You can also fill in a quick form to send a link to the page to a friend. See:
http://www.simpol.org/voteusa.html
Benjamin Franklin
"[It is] the people, to whom all authority belongs."
Thomas Jefferson
Yesterday I asked which of the candidates for President of the United States of America will respect the sovereignty of the people. See:http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/06/us-presidential-election.html
You can send a message to your preferred candidate - or all of them - asking for support for the Simultaneous Policy campaign (read yesterday´s blog if this is new to you).
Here is a quick and easy form you can use:
http://www.simpol.org/voteusa.html
Select ´all candidates´, John McCain, Barack Obama or enter the name of another (I guess these will be added to the list once they are formally declared). You can change or edit the suggested message which I´ll include here:
---
The United States of America, like all democracies, is founded on the principle that its government represents the interests of we, the people. Yet in the globalized world governments too often put business interests first and foremost, fearing the country could otherwise lose investment and jobs to competing nations. Whether it is trade, climate change, sustainability, conflict, or any other area of global importance, we, the people, want our voices to be heard and respected. The Simultaneous Policy (SP) provides a way, by bringing people together around the world to discuss, develop and approve the policies we wish to see implemented to address global problems. Simultaneous implementation of SP, after approval by the people of my country, will ensure that necessary action is taken and we will not be put at a competitive disadvantage. When I come to vote, I want to know which candidates respect the will of the people and have pledged to implement the Simultaneous Policy when all, or sufficient, other governments have made the same pledge. I call on you to make this pledge.
---
You can also fill in a quick form to send a link to the page to a friend. See:
http://www.simpol.org/voteusa.html
June 19, 2008
Which candidate for US President will respect the sovereignty of the people?
If the support for the candidates to be President of the United States of America is as finely balanced between John McCain and Barack Obama as the opinion polls suggest, the situation is perfect for US citizens to reclaim their sovereign right to govern themselves. The easiest action to take is to send a message to the candidates via the Simpol page at:
http://www.simpol.org/voteusa.html
In theory in a democracy the government is of the people, by the people and for the people. But in a globalized world the will of the people is too often neglected.
When formulating policy on addressing global issues, be it climate change, trade, access to resources or anything else at this level, every leader puts the national economy in first place. They are warned by business leaders that too extreme measures could see investment and jobs draining away to other countries. The movement of either fills politicians with genuine fear. These are not idle threats.
In international meeting after international meeting, necessary action is compromised by this economic imperative. Politicians may argue that protecting the national economy is the same as protecting the interests of the people. If this approach had delivered a way of living on the planet that is sustainable and stable, they might have a point. If people were satisfied with the choices offered to them, then perhaps all is fine.
But is the way our leaders are tackling global problems really the way we, the people, want them to be tackled?
The way to answer this question is surely by asking it.
This is what is happening in the Simultaneous Policy (SP) campaign, promoted by Simpol, an international network of national organisations. People around the world are invited to propose, discuss, develop and ultimately approve the policies they would like to see implemented.
There is no charge to take part, simply sign up as an SP Adopter, which also involves calling on politicians to pledge to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments. Everyone is welcome. If you do not like any of the policies already under discussion you can vote against them and put forward alternatives if you wish. Give your views in the Simpol discussion forum at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/
This process is immensely empoweriing for a number of reasons. Firstly, the Simultaneous Policy is to be implemented by all, or sufficient, governments acting together. This changes the context. For example, at present if voters in the US election are asked whether they want the US to open its borders to trade to a greater extent or follow a more protectionist approach, they will answer based on their assessment of what it will mean for their jobs and income, considering competition with other countries. It is a very different question to ask, would you like the international system of trade to operate differently, for their to be different rules?
Proposals for encouraging greater trade - or alternatively encouraging more local production and consumption - would be based on a consensus between Adopters across the world. Policies will be linked to make a coherent package, so, for example, an ending of barriers to trade could be combined with ensuring the pollution and climate change costs of transportation are not ignored, but included in the cost of products. Transnational corporations could be expected to respect minimum standards wherever they operate, making it impossible to cut costs by moving to a country run by a dictatorship that does not protect the rights of its citizens. And so on, as the people decide.
