How would we resolve an Earth encompassing decision? The startling consequence of ozone holes opening above the Earth’s poles led to an international cry for resolution. In just a short time the Montreal Protocol was put together to save the planet. However, this was apparently a one-time example of cooperation in response to an immediate crisis.

Typically governments have the duty to ensure the safety and well-being of their populace. We could argue that the United Nations has or should have the same duty of care for the Earth. This would make its leader the de facto world leader. Currently, the UN leader, the Secretary-General, results from a series of appointments and elections. Let’s imagine that this process is replaced by a democratic process whereby the leader was chosen by a vote from each of the 7billion people on Earth. For comparison, let’s look at the recent election of 2012 in the United States. There, the electorate of 315million people spent an estimated $6B to make a choice. A barrel of oil costs $86 and has 5.86e9 J of energy. Thus, each resident expended 1.3e10J to decide. Using the equivalency principle then to elect a world leader would require 9.09e18J. Or, an election to ensure our future safety would require 3% of current annual human energy consumption.

Human safety and well-being is a paramount concern. But can we justify this energy expenditure to choose a leader to make necessary decisions? Just imagine this effort needed to democratically select a singular human who will decide the future for our civilization.