Nico Stehr and Hans von Storch
Activist climate scientists and many other observers agree that the Copenhagen climate summit was a failure. In its aftermath, one issue which will be discussed intensively is the role of climate science in political deliberations about climate policy. Can science tell us what to do?
We can glean some insight to this question via the work of the renowned American economist and political scientist Charles E. Lindblom who studied interrelations between knowledge, markets and democracy. These interrelations are just as relevant today, but not just because of the serious effects of the recent financial and economic crisis.
As is well-known, the supposed virtues of a free market can easily be questioned. Many thoughtful and informed observers are skeptical toward unrestrained markets or are self-consciously opposed to the concept of a liberal market. The solution to financial crises is in their eyes, a fencing in of the market by the state and society.
Much less common, however, as Lindblom also stresses, if not taboo, is an open and explicit expression of doubt about the virtues of democracy, with the obvious exception of certain leaders of decidedly undemocratic nations. In particular, it has traditionally been the case that scientists rarely have raised serious misgivings in public about democracy as a political system.
But the times are changing. Within the broad field of climatology and climate policy one is able to discern growing concerns about the virtues of democracy. It is not just the deep divide between knowledge and action that is at issue, but it is an inconvenient democracy, which is identified as the culprit holding back action on climate change. As Mike Hulme has noted , it can be frustrating to learn that citizens have minds of their own.
Leading climate scientists insist that humanity is at a crossroads. A continuation of present economic and political trends leads to disaster if not collapse. To create a globally sustainable way of life, we immediately need in the words of German climate scientist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, a "great transformation." What exactly is meant by the statement is vague. Part, if not the heart of this great transformation is in the eyes of some climate scientists as well as other scientists part of the great debate about climate change a new political regime and forms of governance: "We need an authoritarian form of government in order to implement the scientific consensus on greenhouse gas emissions" according to the Australian scholars David Shearman and Joseph Wayne Smith their book The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy. The well-known climate researcher James Hansen adds resignedly and frustrated as well as vaguely, "the democratic process does not work". In The Vanishing Face of Gaia, James Lovelock emphasizes that we need to abandon democracy in order to meet the challenges of climate change head on. We are in a state of war. In order to pull the world out of its state of lethargy, the equivalent of a global warming "nothing but blood, toil, tears and sweat" speech is urgently needed.
Why such a radical political change at any price is deemed essential, and how is it feasible?
For one, various national and global climate policies seem unable to reach their own modest goals, such as those of the expiring Kyoto agreement. Add to those more and more robust findings about the causes and consequences of human-induced climate change and it seems that political action is incompatible with goals set forth by climate policy advocates.
These two factors have led to to a now clearly discernable skeptical attitude towards democracy among some prominent voices in the community of climate scientists and the science of climate policy.
Democracy, an emerging argument holds, is an inappropriate and ineffective political system to meet the challenges of the consequences of climate change in politics and society, particularly in the area of necessary emission reductions. Democratically organized societies are too cumbersome to avoid climate change; they act neither timely nor are they responsive in the necessary comprehensive manner. The "big decisions" to be taken need a strong state. The endless debate should end. We have to act -- that is the most important message. And that is why democracy in the eyes of these observers becomes an inconvenient democracy.
In another historical context, decades ago, Friedrich Hayek pointed to the paradoxical development that follows scientific advances; it tends to strengthen that view that we should “aim at more deliberate and comprehensive control of all human activities”. Hayek pessimistically adds “It is for this reason that those intoxicated by the advance of knowledge so often become the enemies of freedom”.
The growing doubts about the functionality of democracy go hand in hand with a further escalation of warnings about the apocalyptic consequences of global warming for humanity. The so-called Global Humanitarian Forum warns about in a 2009 report about 300,000 heat death losses a year and damages of 125 billion U.S. dollars. That these figures are nothing more than political arithmetic is easily overlooked, when they are used to justify comprehensive global policy action.
Without wanting to follow into the footsteps of the radical skeptics and alarmist: the emerging trend of emphatic criticism of democratic governance can not simply be ignored or considered as marginal voices to be neglected.
In order to understand the dissatisfaction with democracy among some scholars and experts we must understand the underlying dynamics.
First, we are informed that the robustness and the consensus in the science community about human-caused climate change has in recent years not only increased in strength but that a number of recent studies point to far more dramatic and long lasting consequences of global warming than previously thought. In such a circumstance, how is it possible, many scientists ask, that such evidence does not motivate political action in societies around the world?