SP aims to solve the big international problems only. It does not include perhaps 95% or more of politics, which is local and national. SP is not a way to enforce policies or ideologies on other countries, but a way to empower people in each country to decide how to address global problems considering their own best interests and in a way that is acceptable to people in other countries.
Although global in its scope and to be implemented by all, or sufficient, countries acting together, the Simultaneous Policy is not one size fits all. Countries are at different starting points, which can be taken into account. It is for SP Adopters to decide.
The Simultaneous Policy approach allows Americans and citizens of every country to reclaim their sovereign right to govern themselves, a right undermined by powerful vested interests that currently dictate or constrain global policy setting.
Once the content of the Simultaneous Policy is determined by those who choose to take part and sufficient pledges to implement it have been made by governments - prompted by their citizens - voters in each country will be asked to approve it. Implementation will only go ahead with the approval of the people of the country as a whole.
Candidates in the US Presidential election are being asked to make a pledge to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments when all, or sufficient, governments have made the same pledge. It is a statement of intent that indicates to voters whether the candidate believes in the sovereign right of citizens to have their voices heard and respected.
Until there are sufficient governments, the President will have little choice but to operate in competition with other nations, under the threat that jobs and investment will be lost if he upsets business and financial interests, so support for SP will be just one factor voters will look to in deciding how to vote. SP Adopters are asked to encourage their preferred candidate to make the SP pledge. Adopters without a preference can call on all candidates to make the pledge and vote for the one who does.
A Presidential pledge to implement SP alongside other governments will have more than symbolic value. It will bring the world one step closer to implementation of the policies chosen by the people. Politicians in much of the English-speaking world have already signed the SP pledge, including in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, as well as in developing countries such as Brazil, East Timor and India. There are SP Adopters in many more industrialized and developing nations.
In the US Presidential in 2000 a few hundred votes eventually decided who won. With the election this year also finely balanced, the candidate who supports SP could find it propels him into a winning position.
The candidates can make the pledge to implement SP in the knowledge that when implementation is triggered the global policies will have the support of the citizens of the US. It is only on that basis he would be expected to deliver on the pledge.
So the fundamental question is, which of the candidates - John McCain, Barack Obama or others - believes in the sovereign right of US citizens to have their voices heard and respected over those of vested interests?
Find out by sending a message to your preferred candidate or to all candidates calling for support for the Simultaneous Policy by going to:
http://www.simpol.org/voteusa.html
http://www.simpol.org/voteusa.html
In theory in a democracy the government is of the people, by the people and for the people. But in a globalized world the will of the people is too often neglected.
When formulating policy on addressing global issues, be it climate change, trade, access to resources or anything else at this level, every leader puts the national economy in first place. They are warned by business leaders that too extreme measures could see investment and jobs draining away to other countries. The movement of either fills politicians with genuine fear. These are not idle threats.
In international meeting after international meeting, necessary action is compromised by this economic imperative. Politicians may argue that protecting the national economy is the same as protecting the interests of the people. If this approach had delivered a way of living on the planet that is sustainable and stable, they might have a point. If people were satisfied with the choices offered to them, then perhaps all is fine.
But is the way our leaders are tackling global problems really the way we, the people, want them to be tackled?
The way to answer this question is surely by asking it.
This is what is happening in the Simultaneous Policy (SP) campaign, promoted by Simpol, an international network of national organisations. People around the world are invited to propose, discuss, develop and ultimately approve the policies they would like to see implemented.
There is no charge to take part, simply sign up as an SP Adopter, which also involves calling on politicians to pledge to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments. Everyone is welcome. If you do not like any of the policies already under discussion you can vote against them and put forward alternatives if you wish. Give your views in the Simpol discussion forum at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/
This process is immensely empoweriing for a number of reasons. Firstly, the Simultaneous Policy is to be implemented by all, or sufficient, governments acting together. This changes the context. For example, at present if voters in the US election are asked whether they want the US to open its borders to trade to a greater extent or follow a more protectionist approach, they will answer based on their assessment of what it will mean for their jobs and income, considering competition with other countries. It is a very different question to ask, would you like the international system of trade to operate differently, for their to be different rules?
