But don’t you dare say that those pushing “climate change” are fascists or authoritarians or something
Is democracy hurting our climate change response?
“The strongest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter.”
This glib remark supposedly from Winston Churchill encapsulates a scepticism that many people have about democracies and their ability to respond to a crisis. Democracy, according to this view, is an endless meeting that provides everyone (regardless of their expertise or ignorance) an equal say.
The inefficiency of democratic governance in responding to crisis is acknowledged in the wartime practice of increasing executive power and suspending debate and ordinary decision-making mechanisms.
Following this example, a number of climate advocates have begun considering the benefits of greater centralisation in decision-making to mitigate the devastating scenarios offered by climate scientists.
For example, in an interview about her new book The Collapse of Western Civilization, Naomi Oreskes argued: “If anyone will weather this storm it seems likely that it will be the Chinese.” (snip)
Certainly, the climate crisis demands that we ask big questions about the nature and effectiveness of legal and governance structures. My own intervention into this debate asks that we consider whether it is democracy that is blocking progress on climate change or the current limited version of it that pervades Western society.
This is fundemental to most Warmists, who never seem to realize that these same restrictions will apply to themselves. Of course, the article writer, Peter Burden, who is, to be clear, referring primarily to Australia, cops out a bit
I think that the problem is unquestionably the latter. Put more directly, I contend that it is not democracy that stands in the way, but the dominance of money and corporate interests in politics.
And there we go: yet another far left complaint about money and corporate interests, forgetting that Warmists and their groups spend enormous amounts of money, much of it from government, in pushing “climate change”. They are, for all intense purposes, corporate interests.
As long as privileged elites are in control of governance, it will set policy in the special interests that is serves. However, the conditions of survival (let alone flourishing) require rational social planning that takes seriously the needs of the entire community.
Funny part is, this is exactly what Progressive and Warmist doctrine is about: privileged elites telling Everyone Else what to do, while doing everything different themselves. When these same elites passed “climate change” laws, cap and trade and such, in Australia, the people revolted.
You can tell, though, that Warmists are not particularly happy with Democracy.
Teach,
Your headline criticizes the author for complaining about democracy, but then you prove your own headline wrong halfway through.
Then you switch to complaining that the author is criticizing moneyed interests influencing our politics!
Monday morning links
Viking ‘ring fortress’ discovered in Denmark – Historians believe distinctive geometric fortresses may have been built by Sweyn Forkbeard as a military training camp from which to launch his invasion of England Tutenkhamun’s Knives The Geogr
Read it again, Jeffrey.
The Warmists really are complaining that the people are too stupid to do the “right thing”, but they shift that blame for that to the “monied corporate interests”. But what they are really saying is they want the authority to do what they think is necessary, the public opinion be damned.
So yes, they don’t want to deal with democracy when it becomes inconvenient for them, because they don’t agree with the majority, or as they probably put it, the majority doesn’t agree with them.
Democracy is only a good thing, according to them, when they have the majority.