Secondly, the still dominant approach to climate policy shows little evidence of success. One result of the current global recession may well be an unintended reduction of the increase of CO2 emissions. The worldwide reaction to the economic crisis, however, shows very clearly that governments do not conceive of a reduction in the growth of their wealth of their populations as a useful mechanism toward a reduction of emissions. On the contrary, everything is set in motion worldwide aimed at a resumption of economic growth. Jump starting the economy means the emissions will raise again.
Thirdly, the discussion of options for future climate policies support the impression that the same failed climate policies must remain in place and are the only correct approach; it is simply that these policies have to be become more effective and "rational". It follows that international negotiations must lead to an agreement for concrete, but much broader emission reduction targets. Only a super-Kyoto can still help us.
But how the noble goals of a comprehensive emission reduction can be practically and politically enforced remains in the fog of general declarations of intent and only sharpens the political skepticism of scientists.
The sum of these considerations is the conclusion that democracy itself is inappropriate, that the slow procedures for implementation and management of specific, policy-relevant scientific knowledge leads to massive, unknown dangers. The democratic system designed to balance divergent interest has failed in the face of these threat. According to New York Times columnist Paul Krugman all of this is about nothing less than a betrayal of the planet, and for his colleague Thomas Friedman, evidence that the authoritarian state of China presents a model to be admired and perhaps copied.
Fourth, in the architecture of the reasoning of the impatient critics of democracy, one notes an inappropriate fusion of nature and society. The uncertainties that the science of the natural processes (climate) claims to have eliminated, is simply transferred to the domain of societal processes. Consensus on facts, it is argued, should motivate a consensus on politics. The constitutive uncertainties of social, political and economic are treated as minor obstacles that need to be delimited as soon as possible - of course by a top-down approach.
Fifth, the discourse of the impatient scientists privileges hegemonic players such as world powers, states, transnational organizations, multinational corporations. Participatory strategies are only rarely in evidence. Likewise, global mitigation has precedence over local adaptation. "Global" knowledge triumphs over "local" knowledge.
Finally, the growing impatience of prominent climate researchers constitutes an implicit embrace of now popular social theories. We think in this context especially of Jared Diamond’s theories on the fate of human societies. Diamond argues that only those societies have a chance of survival which practice sustainable lifestyles. Climate researchers have evidently been impressed by Diamond’s deterministic social theory. However, they have drawn the wrong conclusion, namely that only authoritarian political states guided by scientists make effective and correct decisions on the climate issue. History teaches us that the opposite is the case.
Therefore, today's China cannot serve as a model. Climate policy must be compatible with democracy, otherwise the threat to civilization will be much more than just changes to our physical environment.
Nico Stehr, Karl Mannheim Professor of Cultural Studies, Zeppelin University, Germany Hans von Storch, Professor of Meteorology, University of Hamburg, Germany and Director of the Institute of Coastal Research, GKSS, Germany.
Note: A version of this post was published in Der Spiegel 29 Dec 2009.
55 comments:
Proponents of the AGW hypothesis, and I include scientists, publicly abhor democracy.
Pre-Copenhagen the AGWers were trumpeting China's efforts on mitigation and adpation.
Post-Copenhagen the AGWers now find fault with both democratic and authoritarian regimes.
Perhaps totalitarianism will have a certain appeal to AGW empire builders. After all slavery in all its forms has sustained civilisation both ancient and modern.
Nothing new. During Republican times, the Romans suspended democracy at time of crisis and appointed a dictator. The Dutch still do that when it floods.
It will take about a century to solve the climate problem. I suggest that we appoint Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber as our climate dictator. I understand he has a newborn son, so Schellnhuber Jr can guide us through the second half of the century.
Democracy can wait till the 22nd century.
There is nothing terribly new in the authoritarianism of the environmental science community. Ehrlich in 1968 was arguing that we must have population control, voluntarily if possible, by coercion if necessary. The schemes for population control he proposed and considered, first on his own, and later with John Holdren, look decided sinister to 21st century eyes -- sterilants in the water supply, coerced abortion, etc.. 40 years later, world population is generally regarded to be less pressing an issue, and the Ehrlich/Holdren proposals look grotesque. It is still decidedly worrying Holdren is now an influential US science advisor.
In an earlier era, a distressing number of scientists allied themselves either with Nazi-ism or with Soviet Communism. Among the former group were Nobelists Lenard, Stark, and Heisenberg. Scientists tend to gloss over the past dalliances our community has had with the most appalling political movements.
But in fact, the US instituted a perfectly functional environmental program at the federal level despite our supposed excess of democracy. Our air and water are far cleaner than they were in 1970. If anything, we are overzealous in banning substances suspected of carcenogenic or other noxious effects.