Proposals for encouraging greater trade - or alternatively encouraging more local production and consumption - would be based on a consensus between Adopters across the world. Policies will be linked to make a coherent package, so, for example, an ending of barriers to trade could be combined with ensuring the pollution and climate change costs of transportation are not ignored, but included in the cost of products. Transnational corporations could be expected to respect minimum standards wherever they operate, making it impossible to cut costs by moving to a country run by a dictatorship that does not protect the rights of its citizens. And so on, as the people decide.
SP aims to solve the big international problems only. It does not include perhaps 95% or more of politics, which is local and national. SP is not a way to enforce policies or ideologies on other countries, but a way to empower people in each country to decide how to address global problems considering their own best interests and in a way that is acceptable to people in other countries.
Although global in its scope and to be implemented by all, or sufficient, countries acting together, the Simultaneous Policy is not one size fits all. Countries are at different starting points, which can be taken into account. It is for SP Adopters to decide.
The Simultaneous Policy approach allows Americans and citizens of every country to reclaim their sovereign right to govern themselves, a right undermined by powerful vested interests that currently dictate or constrain global policy setting.
Once the content of the Simultaneous Policy is determined by those who choose to take part and sufficient pledges to implement it have been made by governments - prompted by their citizens - voters in each country will be asked to approve it. Implementation will only go ahead with the approval of the people of the country as a whole.
Candidates in the US Presidential election are being asked to make a pledge to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments when all, or sufficient, governments have made the same pledge. It is a statement of intent that indicates to voters whether the candidate believes in the sovereign right of citizens to have their voices heard and respected.
Until there are sufficient governments, the President will have little choice but to operate in competition with other nations, under the threat that jobs and investment will be lost if he upsets business and financial interests, so support for SP will be just one factor voters will look to in deciding how to vote. SP Adopters are asked to encourage their preferred candidate to make the SP pledge. Adopters without a preference can call on all candidates to make the pledge and vote for the one who does.
A Presidential pledge to implement SP alongside other governments will have more than symbolic value. It will bring the world one step closer to implementation of the policies chosen by the people. Politicians in much of the English-speaking world have already signed the SP pledge, including in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, as well as in developing countries such as Brazil, East Timor and India. There are SP Adopters in many more industrialized and developing nations.
In the US Presidential in 2000 a few hundred votes eventually decided who won. With the election this year also finely balanced, the candidate who supports SP could find it propels him into a winning position.
The candidates can make the pledge to implement SP in the knowledge that when implementation is triggered the global policies will have the support of the citizens of the US. It is only on that basis he would be expected to deliver on the pledge.
So the fundamental question is, which of the candidates - John McCain, Barack Obama or others - believes in the sovereign right of US citizens to have their voices heard and respected over those of vested interests?
Find out by sending a message to your preferred candidate or to all candidates calling for support for the Simultaneous Policy by going to:
http://www.simpol.org/voteusa.html
June 10, 2008
Let's shout about the price of oil
Being selfish could kill us all, but could also save us. That's my thought on reading of protests arising in disparate countries over the price of fuel and its knock on effect on the price of food.
Roads have been blockaded by angry truckers in the France, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom.
The Guardian is reporting today:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jun/10/oil.france
---extract begins
Protests at rising fuel prices are not confined to Europe. A succession of developing countries have provoked public outcry by ordering fuel price increases. Yesterday Indian police forcibly dispersed hundreds of protesters in Kashmir who were angry at a 10% rise introduced last week. Protests appeared likely to spread to neighbouring Nepal after its government yesterday announced a 25% rise in fuel prices. Truckers in South Korea have vowed strike action over the high cost of diesel. Taiwan, Sri Lanka and Indonesia have all raised pump prices. Malaysia's decision last week to increase prices generated such public fury that the government moved yesterday to trim ministers' allowances to appease the public.
---extract ends
An article in the same newspaper reminds us of the need to cut emissions of greenhouse gases: "According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global emissions must be slashed by 50% to 80% by the year 2050 to avoid severe environmental disruption from global warming."
One proposal receiving high levels of support for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy is Contraction and Convergence, which proposes a per capita limit on emissions, leading to a country total, which some countries are currently below, while others are well above it. The proposal is they converge so everyone has their fair share. Overall emissions are to be steadily contracted to sustainable levels which, as the IPCC suggests, are far lower than at present.
