Organization of the willing to tackle the challenges of the many.

Earth System Governance

Short-terminism. It is one of the hurdles that we must overcome to succeed in Earth System Governance. As pointed out by Professor Biermann [1], the global challenges that we face, are interdependent temporally and spatially. Addressing them requires investments to be made, the benefit of which will not return directly to the original investors. These investments are of unprecedented scale. The most extreme example is perhaps the energy transition, which requires investments in renewable energy sources of 2.1 trillion USD annually by 2050, and total energy expenditure over 3% of the world’s GDP [2] [3].

Currently, many governance solutions are under investigation to address our global challenges. For example, Prof. Biermann proposes various changes and new additions to the UN system, including a World Environment Organization comparable to the current World Trade Organization, and a World Environment Fund. Practice, however, learns that states remain the most influential actors, and that these prioritize domestic interests over global interests [1]. Although there are other problematic aspects in our current international political systems, I do believe that this one is key. Intergovernmental organizations (like the UN) lack the sovereignty to solve potentially catastrophic global challenges at the cost of domestic interests. Yet, the nations who make up these intergovernmental organizations are unwilling to surrender a sufficient part of their sovereignty.

This deadlock can be broken. A group of people must be identified, which together wield sufficient resources to take on the challenges we face. And this group must be organized in way that creates sufficient legitimacy and sovereignty. That way, their capital can be invested in a coordinated manner, on the required scale. I believe such a group exist, and that they are willing to be organized.

As the mandate for this competition is “doing business as unusual”, I will not aim for a solution along the lines of existing academic studies, or consider circumventions of the problem, such as the linking of long term investments to short term profits. Instead I will consider a radically different idea: organizing a small but resourceful demographic group, using the concept of a global stateless nation (GSN).

Willing to Invest

Who belongs to this resourceful minority? They are the people with abundant resources to address their higher needs, as defined in Maslow’s famous pyramid. As an illustration I take myself, a PhD researcher working to realize fusion energy on earth (which is a long-term effort in itself). The salary for this job is average for a Dutch household [4]. Yet, I can easily provide in all of my basic needs, and still afford some long-term investments that are likely not returned within my lifetime. In the Netherlands for example, I can choose my own electricity provider. I have chosen to purchase sustainably produced electricity at slightly higher cost (so called “green electricity”). About 70% of Dutch consumers choose likewise [5]. Though food must be put on the table first (so to speak), it is certain that a demographic group exists, which is willing to make the long-term investments needed to tackle global challenges. This group contains some billion dollar wielding philanthropists like Bill Gates, but far more people like myself! Let us from here on refer to this group as “investors”.

The next question is whether these investors, match up to the challenges we face? For the sake of argument, I will take income to be synonym for the ability to fulfill Maslow’s basic and higher needs. With myself as the lower bound, there is roughly 5% of the world population that has as much income to spend as me, or more [6]. Moreover, income is distributed unevenly. The top 5% population could be estimated to control in excess of 30% of the world income [7]. Though the level of inequality in the world is highly questionable, recall that we need around 3% of world GDP to tackle problems like climate change. The top 5% of the population needs only to redirect part of its spending to make an extremely relevant investment.

Would this be fair to ask of them? Perhaps it is. It is argued in public debate, that the wealthiest among us also contribute the most to e.g. the climate crisis. Personally, I think there also exists a moral obligation, and many of our “investors” might agree with that. An outcome of this debate are the “common but differentiated responsibilities” defined in principle 7 of the Rio Declaration (1992) [8], and similarly before that in principle 23 of the Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment (1972) [9]. Though these declarations apply to nations, the principle might be even more fitting for individuals. We must all contribute solving our global problems, however, contributions should be differentiated based on responsibility and capability.

The Need for Organization

If a resourceful group of investors exists, and they are willing to tackle global challenges, why haven’t they done so yet? Quite possibly, they lack the capacity to spend their capital effectively (e.g. time to carefully consider their spending might be limited). Let us return to the example of “green electricity” in the Netherlands: Despite the fact that about 70% of the population is buying this product, the Netherlands is far behind Western Europe when it comes to the actual share of renewable energy in gross final energy consumption [10]. This seems contradictory. A partial explanation lies in the fact that the Netherlands employs a system of certificate trading, which allows electricity suppliers to sell “green electricity”, which is in reality not renewable at all. Regardless of how this odd situation came to be, the point is that this is a rather complex and non-transparent situation. The majority of the consumers might not even be aware of this problem. And if they are, they do not always have the time or knowledge to get to the bottom of it. They lack the capacity to invest their capital as they originally intended.

The complexity involved in investing ones capital effectively, or worse, the absence of investment options, is in many cases keeping us from making the long-term investments that we want to make. Moreover, one has to process and judge a wealth of information before it becomes clear which global challenges should be addressed in the first place. Even the existence of manmade climate change, for instance, is sometimes still debated. In sum, making long-term investments and contributing to solutions for global challenges, involves more complexity than the majority of people can be expected to deal with.

An organization is needed that can overcome these hurdles, and help us re-organize our spending. This role is much like that of intergovernmental bureaucracies who support developing countries with administrative capacities. E.g. the offices set up in the developing world by the World Bank, the UN Development Programme, and the UN Environment Programme, to deal with ozone layer degradation [11]. A multitude of other possibilities can be envisioned. However, I here choose to discuss a novel type of organization, which is perhaps most ambitious to achieve, but which I believe can overcome the problem of sovereignty: the global stateless nation.

