A few days ago I posted a short piece on the legislation currently on the table in California - where incandescent light bulbs may be outlawed by 2012.

After posting that story, however, I couldn't help but get to thinking about the potential implications of similar moves - specifically as it relates to civil liberties - and would be interested in feedback on this. As far as the light bulbs go, any personal argument for keeping an incandescent bulb is steadily shrinking away, but this situation does touch upon an important issue, doesn't it?

It is interesting to take the light-bulb scenario, where we have lots of consumers using energy inefficient lighting unnecessarily (and given the lack of global warming awareness, you could also say unwittingly), and then carry the subsequently prescribed legislative response over to apply to more significant aspects of our lifestyles - like the vehicles we drive, the food we eat, etc.

At what point does saving the planet encroach upon personal freedom? Ideally, all individuals would be seeking to alleviate the burden on the planet's resources, but 'ideals' are rarely attained, and as changing habits of lifestyle and social infrastructures is never an easy ask, we need to be realistic. As such, and as the world's governments become more agitated on the issue of climate change, could the urgency invoked bring legislative zeal crashing down on all our heads? Should we welcome this, or defend ourselves, or work to prevent it?

This is a topic worth considering, as events are in motion, environmentally and politically, that are difficult to reverse. Just as the recent IPCC report was released in Paris, calls were made to create a more powerful U.N. Environment Organisation (UNEO) to legislate and enforce global warming policies:

Forty-five nations answered France's call Saturday for a new environmental body to slow inevitable global warming and protect the planet, perhaps with policing powers to punish violators. - Yahoo News

The light-bulb legislation would target bulb producers, rather than consumers. If they're not produced, you can't buy them! Interestingly, a similar move was successful in combating a global dilemma we faced back in 1987:

The Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer is an international treaty designed to protect the ozone layer by phasing out the production of a number of substances believed to be responsible for ozone depletion. The treaty was opened for signature on September 16, 1987 and entered into force on January 1, 1989. Since then, it has undergone five revisions, in 1990 (London), 1992 (Copenhagen), 1995 (Vienna), 1997 (Montreal), and 1999 (Beijing). Due to its widespread adoption and implementation it has been hailed as an example of exceptional international cooperation with Kofi Annan quoted as saying it is "Perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date...". - Wikipedia

This successful cooperation to protect our ozone layer is being held up as an example of how we could also tackle global warming - by targeting fossil fuel producers, rather than consumers:

NZ economist proposes global fossil fuel production quotas to stem greenhouse gas emissions.

Christchurch-based policy institute Sustento says governments must set up a global quota system urgently to control fossil fuel production.

Institute director, Raf Manji says the Sustento Framework is based on the reality that climate change is a global problem and needs to be dealt with at the global level.

“Currently efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have been devolved to the national level where policy has been limited to improving energy efficiency and switching to renewable energy. This approach has not yielded major results and other policy proposals such as carbon based taxes have not found favour with either politicians or their voters. - Scoop

As I understand it, Raf Manji is proposing that if we can't discourage people from drinking at the fountain, we'll tighten the tap and start rationing. Raf emailed me some more info on his thoughts for a suggested Global Commons Authority (GCA) to restrict fossil fuel production at source. I'll quote a little below, or you can download his thoughts here (69kb PDF):

Although producers are mainly major trans national corporations, they can still be heavily influenced by the nations controlling access to those fossil fuel resources. Forums already exist for global cooperation in financial affairs and now these forums are expanding into climate change. In July 2006 the G8+5 group of countries met to consider climate change issues and this group contains the major fossil fuel producers, namely the U.S.A., Russia and China. An expanded group called the G20 now accounts for 94% of coal, 73% of natural gas and 59% of crude oil production.

The Sustento Framework enables a flexible mechanism to allow greenhouse gas emissions to be brought under control. The Framework incorporates an annual production budget derived from the agreed limit and any annual changes to the global carbon inventory which will incorporate land use changes as well as any technological advances in other sequestration or fossil fuel use.

An independent scientific panel will be required to establish the agreed limit. This limit will be reviewed regularly to incorporate new knowledge and understanding of the climate model. - Raf Manji, Director, Sustento Institute.

I can't help but think of WWII rationing. And, given the great disparity of lifestyles globally, how would we ration? What would be the baseline? If the per capita allocation of the world's energy resources for your average U.S. citizen, for example, was reduced by half (thereby roughly equating to current UK per capita consumption), then there's still plenty of room for growth for China and India, while the U.S. may have collapsed in riots? How does a centralised body manage local requirements with equality and fairness?

According to the recent IPCC scientific report, there is no longer any debate on global warming, and if calculations are correct the window-of-opportunity for mitigating impending doom is narrow. If global warming is ignored by the majority of the world's inhabitants, despite this urgency, is the solution going to be totalitarianism? What of personal choice, and civil liberties? How do we prioritise?

Also, can we use our civil rights themselves to prevent global warming and preclude an increasingly centralised governmental controls?

At campuses across the country, in marches, blogs even performance art — one student dressed as a pink light bulb to deliver energy efficient fluorescent light bulbs around campus — students are pressuring their colleges to use renewable energy and calling on congress to enact legislation that encourages reductions in carbon emissions.

"We don't just see this as environmental but about civil rights," said 19-year-old Catherine McEachern of Cornell University. "It's the calling of our generation. Global warming has been neglected by the previous generation, and we see it as an injustice that needs to be changed." - ABC News

Where are we heading? Thoughts?