The price increases being experienced at the moment will have some impact as they will reduce the number of journeys taken, encourage local consumption (through increased prices for goods transported long distances) and not only result in less carbon gases going into the air, but less oil being used. It is, after all, a precious resource and some suggest we are at Peak Oil - the point where we have already used half of total conceivable resources, meaning we will fairly rapidly be reaching the bottom of the barrel.
Instead of welcoming high prices as part of the solution our leaders are doing exactly the opposite. They are calling for pumping of oil to be increased in the hope that extra supply will dampen the price.
The protests teach us two things. Firstly, our leaders think precious little about the future of the planet when faced with hostile headlines and people blockading roads. They think of lost votes, harm to the economy and their own political mortality. Hence the immediate response is to cut prices rather than, say, slapping a windfall tax on the bloated oil companies to invest in sustainable energy while appealing for efficiency improvements everywhere possible.
Secondly, people think precious little about the future when faced with increased prices for everyday necessities such as transport, energy and food. Yes, we want to save the planet, but living in a financial system that relies on loading people with debt, we also want to save ourselves from tipping into penury.
Because we are selfish, the politicians act as they do, for their own survival. Governments will fall if they cannot manage the crisis - or at least convince us the other lot would have done no better.
The problem with out-of-control and generally unexpected sudden increases is they have not been managed. They are a sudden blow to the wallet in the rich world and missed meals in the poor world. In the scramble to secure oil supplies, there is no targeting, no amelioration for those who end up being losers. As it is with oil and food, so it could be with many other aspects of our world if controlled transitions to new realities are not achieved.
Our leaders are ill-placed to achieve them, because they are driven by economic and political realities. Long-term planning may include some aspect of moving to a lower carbon economy and away from dependence on fossil fuels, but will more likely be focused on protecting the national interest and securing as much oil as possible, through coersion, blackmail and even force if necessary.
If something like Contraction and Convergence was in place things would be very different. The cut backs called for by the IPCC would not be aspirations, forgotten in the face of economic realities. They would be hard and fast limits, in the knowledge that failing to meet them would cause severe environmental disruption. The IPCC may keep saying it, but without an international agreement - ideally with some carrots and sticks to make it work - no targets will ever be hit.
We, the people, can take the lead by saying that we don't want out-of-control and unexpected price rises that can tip us over into insolvency and perhaps malnutrition, depending on where we live. We can take a look at the Contraction and Convergence proposal, alternatives to it and complementary policies. We can think about how we would like the world to be and build a consensus on how to get there, pretty darn quick. If we need to cut back on oil use, how about every person having the right to their per capita limit? If we use less, then we can sell our excess quota to someone else. If we want more, we pay those who are more efficient. If we live in a rural area, we can have a higher quota. And so on.
This would be no more complex than assigning tax codes and no harder to manage than swiping a bank card.
We learn to live within our income (including our credit limits in the calculation) so we can live within our energy limit. We can plan how to change our lifestyles as limits are cut. We can take to the streets not to protest just over the price of fuel, but over the lack of renewable energy, which could be exempt from quotas. If I want to buy my household energy from an offshore wind farm so I can save my quota for a flight to Brazil, but not enough wind farms have been built to meet the demand, then I will no longer be in a minority calling for them.
With this coming in through the Simultaneous Policy, my country will not be shooting itself in the foot by acting alone. Everyone will be taking similar action. Not identical, because countries are at different starting points, but there will be a global cooperative effort.
Today it is right to shout about fuel prices, particularly if they make it impossible to buy enough food to survive. But if we really want to protect our interests, the louder shout should be for our leaders to sign the pledge to implement SP alongside other governments so that, as quickly as possible, the various crises that threaten to spiral out of control come under effective management.
Transition will definitely happen. Let it be to a new cooperative reality, not a collapse.
The best way to shout is by signing up as an SP Adopter, which is free, by clicking here:
http://www.simpol.org/
To preview policy suggestions before the next round of voting, or to discuss your own ideas, visit the Simpol discussion forum at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/
Roads have been blockaded by angry truckers in the France, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom.