A welcome post. The insidious threat to democracy from those who insist they have the answer should not be ignored, whether it is in their disdain for public opinion or their argument for a new architecture in decision-making in future summits in the light of the failure of Copenhagen. The latter is thinly veiled code for imposing the will of the countries with the correct views on those who dissent.
Not only is this morally offensive it is self-defeating from a policy point of view as it would undermine any concerted international effort, which is supposed to be the point of summits in the first place.
I might be more inclined to pay attention to climate scientists if they could learn to site and calibrate their thermometers properly. Or adopted the scientific method (in re: transparency and replication).
I'd be more inclined to listen to their conclusions, if their use of computer models didn't violate the principles of forecasting. And if the studies they hype the most (Mann, Rahmstorf, Steig, Briffa, et al) didn't turn out later to be large piles of gobsmackingly inept crap.
And it might help their credibility a bit, if their key datasets were not amateurish messes of code, bereft of quality control, manipulated in secret, and maintained by doctrinaire extremists.
I am curious how these neo-authoritarians would go about choosing a dictator. I assume that the tried and true method of violant revolution is off the table which leaves us with some sort of vote which begs the question: what happens if the newly minted dictators are climate sceptics?
I am also curious how these neo-authoritarians would go about dealing with the court system which, by design, exists independently of the democratically elected politicians and would continue to protect the rights of individuals even if they are denied the right to vote.
Malcolm, I am a scientist and “proponent” of the AGW hypothesis. I am also a conservationist. I associate with many others like me. I know none that abhor democracy, even privately. Most support market economics.
One of the most unhelpful aspects of the climate debate (and virtually every other form of online political debate) is the sweeping assertions made by people of one mindset about what people of the supposedly opposite mindset think, do, or support. It really amounts to nothing more than mindless name calling, and is one of the principal reasons that the noise to signal ratio is usually so high in the commentary sections following otherwise sensible blog postings.
I suggest getting to know a few scientists and AGW “proponents”. You will almost certainly be surprised to find that your assertions ring hollow.
The old question "Do we reproduce because 'it feels good' or does 'it feel good' because it leads to reproduction?" has an enviro-political analog "Is authoritarianism being advocated because of a professed fear of global warming, or is fear of global warming being professed in advocacy of authoritarianism?"
Raven,
You are assuming that the courts are apolitical, which is as bad as assuming that scientists are apolitical. The EPA got its power to regulate carbon dioxide through a court decision.
-7-mazibuko
I agree with this: "One of the most unhelpful aspects of the climate debate (and virtually every other form of online political debate) is the sweeping assertions made by people of one mindset about what people of the supposedly opposite mindset think, do, or support"
At the same time, Stehr and von Storch are very careful in this essay to "name names".
A problem in the climate science community is not the general views of scientists, but the specific views of some very influential and prominent scientists.
While democracy may be failing to take the actions these specific scientists believe are necessary, democracy is doing exactly what it was designed to. If the public is adequately motivated against something (doesn't even require a majority), it usually requires negotiation and compromise to get laws passed. Democracy is, by design, not efficient. Also, I wonder if these people realize that this same democracy is exactly what keeps them employeed, despite the cries of those against them.
I'm not sure most of these scientists really think an alternative system is needed for the long term though. They just think things should be done they way they want. If the public doesn't want to they should be forced to. I think most people have some issues they, at least instinctively, think this way about. These high stakes involved in the climate debate just ratchets up the noise a bit.
The obvious problem with any autocracy is how do you ensure the leader or his successor continues to do what you want. Once we cross that threshold, peoples' opinions and scientific theories have no weight at all. Even in some form where a group of scientists choose the leader and policies, the power given to them would quickly corrupt their entire profession.
It's both the weakness – and the strength – of democracy, that "specific views of some" can become "influential and prominent".
Democracy works best when the people are well-informed – and have received an education sufficient to permit them to interpret the information they receive.
Until such a nirvana is reached, 'experts' – usually multiple layers of experts – have to act as intermediates.
Unfortunately, those journalists, bureaucrats and scientists who either choose – or are 'chosen' – to play the expert role, are often disdainful of the degree of disinterest and/or transparency required to fulfill that role in a democracy.
So democracies flounder – but slowly advance. Autocracies also fail – but more usually, catastrophically.
Virtually no one believes in unbridled free markets anymore, so what we have to learn – in order to avoid the otherwise inevitable Malthusian end – is how to MINIMALLY restrict individual freedom in order to attain sustainability. Science certainly must provide much of the required 'enlightenment'.
