We see a strong demand for a global direct democratic vote (referendum) on climate actions with potentially 5,4 billion people (ca. 67% of global population) participating:
- IPCC becomes “intergovernmental and trans- & interdisciplinary”
- The United Nations (UN) develop a global secure voting system in collaboration with Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft, X, Baidu, Yandex, etc.
- Media and critical journalism supports the opinion making process
- Politics supports the global direct democratic voting
Based on a first rough estimation, the “project” of a first global democratic referendum demands about 100-200 Million USD and should be possible to be carried out within 1-3 years.
We very much appreciate and acknowledge the work from the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)“. Natural scientist are generally speaking very cautious people and that is generally speaking very important. They stick to their methodology and are looking for “truth” in a kind of positivistic epistemology (imagine e.g. medical science without any clear and strict methodology on how new medical treatment is actually issued to the people). The ontology of natural scientists generally speaking is analytic, precise, and data driven. This is also very important and very good, because it provides transparency with their methodology and reliability within their epistemology (e.g. in reference to Karl Popper: “The Objective Knowledge”).
IPCC reports can become “intergovernmental and trans- & interdisciplinary”
With global warming, climate change, and the loss of biodiversity we have a very different question to answer. We want to predict the future, in the current discussion mostly till the year 2100 (A.D.). The approach to do this with most accuracy is to develop so call “climate models”. These “climate models” can then calculate, what kind of effect certain changes with certain parameters have for the entire “system”. These “climate models” can tell us e.g. how fast the global average temperature will increase with a certain increase of annual “greenhouse gas” (GHG) emissions. Natural scientist are working with utmost effort to improve this kind of understanding. We very much appreciate this kind of work from the “IPCC” and yes, we have to improve and further expand that kind of work. We need e.g. a much better understanding on the regional effects from global warming, which are significantly different within different parts on our planet Earth (see e.g. the work from “Our World in Data” about “How much have temperatures risen in countries across the world?“).
At the same time, from a epistemological perspective, future remains uncertain and unpredictable (e.g. the global financial crises in 2008f. and the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020ff. where “surprising”).
So whatever model we calculate, how precise this model will ever be, the result of the calculation will strongly relate to the presumptions we make for the certain (input) parameters for the model. So the smartest and most complex model is only “as good as” the (input) parameters we give the model.
When it comes to global warming, climate change, and the loss of biodiversity, the most severe (input) parameter is the further development of annual GHG emissions. This question can not be answered by natural scientists (only), this has to involve all kind of political, sociological, economical, legal, and technical aspects. That is why we strongly pledge for the further development of the IPCC into a “intergovernmental and trans- & interdisciplinary” Panel. This is in our view the first (1) necessary step towards a global direct democratic vote, a global referendum, on global warming, climate change, and the loss of biodiversity with potentially 5,4 billion people (ca. 67% of the global population) voting.
A first “theory” for a trans- & interdisciplinary global warming scenario
We did a first rough draft, you also might call it a (heuristic) “theory”, on how global warming, climate change, and the loss of biodiversity looks like from a trans- & interdisciplinary perspective.
The story we tell with the scenarios effects the imagination and actions people take and we deeply hope, this horrifying scenario never actually comes true. Yes, please prove us “wrong”!
The future is certainly not predicable and we can impact our future with our actions based on our imagination. The current thinking and acting we see on global warming, climate change, and the loss of biodiversity will have significant impacts on humanity, we think very negative impacts.
We see a potential decrease of human population till the year 2100 to about 4 billion people (ca. minus 50%).
The question is, are we as humanity able to act anticipatory, forward looking, and with solidarity to the weakest before or after (the most probably) greatest humanitarian catastrophe in history and how can we speed up the transformation away from fossil fuel (coal, oil & gas) and meat production?
Based on our current understanding, we will not be able to reduce annual GHG emissions the way we would need to stay “safe” or to have global warming, climate change, and the loss of biodiversity “fully under control” (annual GHG emissions minus 43% till 2030, minus 100% till 2050 based on IPCC).
To produce more impact, speed up the transformation, potentially save (not thousands, not millions, but) billions of lives, a global democratic vote on climate actions is most significant (and also one big step towards a “Global Democratic Republic”) in our view.
The majority of the people sadly did not much care about COVID-19 until they actually saw the dead people and/or experienced suffering on their own and/or even death within their family and/or with friends or know people.
We pledge for a global direct democratic vote on climate action with potentially 5,4 billion people (ca. 67% of world population) participating
With global warming, climate change, and the loss of biodiversity this awareness is in most parts of the planet still not there, the majority of the people still do not feel a “real threat” from global warming, climate change, and the loss of biodiversity. The development with global warming, climate change, and the loss of biodiversity is slow, inert, and very hard/not actually predictable and thus most dangerous since human perception is mostly trained to react on current, short-term stimulations, otherwise there is e.g. cognitive dissonance, suppression or groupthink activated.
To actually boost the awareness for global warming, climate change, and the loss of biodiversity and thus boost the transformation, we pledge for organising a global direct democratic vote on climate actions. To do so, we see the demand to better transfer scientific insights to the (common) people, best within a broad, open, plural, and global democratic debate.
We know, after having widely disciplined and quantified science, liberalised media, and commercialised politics, this sounds at least “very difficult”. IPCC reports can make a significant contribution to that. IPCC can become “intergovernmental and trans- & interdisciplinary”.
Within a democratic decision making, everyone is the decision maker, every person has the same power. That is the “beauty of democracy”. One person, one vote, no matter e.g. what education or nationality, if we think it globally.
A good global direct democratic vote on climate actions demands (1) to enable the people to make up their own opinion. This is – we admit – the very difficult upcoming task for IPCC reports in our view.