Do Democracies Hinder Global Warming Solutions?

Question

In his book "The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy" the author states that climate change threatens the future of civilization, and humanity is impotent in effecting solutions

He gives credit to the Chinese who banned plastic bags and close factories by edict.

He sees global warming as a choice between "life or liberty" and suggests that an authoritarian form of government is necessary, but this will be governance by experts and not by those who seek power.

These experts than can use their authority to bypass populism and special interest group to enact laws that will protect the environment.

Do you agree with the authors premise that freedoms hurt the fight to protect the planet and would you be willing to give up some of your freedoms to end climate change?

Do you think there is some good with authoritarian dictatorship as long as they have the interest of the people in mind and not the goal of power?

Answer 1

No, I wouldn't give up my freedoms for one reason....

By the end of my lifetime I won't be dead because of global warming it won't take into effect at least before the total next group of people, they can give up their freedoms.

Answer 2

That's not necessarily a bad idea as long as those experts only had the authority to enact laws which would preserve the environment.

However, I think that would only become necessary if democracies first failed to preserve the environment on their own.  I assume the author's argument is that democracies have already failed to do so, but I think we haven't yet been given enough of a chance.

If at some point in the future it becomes clear that we won't be able to avoid catastrophic climate change without taking major steps, and democracies have failed to take action to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, then yes at that point it may be necessary to have some sort of authoritarian portion of government (not the entire government, however).

If I need to choose between the preservation of our society and democracy, I would choose preservation.  Particularly if the failure of democracy has made this choice necessary.  But we certainly haven't reached that point yet, and won't for a few decades.

Answer 3

The problem with the whole idea of giving up freedoms to end climate change is that it is a fallacy to think that we can stop the climate from warming or cooling.  

Never let anyone take away your freedoms without a fight in the name of progress, safety etc.  Even if the people involved have only the best intentions at heart there are many waiting in the wings to prey on our stupidity.  

Power corrupts and anyone who says differently is naive.

Answer 4

well, china's one child policy was 'a good thing' their stripping of indonesia's forests and economic imperialism in africa is 'a bad thging'; communist russia's old low efficiency very dirty and wasteful industrial complex was 'a bad thing', cuba's organic green revolution makes them the only country in the world living withing their own footprint. so mixed results there already for the 'totalitarian' states.

russia's boreal forests dissapearing through illegal logging into china, the deserts of western china and mongolia spreading hundreds of kilometers every year, have been a result of 'free trade' activity after the old forestry and herding co-ops have been disbanded, so 'capitalism' obviously is not the best system in all cases either.

in my opinion, the best systems are ones that encourage people to feel 'ownership' and to participate fully in a scheme, especially ones designed on a local scale with the community's help and reflecting their needs and wants. i'm a hippy anarchist, so sue me. we will be the ones that make it through when 'society' collapses.

edit; typing a bit fast there, pet subject.

hundreds of square kilometers a year. the dust is terrible, blows all the way to peking.

Answer 5

I've lived in lots of countries (including the US) and I've reached the conclusion that I'd rather live in a tax haven than a democracy.

I know the virtues of democracy are really indoctronated in Americans from a young age - but would you miss it if it wasn't there?

(edit)  Just being honest Bob.  I honestly prefer not paying taxes to voting once every couple of years.  

It really was a retorical question as from what I know American culture and your education system, the value of democracy is really hammered home from an early age and is an object of national pride.

As an outside observer, all this national pride in democracy seems, well maybe a little bit hyped.  Not withstanding that your country seems to be run by campaign contributors, only 1/6th of Americans take the trouble to vote, which is pretty small on a world wide scale, Voting is compulsory in some countries.  In the US the two party system is entrenched and there is no point voting for a minority candidate.  All those people who voted for Ross Perot for example might as well have stayed in bed, because it just doesn't matter whether they prefered Democrat or Republican.  In other countries, if your 1'st choice doesn't get in, your 2nd choice counts as a full vote.

Which leads me to a question I sometimes wonder,  If democracy is so important, why don't you improve it?  It is important isn't it?  Would you miss it?

Answer 6

Words mean nothing to some people apparently.  "Spreading hundreds of kilometers a year".  I know the libs think they have a licence to exaggerate based on good intentions but please.  Words have meanings.  If it spread hundreds of kilometers a year, the world would be a desert.  But I digress.

Democrats never want solutions to global warming that don't involve socialism.  The proof is that they invariably are against nuclear and hydropower.  They killed nuclear and make it extremely difficult to build dams and anything else.  Their opposition to new refineries and coal is mostly to blame for why we pay $3.50 a gallon at the pump.

Answer 7

Pseudo Capitalist societies do.   If the companies weren't supported by tax dollars in so many ways they would find the most efficient ways of doing everything.   Move materials by train or barge until its close to the factory or store instead of trucking it thousands of miles on government built highways in wastefull trucks running on subsidized fuel.   Install skylights instead of running inefficient lights powered by a nuke plant subsidized by taxpayers throughout construction and decommissioning.    It doesn't matter what kind of government we have; if people don't care about the environment and only look forward for the short term they will never get very far ahead.