Climate science, as an imperfect 'democracy', is currently struggling – but advancing.
This is a thoughtful piece on a crucial topic. It seems, however, that the issue is being framed as a matter of being for or against something called "democracy," when actually democracy is constantly subject to debate and redefinition. Democracy does require public participation and the balancing of interests, but reducing it to those elements assumes a populist view of democracy. I don't think there is anything anti-democratic about scientifically informed public policies that represent long-term public needs, as long as policymakers consider public input and remain publicly accountable. Depending on how one defines democracy, climate policy arguably suffers from too little and not too much democracy.
Hi Roger, thanks for the comment. My issue wasn't with the article per se, rather with people commenting below.
I would like to say, however, that I doubt that a number of people named in this piece would in actuality advocate that democracy be abandoned in favor of some sort of autocracy that would allow effective climate policy to be enacted. I often express frustration with our governmental processes, and I can also see that the Chinese are very effective at mobilizing resources and setting policy to achieve large strategic objectives, but I certainly don't want to live under their form of government.
Thanks, and best wishes.
Look up the history of the Eugenics Movement in the early twentieth century. Compare and contrast the scary language used then about the future of humanity with that used by the most apocalyptic of the warmers today.
Churchill's country was in war with a very visible and real enemy when he was prime minister and he was the right man atr the right time. As soon as there was peace it was obvious that Winston was not the right man to lead a country in peace.
AGW advocates consider the World currently in war with Nature and are clearly abhorred with the democratic discussion re Climate Change, as much as Churchill was in time of war.
Except, in this case this war cannot be compared with WW2 but with the Iraq War when the people was clearly cheated with dis-information, lies and half truths with the argument of an imminent attack of an evil enemy.
Many sceptics doubted the necessary of the Iraq War as they are now with AGW. There are too much uncertaincies to believe that this Enemy really exists, not in the least because of the existance of the Intarnet with exchange of information at the speed of light.
I'm sure within a few years AGW will be considered as the Iraq War; an uneccessary and very expensive war where the first victim was the truth.
As always we learn from history that we don't learn from history...
The naming of prominent scientists who have publicly stated that democracy has failed or should be done away with simply cannot be ignored or swepted under the academic carpet.
They did not come to that view in splendid isolation locked away in an ivory tower. Their public display of hostilty to the democratic process could have only taken place with the support of fellow scientists of similar views.
This particular debate on campus was never about how to improve democracy in order to effect change. The problem as defined was democracy itself. How can their be goverance by experts when they are hindered by the ballot box.
I 'd like to draw attention to "Fifth, the discourse of the impatient scientists privileges hegemonic players such as world powers, states, transnational organizations, multinational corporations. Participatory strategies are only rarely in evidence. Likewise, global mitigation has precedence over local adaptation. "Global" knowledge triumphs over "local" knowledge.
My history of science class was in the early 70's so I am a bit rusty, but this reminds me of the class-based origin of the dichotomy between the so called "pure" and "applied" sciences- and a certain air that anything local or practical is not as good as something theoretical and general. Note the proportion of wildlife biologists and plant breeders on the
Climate science is generally derived from the physical sciences, so may have an internal and largely unsung bias toward the large, the general, the expensive computer runs and not so much the local, the participatory, the measures and culture of place-based societies and their environments.
Note the proportion of, say wildlife biologists or plant breeders on PCAST. Our science establishment seems more broadly to have a bias toward the financially remunerative, the theoretical, and the general.
Great example of fractal wrongness. Its wrong at every conceivable level of resolution. Zooming in on any part of their worldview finds beliefs exactly as wrong as their entire worldview.
Isn't just democracy or any form of government for that matter that is really an issue, it is human nature versus the reality of the situation humans face.
AGW believers and advocates are probably ok with any actions taken to mitigate and stop AGW up until they find out what that really means and entails. This blog for example and likley Mr Pielke's job would be gone, his way of life gone too. Every single person in the US would lose about 90-95% of the profligate energy consumption they enjoy today, that is of course if this was done globally and democratically with everyone suffering equally.
Not a single governmental system or economic system employed by man today has or will ever strive to live within the means provided by the natural resources available on this planet in a sustainable fashion. All are set up for infinite growth, this fails for obvious reasons.
Also like any other animal we also over populate and over consume to the point of famine, disease, war, and die off.......it is our nature, intelligence does not and never will negate this.
Having said all that, why is it people are still worrying about what form of government we have? Understanding the scope and size of what we are facing makes it a moot point. Human nature alone makes it so. You could convince everyone that AGW is valid, that is all well and good, take the next big step and look at what the cure involves and you lose everyone......people will take the short easy way and screw the future despite what that may hold.