The Guardian is reporting today:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jun/10/oil.france
---extract begins
Protests at rising fuel prices are not confined to Europe. A succession of developing countries have provoked public outcry by ordering fuel price increases. Yesterday Indian police forcibly dispersed hundreds of protesters in Kashmir who were angry at a 10% rise introduced last week. Protests appeared likely to spread to neighbouring Nepal after its government yesterday announced a 25% rise in fuel prices. Truckers in South Korea have vowed strike action over the high cost of diesel. Taiwan, Sri Lanka and Indonesia have all raised pump prices. Malaysia's decision last week to increase prices generated such public fury that the government moved yesterday to trim ministers' allowances to appease the public.
---extract ends
An article in the same newspaper reminds us of the need to cut emissions of greenhouse gases: "According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global emissions must be slashed by 50% to 80% by the year 2050 to avoid severe environmental disruption from global warming."
One proposal receiving high levels of support for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy is Contraction and Convergence, which proposes a per capita limit on emissions, leading to a country total, which some countries are currently below, while others are well above it. The proposal is they converge so everyone has their fair share. Overall emissions are to be steadily contracted to sustainable levels which, as the IPCC suggests, are far lower than at present.
The price increases being experienced at the moment will have some impact as they will reduce the number of journeys taken, encourage local consumption (through increased prices for goods transported long distances) and not only result in less carbon gases going into the air, but less oil being used. It is, after all, a precious resource and some suggest we are at Peak Oil - the point where we have already used half of total conceivable resources, meaning we will fairly rapidly be reaching the bottom of the barrel.
Instead of welcoming high prices as part of the solution our leaders are doing exactly the opposite. They are calling for pumping of oil to be increased in the hope that extra supply will dampen the price.
The protests teach us two things. Firstly, our leaders think precious little about the future of the planet when faced with hostile headlines and people blockading roads. They think of lost votes, harm to the economy and their own political mortality. Hence the immediate response is to cut prices rather than, say, slapping a windfall tax on the bloated oil companies to invest in sustainable energy while appealing for efficiency improvements everywhere possible.
Secondly, people think precious little about the future when faced with increased prices for everyday necessities such as transport, energy and food. Yes, we want to save the planet, but living in a financial system that relies on loading people with debt, we also want to save ourselves from tipping into penury.
Because we are selfish, the politicians act as they do, for their own survival. Governments will fall if they cannot manage the crisis - or at least convince us the other lot would have done no better.
The problem with out-of-control and generally unexpected sudden increases is they have not been managed. They are a sudden blow to the wallet in the rich world and missed meals in the poor world. In the scramble to secure oil supplies, there is no targeting, no amelioration for those who end up being losers. As it is with oil and food, so it could be with many other aspects of our world if controlled transitions to new realities are not achieved.
Our leaders are ill-placed to achieve them, because they are driven by economic and political realities. Long-term planning may include some aspect of moving to a lower carbon economy and away from dependence on fossil fuels, but will more likely be focused on protecting the national interest and securing as much oil as possible, through coersion, blackmail and even force if necessary.
If something like Contraction and Convergence was in place things would be very different. The cut backs called for by the IPCC would not be aspirations, forgotten in the face of economic realities. They would be hard and fast limits, in the knowledge that failing to meet them would cause severe environmental disruption. The IPCC may keep saying it, but without an international agreement - ideally with some carrots and sticks to make it work - no targets will ever be hit.
We, the people, can take the lead by saying that we don't want out-of-control and unexpected price rises that can tip us over into insolvency and perhaps malnutrition, depending on where we live. We can take a look at the Contraction and Convergence proposal, alternatives to it and complementary policies. We can think about how we would like the world to be and build a consensus on how to get there, pretty darn quick. If we need to cut back on oil use, how about every person having the right to their per capita limit? If we use less, then we can sell our excess quota to someone else. If we want more, we pay those who are more efficient. If we live in a rural area, we can have a higher quota. And so on.
This would be no more complex than assigning tax codes and no harder to manage than swiping a bank card.
We learn to live within our income (including our credit limits in the calculation) so we can live within our energy limit. We can plan how to change our lifestyles as limits are cut. We can take to the streets not to protest just over the price of fuel, but over the lack of renewable energy, which could be exempt from quotas. If I want to buy my household energy from an offshore wind farm so I can save my quota for a flight to Brazil, but not enough wind farms have been built to meet the demand, then I will no longer be in a minority calling for them.
