We need a WW2 scale response, perhaps with similar restrictions like rationing - only this time of carbon or flights etc. Once some nations are active, others will join. Perhaps we need to see carbon and environmental impacts baked into import tariffs to "encourage" reluctant others to join.
This was itself a suspension of normal democratic procedures and conventions. No elections were held in the UK between 1935 and the conclusion of the war in 1945.
The thirties had a succession of mostly weak coalitions in response to the Great Depression.
I would also argue that rationing in general is incompatible with a free country. If necessary add a fair tax that is ear-marked to deal with global warming and which ofsets the damage. No reason to add more bureaucracy.
I don't see how rationing impacts a free country one way or another as it's merely a method of achieving a fair distribution of a limited resource. The US also had rationing in WW2, introduced after Pearl Harbor. Was the US still a free country?
But more to the point: rationing is stupid, since you are strictly better of taxing the good you want to limit, and if necessary spend some of the tax in direct payments to those with the least income. The free market will take care of pricing the use of the taxed commodity correctly and the poor will be better of.
In the case of wartime fuel rationing, and perhaps if we were to end up with a carbon ration, it achieves a fair distribution, without the wealthy simply being able to pay extra not to participate. With enough wealth someone may not care that something carries a punitive tax rate, and they can continue being part of the problem.
In times of crisis, such as wartime or a failing ecosystem, we may find that ability to pay your way out of it unacceptable. Reasonably so in my opinion.
But at that point I would opt for letting climate change hit. In the absence of catastrophic events we will need more energy today than we needed yesterday. So either we find a solution to increasing needs or problems will arise.
In developed economies, this hasn’t been true in recent years.
Energy use (electricity, gas, coal, etc) peaked during the 2000s and has been mainly in decline since, despite economic and population growth.
Through improved technology, we have been able to extract more economic value from less energy. Hopefully this trend will continue.
Climate change could well kill us all, but at least we'll die free.
Politicians and voters too often act in short term self-interest rather than long-term economic and environmental interests.
“Give me that tax cut, big pickup truck, and cheap gas! Leave it to our grandchildren to figure out how to survive in the face of catastrophic global heating. Not our problem!”
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_cons...
But I agree "everyone emit less carbon and hamstring your economy" will not work without literal worldwide fascism.
Anyway, that won't happen. At some point the effects of climate change will be so evident that everyone will scream for action. And at that point it will be too late to do anything meaningful.
Also, I detest fascism - but devil's advocate - is fascism worse than literal extinction?
>but devil's advocate - is fascism worse than literal extinction?
That's the question everyone will have to answer, and it probably boils down to the core of that person's philosophy. People who say "no" though should really consider all of the ugly side-effects that result from all-powerful authoritarian entities being able to control lives on a micro level.
But I said "extinction". Meaning everyone - you, me, my kid, etc. dying, maybe horribly.
Why in the world do you think that democratic structures will make it intact through a descent into extinction. I'm not going to cite Mad Max as a sociological point, but society will break down under unmitigated global warming. When food and water safety cannot be met, law loses its authority. You can see this on a small scale after cyclone landfalls.