Answer 8

As long as we are recommending sources of farcical humour here, I can recommend an hilarious if somewhat bizarre fantasy movie, called "An Inconvenient Truth", done by that incomparable deadpan clown, AlGore.

Of course we all know what an environmental paradise China is and Soviet Russia was.  In China there is that project to preserve for prosperity the Three Rivers Gorge Ecosystem by protecting it with hundreds of feet of flood water and silt backed up behind a brand new Government Forced Dam.  Of course, that dam is generating thousands of kilowatts (when it is not broken, anyways) of clean environmentally friendly hydro power for the forced-labor camps all those evil Glopvernment Doctrine Deniers are being worked to death in.

In Russia, you have the wonderful Chernobyl Project, in which ramdom evolution is being helped along through promoting thousands of new mutations by bathing thousands of square miles of natural unmutated habitat with high doses of radiation.  This was falsely presented as an "accident", but of course, we who are hooked up directly to the Generic Lefterian THinkificator know better.

So, as you can see, since the democracies have done nothing but clean up a few thousand lakes, preserve a few endangered species, pass restrictions on whaling and little stuff like that, they have done nothing like the Enlightened Totalitarian Slave States have done for the planet.

Answer 9

Wait a second!  The Debate is Over!  The Crisis is Upon Us!  Devastation is imminent!  WE MUST ACT NOW!!!

But Dana, you say we got a few decades?

ROTFLMAO

Anyone find that peer reviewed science that proves that the sun warms us yet?

I think Hilary has all the answers, so long as she can avoid dodging bullets in Bosnia and such.

Answer 10

That's what it's all about.  It (Global warming mania) is a move to destroy capitalism and move us toward totalitarian socialism.

Answer 11

There are no Democracies in existence today.

People don't seem to understand that with Liberty comes Responsibility.

The author obviously is one of those people who think that "he knows best" and would like a Technocracy. He also holds China as an example of eliminating plastic bags, but they also mandate abortion for a family if they have over so many children. Some example.

If this type of government were the norm, all of the people who have any undesirable genes would be prohibited from having children. Ugly people would also be in that class. Unproductive or low IQ people would be isolated. People with genetic diseases would be isolated.

Please understand, there is no such thing as a good dictatorship. Now for your reading assignment, read 1984 by George Orwell.

Answer 12

No I don't agree with that assertion.  

-The Chinese banned plastic that could be recycled but how many trees are being chopped down for the alternative paper bags?  Yes you can also recycle paper bags however I believe recycled paper has more limitations than recycled plastic.

-Kim Jung IL (or whatever that nut jobs name is) is not a "global warming expert" so that point is not valid.

-No I am not willing to live under a dictatorship in ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, the point of democracy is that the people CAN have an opinion and effect change on climate change, many scientist say that the earth is going through a natural warming period anyway similar to the cooling period in the 60's.

-I would never think there is any good with authoritarian dictatorship, even if they are good to the people.  I think self-responsibility and self-actualization are important concepts which could never be achieved under a dictatorship or autocracy.

Answer 13

Authoritarian dictatorships DO NOT have the best interest of the people.  To many people believe that the American Constitution and the freedoms it grants it bad for the world.  These new age Socialist apparently do not know their history.  There has never been a successful socialist, communist, or Marxist society.  Under a government controlled society all free thought will be banned.  The people in power will do anything to stay in power.  Look at the plot of Star Wars Ep 3.  If you have expert scientist in power who is to saw that they will not lie and cheat to make sure they stay in power.

On climate change, the Earth's climate has been changing for millions of years.  Either we adapt to these changes or we become the extinct species.  Put look at our history man has always adapted to his surroundings

Answer 14

I perceive something in this argument.  In the past most environmental concerns impacted largely on companies (albeit they usually passed the cost onto consumers or alternatively lost business).  It was the will of the common man through the democratic system that forced industry to clean up its act with regard to many forms of air, water, land and noise pollution.  Often companies would fight tooth and nail to prevent these restrictions being placed on their operations often claiming for example that measures were not practicable or inordinately expensive.

In the instance of GW it is the common man who is being asked to consider the effects of his lifestyle in terms of carbon emissions and his reaction is often instinctively hostile (as was that of companies when they alone were mainly affected).  Who is there in a democracy to impose the changes that may be necessary, when it is the voters themselves upon whom the burden falls?

Answer 15

Not really.  They're a mixed bag in this.

By responding to the will of the majority, they respond to people who aren't experts.

But, a totalitarian form of government could just as easily go Exxon-Mobil's way as to follow the experts.  It would work well for them in the short run.

And democracy is just a good idea (I'd say a necessary one) in general.

So the real solution is to pursue a democratic solution by educating people.  That seems to be working.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/a...

I'm trying to do my part <grin>.

EDIT - Wow - I've never disagreed with Ben O so much in my life.  Leave the US for a "tax haven"?  Wow.  Talk about being driven by money.

If money is your motivation, you should be leading the fight against global warming:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6096...