Then keep in mind that AGW is for all practical intents and purposes determining causality from statistics, major major no no, this too is part of statistical science. Correlation is a poor predictor of causality, nature of the beast.
Environmentalism has been associated with progressive politics since (around) the early 1990's when disillusioned socialists saw it as an effective lever to bring capitalism under control.
However it is fundamentally conservative, seeking to preserve nature in a undamaged state. It was extremely popular in (ultra conservative) Nazi Germany and the British aristocracy. In fact most leading British environmentalists today are from the ruling classes (Monbiot, Viscount Poritt, Lord Melchit, Princes Charles and Philip)
Conservatism harks longingly back to pre democratic days when there were no masses and no mass market. These 'deep greens' see humans as a threat that has to be controlled. Those attitudes were prevalent in the Scottish. Green Party when I attended meetings. .
Editor of the Ecologist Magazin around which the Green Party formed, Edward Goldsmith was a brother of the very famous and incredibly wealthy James Goldsmith and close friend of John Aspinall, who planned the overthrow of the British state in the 1960s with the infamous Lord Lucan and wished to see the elimination of 3.5 billion people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Aspinall_(zoo_owner)#Politics
There were on the very extreme right and in the same circle as James Lovelock (quoted in the article for his impatience with democracy).
The New right (Aspinall and Lovelock) - Google books.
James Goldsmith's son Zac writes articles for the Guardian(!) and succeeded his uncle Edward as Ecologist editor, will almost certainly be a British Conservative MP within a few months, and quite possibly a government minister.
The appeal to absolute authority of nature seems very common and incredibly dangerous. I have never understood the motivation of James Hansen. He has said some very extreme things over the years
Freeman Dyson is an eminently credible observer.
Freeman Dyson is strongly critical of Hansen's climate-change activism. "The person who is really responsible for this overestimate of global warming is Jim Hansen. He consistently exaggerates all the dangers... Hansen has turned his science into ideology.” Dyson "doesn’t know what he’s talking about", Hansen responded. "He should first do his homework
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Charges_of_censorship
Hansen's aggressive, sneering reaction is often seen around Realclimate, run by Hansen's junior at NASA GISS, Gavin Schmidt.
Malcolm, you are making a largely unsupported assertion about scientists' hostility to democracy. The post in question only mentions three people who have actually called for democracy to be abolished (Shearman, Smith, Lovelock). One (possibly two) of them (Smith) isn't even a scientist.
That others express frustration with democracy is not the same as calling for an end to democracy. After all, it is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time. Is shouldn't be surprising that people get exasperated by inaction on something they consider important.
Look at the current low approval ratings for Congress and other government institutions. Quite probably a result of the democratic process not behaving as most people would like it to (which is to attend more closely to their particular interests). Does this mean that all those disgruntled citizens want to dismantle our institutions and replace them with something better? I doubt it.
All forms of govt have strengths and weaknesses, the weakness of democracy is it is slow and inefficient at dealing with crisis and long term planning. It tends to react and overreact way too late and only when a serious crisis is in its face so to speak. Climate change is a slow moving phenomenon comparatively from man's perspective.
Take Cuba and North Korea circa 1991 as examples: one starved briefly and went on an organic farming crash course and now is doing quite well, the other tried to maintain the status quo and is failing and still starving. Both had communist govts, one a bit more authoritarian to be sure and much more top down with a massive bureaucratic class. In either case the needed changes were mere orders away from happening, one made the right choice one didn't, both had the same basic choice. Oil cut off with 30 days notice and deal with it and fend for yourself without much help from other nations. Would a democratic Cuba do as well in the same position? Not likely, does it matter in the context of climate change and the myriad of all the other problems humans and nations face? Nope, you deal with the hand you have not the one you'd like to have. Don't have to be a scientist to understand the various attributes of govt systems and styles but let's all be honest here, dictatorship done well is the quickest most efficient method of dealing with stuff like this. It does not exist however and likely won't. If man wants to come out of this relatively happy and intact he better wake the hell up and learn to cooperate for the greater good, having been around 1000's of years though he hasn't, seems a bit of a stretch to expect it now.
George Monbiot is very explicit about the threat of Edward Goldsmith and the resurgence of neo Nazi elements within the environmental movement in Europe.
I believe this is a much bigger threat than most people imagine, because it is hides itself behind establishment respectability.
Black Shirts in Green Trousers
By George Monbiot, April 30, 2002
The far right is moving in, and greens and globalisation campaigners must do more to shut it out. The BNP is not the only force on the far right which now describes itself as “the true green party”.