The Global Stateless Nation

Let us first define what this Global Stateless Nation (GSN) exactly entails, before we discuss why it needs to be a nation, and how it should be organized. A GSN would be an international treaty organization, similar to the United Nations and many others. Except, a GSN treaty would be ratified by natural persons directly, rather than by nations. Thus making it more of a “United People” than a United Nations. These people should consist of at least the long-term investors we identified earlier, from all around the world (hence “global”). But membership of this GSN should be allowed and affordable for anyone. This would create an organization similar to the UN on the one hand, but similar to a nation state on the other, because it is directly empowered by its members. Or perhaps better: its citizens.

Why do we need to organize our group of investors in the form of a nation? As pointed out by Prof. Biermann: effective global governance requires existing nations to partially surrender their sovereignty. Sometimes global interests must come before domestic interests. I argue that this implies that any new organization must therefore have sovereignty of its own, if it is to be successful. This is in principle not achievable for any legal entity registered in an existing nation, nor is it easily accomplished by intergovernmental organizations, because they are legitimized only by the goodwill of the nations. This issue is clear in the UN. Nations are reluctant to give up their sovereignty and cling to inefficient unanimous decision making, rather than majority voting in some form, or they refuse to take part in important treaties, such as the Kyoto protocol.

A GSN could achieve sovereignty. First, because if 5% of the world population puts their trust into a single GSN, it would rank as the third largest country in the world by population size. If only 2% joins it would be the 9th largest. Second, because a GSN pursues widely recognized morally justified causes. If a GSN is then organized such that it is fair, transparent, and accountable, these factors would create irrefutable legitimacy. Moreover, if a GSN is efficiently organized, it can wield considerable influence. Existing nation states would have to recognize the GSN, and thus sovereignty would be created. This is further reinforced by the fact that the population of a GSN, remain citizens of their original nation states.

One or multiple GSNs could be founded. The goal of all of them would be to facilitate longterm investments for any member, as determined earlier. To achieve this, it can be imagined that the GSNs establish their own legal framework. This will allow companies, non-profit organizations, et cetera, to register with a GSN, which can then provide quality control. Just like it is possible in any other country. I will not elaborate on the internal organization, but I would like to note that there is ample opportunity for innovation. First, the selection of leadership and decision making processes could be improved. This could create direly needed trust in the organization. After all, something must be changed to address senseless populism, and counter the declining trust that is disempowering longstanding European democracies [12]. Second, GSNs could provide scalability. What prevents a GSN from being legitimate on the high seas, or even outer space? Last but not least: technology could be used much more efficiently. In fact, the technology of today likely enables the existence of a GSN for the first time in history.

In the words of Charlie Chaplin

Cataclysmic global challenges can be overcome by the top 5% highest earners of the world. People in this demographic group can easily fulfill their basic needs (e.g the ones defined in Maslow’s famous pyramid), and can afford to worry about their higher psychological needs. Therefore, what makes this group so special, is that they may be prepared to voluntarily make the required long-term investments. Moreover, combined this group wields more than sufficient resources, even to tackle challenges of a scale never seen before, like climate change.

An obstacle remains in their way though: effective investing. Triumphing over global challenges requires coordinated efforts on an equally large scale as that of the problem. Yet, for many individuals it is already a complex business to redirect one’s own spending in the right direction. The immense amount of information available, on the nature of global challenges and the ways to address them, can be contradictory, overwhelming, and impossibly complex for many. This is only one of the reasons that people may be incapacitated to invest their capital for the greater good. For those who want it, this obstacle could be overcome by an organization which simply makes investing on the long term easier.

The concept of a Global Stateless Nation could be used to this end. One or more GSNs that work for the common good, can be ratified directly by like-minded individuals, instead of nations. This would create the sovereignty that states are unwilling to grant existing intergovernmental organizations. Effectiveness can be further enhanced, by taking the opportunity to innovate the internal workings and use of technology in GSNs, far beyond the known national governance models. To summarize in the words of Charlie Chaplin, let us “do away with national barriers”, and let us start working “for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness”.

Bibliography

[1] F. Biermann, Earth System Governance, MIT press, 2014, pp. 37–39.

[2] International Energy Agency (IEA), „World Energy Investment 2018,” 2018.

[3] DNV GL, „Energy transition outlook 2018,” 2018.

[4] Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CPS), „Inkomensverdeling,” 11 12 2018. [Online]. Available: www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/visualisaties/inkomensverdeling.

[5] Authoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM), „Energiemonitor voor consumenten,” 10 11 2017. [Online]. Available: www.acm.nl/nl/publicaties/energiemonitor-voor-consumenten-2017.

[6] Our World in Data, „Global Economic Inequality,” 10 2016. [Online]. Available: ourworldindata.org/global-economic-inequality.

[7] Internal Revenue Service (IRS), „Individual Income Tax Returns Publication 1304, table 1.4,” 2015. [Online]. Available: www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-income-taxreturns-publication-1304-complete-report.

[8] United Nations, „Report of the United Nations conference on environment and development, Rio de Janeiro,” 1992. [Online]. Available: www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm.

[9] United Nations, „Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm,” 1972. [Online]. Available: www.un-documents.net/unchedec.htm.

[10] EUR OSTAT, „Share of renewable energy in gross final energy consumption,” [Online]. Available: ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=t2020_31&plugin=1. [accessed 19 1 19].

[11] S. Bauer, „The influence of international environmental bureacracies,” in Managers of global change, MIT press, 2009, pp. 225–244.

[12] T. W . G. v. d. Meer, „Political trust and the “crisis of democracy”,” in Oxford research encyclopedias, 2017, p. 1.