[Graeme]

I'd like to raise this issue because I believe no one country can find solutions alone, and conflict between countries ought to be resolved at the United Nations. Solutions for each country will be different and will require trading between countries. Perhaps the WTO can be involved too. Can anyone suggest who could initiate PO resolutions at the UN and WTO, and how this forum could raise this issue with suitable representatives?
Is this a viable solution?
Graeme

[boilingleadbath]

What do you mean by "solution"?
If you mean "things stay the same" that's just not feasible.
If you mean "we avoid war and have a relitivly smooth 'powerdown'" - It's doubtable. I think the U.S. will get involved negitivly...

[Graeme]

No I mean trading alternative fuels and technologies, and avoiding conflict. If the USA is involved in more wars, I suspect we will all lose. I trying to suggest harmonious solutions for everybody.

Graeme

[Liamj]

The UN is hamstrung by Security Council on which US, Russia, China, France & UK (WW2 victors = perm. members) have a veto. Can you see them voting for e.g. Rimini Protocol, sharing remaining resources with world & forcing powerdown on their populations? Current wars & geostrategic posturing suggest not. They've sabotaged all suggested reforms, likely to do same to current reform proposals (incr # of perm members, majority world representation etc), hence current campaign against Kofi Annan for some Iraq-oil-for-food corruption his son may have been involved in (along with several members of current & past US governments, many members of other govts.. etc ). Without major structural reform or a miraculous change of heart by all permanent members of Security Council, the UN will remain a talking shop. Oh, and John Bolton, new US rep to UN is a lifelong UN hater - not a great sign.

The WTO is dead in the water since failure of Cancun & Doha rounds, majority world groupings are refusing to negotiate anything else till some movement on reductions in ag & other subsidies promised decades ago by EU & US. Sheer economics is now forcing some reductions in ag subsidies by EU, but US about to go in other direction. Incr # of bilateral & regional agreements (NAFTA, US-Aus, Aus-Thailand etc) are also undermining multilateral focus of WTO. Given that most WTO policy is prewritten by corporate lobbyists and its 'debating sessions' come down to e.g. pro-pharmaceuical industry policies vs. pro-auto industry policies, some radical chng reqd there too. Wont bother to go into the massive distrust of WTO & whole 'free trade' theology by nearly everyone except the economic rationalist technocrats who benefit from it.

A truely representative world parliament, ala George Monbiots model (sorry, know of few others) might do it, but going on current trends we'll be snowboarding in hell before that happens.

[Graeme]

Thank you for your reply Liamj. I hope this generates more discussion.

I'm certainly not an expert on the effectiveness of the UN (or WTO) but I do know that Kofi Annan is trying to reform the UN by expanding the Security Council to 24 members amongst other reforms. So there is hope there if these are endosed by the general assembly.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4370753.stm


Similarly, the WTO is the best organisation the world has got so we should work with this organisation as best we can. We just have to persevere with each successive round to try to resolve all issues raised including energy services and trading. Don't you think it is worth trying rather than doing nothing or complaining about its weaknesses. We are going to have to learn to work together.
Has anyone got any further comments?
Graeme

[nth]

Liamj is very negative regarding this, but he has a right to. Historic and current policies don't see industrialized countries sharing with developing countries. WTO and UN operate under treaty norms. That is the participating country is oblige to follow because it wants to follow. If the country withdraws, then they no longer are obliged to the rules.

A peaceful solution can happen only when war is too costly. Historically, industrialized countries will exploit resources in developing countries. For this to stop and all to share, will not happen, in my opinion. I just see that industrialized countries will force developing countries to share their resources in exchange for technology.

I just look at Venezeula. The current president won several elections fair and square, in my opinion. Yet, US is finding fault with them. Treating them like a country run by dictators. I think as resources dwindle- US will find excuses to use force and coercion to isolate countries who refuse to share.

Sharing means the goods must be available to the highest bidder. It doesn't mean equality and spreading the resources like rationing, etc.

Developing countries will be worse off, unless they know how to take technology and money and invest it in their own people, so they can compete against industrialized countries.

[Ebyss]

I just look at Venezeula. The current president won several elections fair and square, in my opinion. Yet, US is finding fault with them. Treating them like a country run by dictators. I think as resources dwindle- US will find excuses to use force and coercion to isolate countries who refuse to share.

I agree. I mean, the original Bush election wasn't exactly fair and square, but who was going to tell America that they didn't recognise the outcome?

The world has just enough resources for it's entire population, the problem is distribution and "sharing". We have the food for everybody, we just don't share it. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The fat get fatter and the starving die. I don't see that changing as resources get fewer, on the contrary, the rich/fat/greedy will just take more any way they can get it. They don't care about the hungry and poor now, I don't expect them to care when things get worse.