...
The previous editorial team (of the Ecologist) split with its founder Teddy (Edward) Goldsmith after he addressed a meeting of the hard right Groupement de Recherche et d’Etudes pour la Civilisation Europeene.
Goldsmith, whose politics are a curious mixture of radical and reactionary, has advocated the enforced separation of Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda and Protestants and Catholics in Ulster, on the grounds that they constitute “distinct ethnic groups” and are thus culturally incapable of co-habitation.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2002/04/30/black-shirts-in-green-trousers/
I think the problem with describing China as a technically competent authoritarian government is that it is practically the only example of such a system. It is true that there Politburo is dominated by engineers but it would be hard to find another authoritarian government with a similar system. A common case of how authoritarian governments behave is right next door in North Korea where most of the people are starving to death.
What I see in United States is a government dominated by lawyers who do not have the technical background to understand the problems they are dealing with. Congress continually shows a lack of scientific understanding and even basic mathematical skills to write useful legislation on climate problems. Even simple algebra seems beyond the capability of most members of Congress. A lack of understanding of science puts Congress at the mercy of every plausible sounding lobbyist that comes along.
It seems to me, that the solution is not the elimination of democracy, but encouraging more scientists and engineers to run for public office. I'm reminded of the old joke about the man who prays to God every night to win the lottery. Finally he asked God, "God, why have you not answered my prayers?" and a voice spoke down from the heavens, "Could you meet me half way and buy a lottery ticket?". How can the electorate make the correct choice when people who understand science don't even run for public office?
Interesting, I agree that many in the more alarmist camp have adopted a highly deterministic approach to social theory-which then informs the prescribed political solutions and actions.
http://darcymeyers.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/the-limiting-assumptions-of-climate-determinism/
I think the assumptions that only authoritarianism can combat such a challenge is highly pessimistic and is the same type of social reasoning that was discredited last century - by the abuses of policy guided by such determinism.
Today, we see this creeping in the form of admiration of china and population control-whereas last century it was segregation or eugenics. Extreme to be sure-but that is the level those at the extreme alarmist level are heading...
Is democracy, the latest incovenient truth?
What values do democracy and science share and observe? I would argue very little.
The Climategate emails give us a good insight in how groups of scientists take control and deal with those who hold opposing views or have enquiring minds.
Governance by experts, which is what the environmental movement desires, would knowingly destroy the democratic process.
Ordinary people have the ballot box to get rid of failing politicians. How do we get rid of failing scientists, the so called experts?
Maybe all that is necessary to clear up the confusion is for today's "scientists" to include "political" in their descriptor. Expectations would be calibrated accordingly.
I still like W.F.Buckley's opinion on government by experts:
"I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University."
Hmm, I think another Churchill quote is in order:
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried".
Activists like Hansen often start questioning democracy when they don't get their way.
It is hardly worth pointing out all the bogus arguments:
* More people die from cold weather than hot.
* The arguments have got weaker not stronger (no warming in the last 10 yrs, climategate).
Fortunately, democracy is not really under threat, and polls show that more and more people are realising that climate change is over-exaggerated, and this is likely to increase as the extremists become more hysterical.
Reading this all I can think is "everything old is new again." We, as a civilization have been down this road before. The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw the rise of many anti-democratic movements that drew upon the prestige of the sciences for their legitimacy. Social Darwinists often argued against the equality implicit in democratic governance as leading to inefficient/wasteful use of resources. Later, generations of eugenicists argued that a "racial crisis" demanded the suspension of democratic liberties in the name of "public hygeine." (One can think of the infamous declaration of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. "Three generations of imbeciles are enough" in Buck v. Bell (1927) as summing up the American version of this madness.)
Guiding lights in the "softer" sciences (economics & the social science) such as Charles Merriam in the United States and Vilfredo Pareto in Italy taught that democracy was largely a sham, and reduced the political to being a question of social control of the masses by the elite via any means necessary, be they the proposed use of psychpharmological measures to "subdue" the greater part of the populous, or the embrace of fascist thuggery.
The same "arguments" being trotted out now about the "ignorant voters" are exactly the same ones that were trotted out to deny the franchise to the non-propertied, women, ethnic or racial minorities, etc., since at least the 17th Century in England (see Edmund Morgan's "Inventing the People" for an overview of the early arguments). And the intent was always the same; to protect aristocratic/elite privilege.
"Governance by experts, which is what the environmental movement desires..."