With this coming in through the Simultaneous Policy, my country will not be shooting itself in the foot by acting alone. Everyone will be taking similar action. Not identical, because countries are at different starting points, but there will be a global cooperative effort.
Today it is right to shout about fuel prices, particularly if they make it impossible to buy enough food to survive. But if we really want to protect our interests, the louder shout should be for our leaders to sign the pledge to implement SP alongside other governments so that, as quickly as possible, the various crises that threaten to spiral out of control come under effective management.
Transition will definitely happen. Let it be to a new cooperative reality, not a collapse.
The best way to shout is by signing up as an SP Adopter, which is free, by clicking here:
http://www.simpol.org/
To preview policy suggestions before the next round of voting, or to discuss your own ideas, visit the Simpol discussion forum at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/
June 7, 2008
Hear from your MP
If you are in the UK you can sign up to receive emails from your Member of Parliament. This is how I was alerted to a forthcoming event on climate change I sent to people on the Cambridge SP Adopters' Group email list (contact me if you are in the Cambridge area and want to be added).
Hear from your MP is a great site. Your MP gets emails encouraging him or her to use the service if not doing so already. As well as putting you on the mailing list, it allows you to post replies or email your MP directly. See:
http://www.hearfromyourmp.com/
This is what I have posted in response to the announcement for the event "How do we meet the climate change challenge?"
http://www.hearfromyourmp.com/view/message/514
Action is required at every level: personal, local, national and international.
Significantly, however, national action faces an obstacle because governments fear it will harm the economy to act if other countries are not. Business leaders lobby for carbon caps and taxes to be as limited as possible, threatening to move production overseas. To overcome this genuine fear simultaneous action is needed. But at the international level action is watered down as countries put their own national economic interests first.
Overcoming the problem of competition between nations is the aim of the Simultaneous Policy (SP) campaign, which brings people together around the world to discuss the policies they wish to see implemented to address global problems. On climate change the policy of 'Contraction and Convergence' has gained significant support in annual voting rounds, though other proposals may eventually win through in the democratic process.
MPs are asked to sign a pledge to implement SP alongside other governments, when all, or sufficient, have made the same pledge. This is not an alternative to other action, but could take us so much further. Mr. Howarth has not yet signed, unlike many of his colleagues in the LibDems, and I ask him to do so. The more MPs that sign, the sooner this becomes government policy and the sooner SP can be finalised and implemented.
If you think this is a good approach, you can sign up as an SP Adopter to take part in the policy development and to send a signal to politicians that you will favour those who sign the pledge to implement SP. Find out more and join the discussion at: http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/
Hear from your MP is a great site. Your MP gets emails encouraging him or her to use the service if not doing so already. As well as putting you on the mailing list, it allows you to post replies or email your MP directly. See:
http://www.hearfromyourmp.com/
This is what I have posted in response to the announcement for the event "How do we meet the climate change challenge?"
http://www.hearfromyourmp.com/view/message/514
Action is required at every level: personal, local, national and international.
Significantly, however, national action faces an obstacle because governments fear it will harm the economy to act if other countries are not. Business leaders lobby for carbon caps and taxes to be as limited as possible, threatening to move production overseas. To overcome this genuine fear simultaneous action is needed. But at the international level action is watered down as countries put their own national economic interests first.
Overcoming the problem of competition between nations is the aim of the Simultaneous Policy (SP) campaign, which brings people together around the world to discuss the policies they wish to see implemented to address global problems. On climate change the policy of 'Contraction and Convergence' has gained significant support in annual voting rounds, though other proposals may eventually win through in the democratic process.
MPs are asked to sign a pledge to implement SP alongside other governments, when all, or sufficient, have made the same pledge. This is not an alternative to other action, but could take us so much further. Mr. Howarth has not yet signed, unlike many of his colleagues in the LibDems, and I ask him to do so. The more MPs that sign, the sooner this becomes government policy and the sooner SP can be finalised and implemented.
If you think this is a good approach, you can sign up as an SP Adopter to take part in the policy development and to send a signal to politicians that you will favour those who sign the pledge to implement SP. Find out more and join the discussion at: http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