[nth]

I agree that the rich tends to get richer, but right now, we have more rich people than ever before.
I think if it wasn't for PO, the world is becoming more equitable. Slowly but developing countries are overcoming the obstacles.

These obstacles are often put by industrialized worlds according to developing countries.

[bringitback]

This is pretty similar to my thread about multilateral cooperation. The problem with international institutions is that they act mostly as communication networks--increasing the necessary flow of information so that countries can come to agreements more easily.

The problem is that once they set agendas, their enforcement capabilities are really weak. With a situation like PO, you're going to have a lot of incentive for cheating and freeriding because oil is often simply too important to negotiate over. Once international trade becomes too expensive as PO hits, the punitive sanctions by the WTO on trade will become largely ineffectual.

Aside from the WTO or UN, what about the IEA? I've read somewhere on this forum that the IEA can enforce signatory countries to comply with its sanctions. Anybody have any thoughts on this?

[kerosene]

yes Annan is trying to pass a packeage that includes issues of "common good" USa has already told that they will not support it.

WTO is on the "wrong side" - it supports freedom only when it suits its creators needs. Developing countries still get fucked over.

Heikki

[nth]

Developing countries still get fucked over.

They always get shafted unless they develop, then they have a fighting chance.

Seems like most people don't want developing countries to develop here though. They want to see justice and improvements in life for everyday people. All good causes, but sadly seldom comes true.

[seldom_seen]

The problem with peakoil (well I don't see it as a problem) is that global super-organizations will be snuffed out of existence.

Without the 3,000 mile caesar salad...what good is the WTO? Large scale International trade (along with its apparatus of organizations and treaties like NAFTA, GATT, WTO, FTAA) was born on the back of cheap oil. These same organizations will vaporize with the last streams of cheap oil. Sure International trade will always exist in some form, but not on the grandiose scale at the peak of the hydrocarbon age.

As for the UN, whether you love'm or hate'm. They're really a very irrelevant organization that is growing moreso everyday. They talk big but carry a small stick. As the World economy contracts, money to keep this bloated super-organization afloat will quickly dissipate. The UN will be nothing but a good idea that never amounted to much. A latter day League of Nations, that could only exist in a time of great abundance.

[nth]

As for the UN, whether you love'm or hate'm. They're really a very irrelevant organization that is growing moreso everyday. They talk big but carry a small stick. As the World economy contracts, money to keep this bloated super-organization afloat will quickly dissipate. The UN will be nothing but a good idea that never amounted to much. A latter day League of Nations, that could only exist in a time of great abundance.

Actually, I disagree about UN being weaker. I think UN is stronger now than it ever was. I see UN pressure allow the creation of East Timor, Etriea, and peaceful resolutions in Latin America. Of course, there are many problems, but there are also many solutions it created without going to war. Historically, that has never happened where countries resolved border disputes without going to war. Often wars get escalated to WW.

[Graeme]

WTO Members Begin Talks to Eliminate Wind, Solar Trade Tariffs

Fourteen members of the World Trade Organization (WTO)—including the U.S., China, the European Union (EU), and Japan—on Tuesday launched negotiations to eliminate tariffs or custom duties on wind turbines, solar products, and other environmental goods.

The first phase of negotiations between the 14 WTO members, which make up 86% of the global environmental goods trade, seeks to reduce import tariffs to 5% or less by the end of 2015 for 54 environmental goods listed by the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum in 2012.

Total global trade in environmental goods reached about $955 billion in 2012, though tariffs on some products are as high as 35%. Markets for goods related to energy efficiency, air pollution, water desalination, and renewable power equipment are set to grow sizably in the coming decades.

The second phase of talks will address non-tariff barriers, which the WTO describes as “bureaucratic or legal issues” that could cause “hindrances to trade.” They will also address environmental services.

The WTO members involved in the talks in Geneva, Switzerland, are Australia, Canada, China, Chinese Taipei (Taiwan), Costa Rica, the EU, Hong Kong China, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, the Republic of Korea, Switzerland, and the U.S.

powermag

[careinke]

I'd like to raise this issue because I believe no one country can find solutions alone, and conflict between countries ought to be resolved at the United Nations. Solutions for each country will be different and will require trading between countries. Perhaps the WTO can be involved too. Can anyone suggest who could initiate PO resolutions at the UN and WTO, and how this forum could raise this issue with suitable representatives?
Is this a viable solution?
Graeme

So... You are saying that since big governments (countries) can't solve the problem, we should push it up to an even bigger government (sort of), and expect the problem to be solved. Hmmm interesting concept.

[dolanbaker]

Maybe ask god to refill the oil reservoirs!

[Subjectivist]

Maybe ask god to refill the oil reservoirs!

He already gave you a massive bounty, you wasted it and think He should just give you more?

[dolanbaker]

Maybe ask god to refill the oil reservoirs!

He already gave you a massive bounty, you wasted it and think He should just give you more?

Yes!