Malcolm, I remain curious as to how you are qualified to speak for the entire environmental movement. Do you have some secret document representing the views of all environmental and conservation groups and interested individuals?
You might also be interested to learn that the overlap between the two groups you constantly refer to--environmentalists and scientists--is really not that big.
But then your postings here are symptomatic of one of the other annoyances of the climate (and other political) debate: few people seem to let evidence inform or contradict their pre-conceived notions. The evidence that is accepted is usually carefully selected to bolster one's perceptions.
Joel Upchurch
The brutal and tyrannical reign of research scientist Margaret Thatcher should be a warning to the world about political scientists. Leaving aside that she put global warming on the world political stage and created the Hadley Centre.
An occupational hazard for scientists is the business of absolute write and wrong. The theory is correct or it isn't. She accepted no advice and ruled the country and her colleagues with an iron fist. She knew she was right and everyone else was wrong. More than that, they were naughty children who had to be put in their place.
Papers released under 30 year rule reveal full force of Thatcher's fury
Again and again her furious handwritten notes in the margins of the files reveal her impatience at the cautious approach of Whitehall and some of the "wets" in her own cabinet. "This will not do" makes regular appearances, as does "too small" whenever public spending cuts are being discussed. She just as often responded with her blue felt-tip pen with the single word "no", heavily underlined.
More damningly, along with soul mate General Pinochet of Chile, she allowed University of Chicago economists lead by Milton Friedman to carry out a monetarist experiment with the UK economy. The result was a Hiroshima type destruction of British industry, followed by massive deregualtion of the City of London (Big Bang) that is the root cause of the current global depression. Unemployment and deprivation followed on a grand scale.
When confronted with the disaster years later, she replied "What's monetarism ? I've never heard of it". ! A failed experiment with people's lives we still live with today.
I have a science degree myself, by the way and am not completely blind to the benefits of people not having to work in steel factories or down coal mines.
Mazibuko:
So if you claim that you are not anti-democratic in virtue and somehow also harbor a belief that not all alarmist AGW proponent scientists are also like you, I have a hypothetical litmus test for you.
Can you conclusively prove that CO2 causes drastic global warming and yet stay out of activism stemming thereof? Without bringing in the conceit of geoengineering or other mitigation efforts into the argument?
In other words, can you stay detached if your findings show that the world is going to end?
Those who clamor for authoritarian modes of government due to anticipated global warming, are atleast being honest. What else apart from the absolute control over the way of life of every person on this planet do you think is going to take to bring down anthropogenic warming?
You misunderstand the essential nature of 'reasoned' scientific debate. Conclusions can be drawn slowly with many peer-reviewed papers and reviews, with much tempered and anemic language, but conclusions can be as deadly and repulsive coming from organized science as would see in vituperative blog comments.
The perceived "inconvenience" of democracy extends beyond the climate issue, and beyond "hard" scientists.
Especially in the EU, there's been a push towards increasing public participation in technical decisionmaking, including a lot of experiments with "citizen juries," "science cafes" and other types of public meetings. The social scientists who are setting up these mini-democratic processes tend to evaluate them as failures if they don't produce the answers the investigators think are the right ones.
Somewhat ironically, this stream of work tends to position itself as "critical"--the social scientists want the citizens to be objecting to & resisting the authority of the scientists. By contrast, in the climate change debate as Stehr & von Storch point out, citizens are being criticized for not respecting scientific authority enough.
You gotta feel sorry for those poor citizens.
Jim Burchfield of the University of Montana posted this in a blog on public land planning.. it is fascinating to me to contrast this view of the role of science in developing management actions compared to the above post, and other discussions we've had on the role of climate science in policy actions..
Check it out
http://ncfp.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/the-purpose-of-planning/
The US is a republic. Although based on democratic principles, it is not a democracy. The distinction is significant and important, despite the dismissive declarations of talking heads and rolling eyes. A democracy allows all eligible voters to vote directly on all issues. In a democracy, a population comprising a majority of wolves and a minority of sheep will likely decide that sheep will be the main course for dinner.
A republic, however, uses indirect voting to establish laws that apply to all equally, regardless of how the public may “feel” about any issue at any given moment. (Rule of law vs. mob rule.) In this regard, republicanism and the rule of law (the US Constitution) are eminently compatible with science as democracy is not (since not all can understand the intricacies of the science sufficiently well to vote knowledgably, but all can understand their legal rights and threats to them).
Regardless, the failure of COP15, has (temporarily) kept us from being taken over by a theocratic oligarchy (the religion of Gaia, with politicians as priests and scientists as deacons).
From Copenhagen: President Chavez brings the house down.
