This is not just a planet that is hotting up, is all the debate about global warming. Especially now that we see and feel its consequences every day. However, you have probably noticed that when it comes to action, the focus always seems to be what each of us can do personally. We humans need to use energy saving bulbs, fly less, recycle, use green energy, our equipment out of the reception, and so on. But perhaps, like me, these entreaties to leave one feeling a little ripped off. Perhaps you, too, are wondering what part of the business, industry and governments have to play? It is certainly true that there are things that citizens can and should do, but certainly very significant reductions in the end depend on, for tough international legislative measures. Ultimately, if personal responsibility is all you ever needed to solve the problem, though the political system and government invented the first place? Once we take individual actions, do you? Or is there more to be done? What really seems to be a way to act collectively to ensure that governments around the world begin to cooperate in addressing global warming instead of talking more hot air, while planet burns. In his film, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore rightly points out that collective action depends on political will, but it is said, is retail. Right again! Reasons for their absence, he suggests, it is not just short-term interests of major polluting nations and their industries to take significant action. So far so good, but the cartoon image that he uses to hammer home his point is a regrettable: a pair of gold bars weighing on one side and the entire planet to the other side. Gore used to prove the absurdity of those who see economic prosperity and a healthy planet as either / or choice: after all, what value gold bullion may have if there are no habitable planet in which to enjoy them? This is obviously ridiculous, and so much, Gore suggests, is a reluctance to give some gold bullion. But rather than make fun of those who fear for their short-term interests, should not be trying to look at what may be their point perfectly legitimate, and try to understand the forces that would be important? Gore may be the real face of global warming inconvenient, but he has yet to face other unpleasant truth: that strong action by rich countries will have negative economic consequences, at least within short. And if global warming is addressed in isolation, these costs fall hardest on the U.S. and other major pollutants. withheld obstacle to action following short-term costs and limits are, as Gore seems to fall into the same trap as those who deny global warming itself. I laughed along with everyone else when I saw the gold in the country compared to the cartoon, but making fun of those who are wary of economic response is likely to be difficult to draw Gore seeks consensus. It also looks like a cheap shot when you bear in mind that Gore actually becomes president in 2000, it will inevitably be joined with those who are poking fun at. President of the United States has only four years before facing another election, so Gore’s popularity and mandate of the office will be directly influenced by its corporate donors and their support for short-term benefits for the U.S. economy. Today, there may be some people who are still denying global warming. However, knowledge and acceptance can not affect change themselves. What is urgently needed is a tool to unlock short-term obstacles and constraints that prevent decisive collective action – nationally and internationally. Make no mistake: in today’s globalized world, and greatly limits, capital and labor in general to move anywhere in the world of environmental and social costs are lower and therefore more profit. Any movement of the first government to substantially increase the costs of environmental protection or other regulations in an effort to reduce emissions will definitely see new investment and jobs moving elsewhere, making the country uncompetitive. So nothing changes, except the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases. Prime Minister Tony Blair at least seemed to recognize such realities when he said “opened truth about climate change policy is that no country will want to sacrifice its economy to meet this challenge.” [I] Unlike Gore, Blair clearly recognizes this fact and it is inappropriate to blame the states. But his statement only if countries do not act together. This is a major gold bearing bars firmly on one side of the scales. However, if all countries cooperate, the necessary legislation can be done without fear of capital flight and work, because there would be no shelter at low cost to run it. Corporations will also have reason to fear, because all corporations will be subject to the same additional costs, so maintaining their competitiveness relative and relative profitability. Think about it for a minute. But there is a further problem: the biggest polluter, the United States will have higher costs of adjustment, so that at least has an incentive to sign any cooperation agreement. This is why the Kyoto protocol is not supported by the United States and Australia, another big polluter. This is also the reason why the Kyoto agreement are so soft and relatively unsuccessful. Because if the nation supports the Kyoto curbs agreed more important, would not cost competitive with countries such as USA and Australia, who refuse to participate. The net result is a recipe for missed objectives and intergovernmental dead-lock type that raises the third, final and most inconvenient truth, this time he has to do not so much that government and businesses, but each of us as individual citizens . It is true that all citizens around the world urgently needs to take on board: we can not give up responsibility for the collective performance of politicians and government itself. If the government free-riding will be forced to cooperate, then it should be people who force them to do so. We have no choice but to take the initiative and stop assuming that politicians in the top of the global economy. It’s time to grab hold of the wheel and to find a way of running our politicians and government to cooperate. What is needed is a way to achieve co-operation that removes obstacles and challenges, take away the fear of not competing, and they fear that replaces an enthusiasm for solving common problems. When Al Gore became fully aware of the risks of global warming, he traveled to gain a deeper understanding of science and real world effects, and justified (though I personally hope that he planted more trees offset emissions carbon). However, Gore and the rest of us so far failed to enter another, more urgent line of investigation. If we really want to solve global warming and other global problems, it is necessary to gain a deeper understanding of the barriers to collective action on globalization. For the deeper truth is that global warming and many other global “problems” are not real problems at all. They are only symptoms, but a daunting, and our global human society is a failure to cooperate. While we understand the dynamics of cooperation and how to achieve, and what we as citizens can do to unlock the barriers to, international inaction, missed the target and deepen the chaos will continue and global warming could destroy human civilization. At the same time policy, global citizen initiative, claims to have started this journey and provide a vital friendly and effective way that citizens can exercise their right to vote in a new way to drive all politicians parties and nations to collectively implement the measures we so sorely needed. It seems that political representatives would be welcome relief to be freed from restrictions that keep them bound to the interests of big business and too limited to inappropriate policy dictates that the needs of their peoples “internationally competitive”. This is already reflected in the fact that politicians from different sides of the spectrum – nationally and internationally – are pledging their support for the Simultaneous Policy as a result of pressure from voters and / or enlightened social responsibility. Check it out for yourself at www. simpol. org – as Noam Chomsky commented: “What can we do? It’s certainly worth a try hard!”