JB
That link to the Big Ideas doesn't work, can you track it down again and repost?
.......................
[Quote]"..for others their present is so dire, they cannot invest into their future, and as such do not have one."[Unquote]
The phenomenon to which you refer can be summed up by Hardin's "Tragedy Of The Commons", the premise by which individuals will, through their own *unregulated* actions, render their future meaningless or fruitless, as opposed to meaningful and fruitful, due to making self-interested rather than altruistic decisions.
I must take issue with you over the statement -
[Quote] "Taxation should only be to benefit it's own citizens, the group of people that pay them, and not to profit off-shore citizens." [Unquote]
This is a populist misconception of the purpose of taxation.
The purpose of taxation is to provide the representative elected government with sufficient revenues to address issues relevant to the population *and their interests*.
This latter is very important, and topical, because it provides a framework for the moral dilemma that underpins the misconception.
For example, as has been discussed in the media recently, should we [Australian taxpayers] be funding schools for Muslim children in our near neighbour Indonesia, rather than using those funds to assist those people in OUR country who have recently suffered mishap or disaster, such as Lockyer Valley or Yasi victims.
Note MY emphasis on the MORAL angle.
We fund schools in Indonesia so that children attend these schools (which have a less fundamentalist curriculum) rather than attending purely Islamist schools, many of which will not teach women and which teach racial and religious hatred.
We have a treaty arrangement, or an "agreement" with the Indonesian govt to do so, as we see it is in our *long term best interests* to be encouraging such radical concepts as the schooling of women in our near neighbour.
Q1: Should we now renege on that formal agreement?
Q2: Should we forsake the opportunity to influence the learning and future feelings of potentially dangerous radical Islamic elements, just for the short-term ability to feel good about being able to better help our own fellow countrymen?
This latter is what's known as a trolley question, where there are two bad outcomes to a choice between two decisions - what used to be known as the 'dilemma of the lesser of two evils'.
Us-resident Australian moral philosopher Peter Singer uses this argument to demonstrate the difference between "evolutionary" and "reasoned" responses to trolley questions here:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2011/03/01/3150697.htm
[Thanks, rockabye, for the link, very interesting presentation]
In short, the 'knee-jerk' response - look after our own in preference to 'the other' - is the *evolutionary* (or irrational) response. Way back in the mists of time, this behaviour became ingrained in our psyche and nowadays leads us to form moral judgements which may no longer be appropriate, given the change in circumstances and relationships over time.
The *evolved* (rational) response is that this particular moral dilemma, like the trolley question, is not so easy to determine. But clearly we must - morally - do both, in this case, and also assist those in Christchurch.
Did anyone but me notice how LITTLE we did for the victims of last year's devastating floods in southern Pakistan? Or did everyone's knees jerk in unison on that one?
Think about it....... 
I'm not so certain that all aspects of globalization are, per se, of necessity a *bad thing*.
Were we to accept that overly simplistic argument, then we would all be putting up tariff barriers (if not physical walls, a la Jerusalem and the West bank; USA/Mexico) and retreating in behind our *portcullis* to defend our own and keep out 'the other'.
One unfortunate consequence of this type of *evolutionary* response is that, like the tragedy of the commons, each nation would be free to exploit and pollute, with no restriction based on the necessity for international co-operation and trade agreements.
The *commons* of the planet would, eventually, be destroyed by each nations' own self-focused actions creating the over-consumption and over-pollution which would/will destroy the planet or at least make it unlivable for our species, never mind any others.
There are some who say this is happening anyway, and to a large extent I agree, but without globalisation and global trade, and global agreements on such things as whale fisheries, carbon pollution, water resource management, mineral extraction (inc oil) and so on, there would be no inter-connected web which would or could lead us to do things as individuals or as nations which are not necessarily the *best* course of action from a simplistic "utilitarian" view, but are more appropriate from an altruistic *longer term* view.
In short, global trade and globalisation per se are effectively forcing all of us to *better manage and regulate the commons*.
A form of what Tony Blair called 'communitarianism'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communitarianism
We still have a very long way to go, but a price on carbon is a step in the right direction.
As to the notion that a fossil-based economy has to cease if we implement the BZE proposal or something like it is a fallacy, or at least misguided.
If, once we commit to our "Big Mac, movie ticket and choc-top" solution to RE in this country, we also barred all use or production of fossil fuels or products based on them, this would be unwise and potentially catastrophic as S2S has suggested.
We need to transition the ENTIRE society, not JUST the "economy" away from the "unregulated and unsustainable over-consumption" model to one based on harmonisation of what can be achieved quickly with what will take longer to achieve, towards eventual "sustainability".
Switching from coal-based power to RE is (relatively) simple utilising a plan like the BZE one.
But transitioning from a society in which cars, trucks, ships, planes, plastic packaging, fuel and mineral oils, dyes, paints, inks and so on are derived from fossil products, would be a much bigger step.
EVs will help with personal vehicle fuel consumption, as will hybrids, initially.
Vegetable based dyes can be a solution to oil-based, and there are paints based on natural and sustainable materials.
Coal is the biggie as far as carbon pollution is concerned, and THAT is what we need to focus the majority of our energies on reducing right now, but without losing sight of the bigger picture in which these other areas also need to be addressed.
It is not JUST an economic issue, but one which has a not insignificant MORAL element.
But this *moral element* must also needs be a *rational/evolved* response rather than the *irrational/evolutionary* response we so often see from self-interested commentators like the Alan Joneses of the world.