When he said the process in Copenhagen was “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really an imperial dictatorship… down with imperial dictatorships” he got a rousing round of applause.
When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.
Dear Arajand,
Thanks for your comments and questions. Let me try and address them.
You state that I "misunderstand the essential nature of 'reasoned' scientific debate..." I am not sure how you gathered that from my posts, which are focused on rebutting Malcolm's repeated and unsupported claims (echoed by many others throughout the blogosphere) that scientists/environmentalists uniformly think and act in a particular (in this case, anti-democratic) way. I make no mention of scientific process or debate.
Regarding the hypothetical litmus test, let me first say that I am not a climatologist, but rather a climate change impacts researcher. Secondly, your question really depends on what you mean by activism. If by activism you mean, would I recommend a particular management/policy response based on my research findings, then yes, I would and do. This is fairly common in science, particularly in the applied sciences. However, I take pains that my recommendations do not overstep the bounds of my findings.
"What else apart from the absolute control over the way of life of every person..?" How about a carbon tax or cap and trade, or even aggressive investment in alternative energy technologies (I believe the latter is recommended by Roger)? I see a solution where people pay more for energy in the short and medium term, with more economic opportunities being created in the long term. I am not sure why you see totalitarianism, but I suggest that your position is as alarmist as those who say that the future climate is going to be calamitous. In fact, this is an interesting aspect of this whole debate: climate alarmism is countered by economic/political alarmism. Reason is too often caught in the twain, drowned out by all the shouting.
Thanks for the back and forth.
Cheers, M
A "climate change impact researcher"! So mazibuko you are a "What if?" scenario expert.
So what if democracy fails to meet the challenge of climate change that your research highlights it must?
What is to be done?
Do we ditch democracy, overturn existing international rules and install a form of global governance led by experts that dictate to national governments?
Hi Malcolm,
I don't think failure to address the climate change challenge, any many other pressing issues, is the sole preserve of democracies. "Democracy" in any case encompasses a large range of governmental types.
If democratic governments fail, we could be in for a wild ride. However, my answer to your final (and what I take to be a somewhat-rhetorical) question would be "no". See my earlier paraphrasing of Churchill's line about democracy, which another commenter also posted.
Much has been written on this, but I believe humans are hard wired to react to immediate and obvious risks, which is why addressing climate change--the possible outcomes of which are not immediately apparent and surrounded by large error bars--is so difficult. That same human tendency manifests itself in all forms of governance, which are dominated by politics. Scientific recommendations, usually play second fiddle to politics when it comes to making policy, and I would bet that this is true under dictatorships too.
I will be happy to be corrected by political scientists on this, but I believe authoritarian governments are usually less stable than democracies, so a climate dictatorship would have a higher chance at being overturned thereby failing to achieve its main purpose.
So what is to be done? Hopefully, and I think things are moving this way, we put a price on carbon and innovate into new energy types. I believe that is the best we can aim for.
Here's a parting thought/scenario for you: assume that climate change hits the developing world hard, which will have an extra 2 billion people or so with in 50 years. Crop failure rates increase, demographic pyramids have wide bases with lots of unemployed young men. Immigration soars, security threats increase (thanks to all those unemployed young men).
If that scenario plays out, what are the odds that America (and other democracies) will become less open and democratic, and more of a police state?
Thanks, M
mazibuko,
A government that had complete control of access to energy would, in effect, be a hydraulic empire. Those tend to be very stable over time.
You make the mistake of thinking that the world's poor are on your side. They are not. For developing countries fighting poverty is far more important than fighting climate change. Copenhagen, surely, would have told you that. Your climate change impact scenario has no meaning if you and your family are already poor and are likely to remain so indefinitely. Your point of view is fundamentally flawed.
"...the sweeping assertions made by people of one mindset about what people of the supposedly opposite mindset think, do, or support".
So you are an expert who recommends action based on climate change, but yet you are conservationist and a proponent for democracy. Regardless of the more superficial political impulses that you may harbor, and I do not doubt your sincerity one bit in this argument, the underlying principles of AGW activism of any kind are certainly totalitarian. This certainly includes 'cap and trade', 'carbon taxation' and any other extortion methods to make money for unborn generations breaking the back of the present one.
You may claim that my rhetoric is inflammatory but it is only for effect. In summa, I am only saying 'each mind their own business' which is essentially non-inflammatory and certainly not in the least bit alarmist. Your 'long term' is not my long term.
You ask for aggressive investment in alternative technologies but yet most companies which are presently engaged in research or production of such technologies actively seek or already have massive government subsidies. Doled out from taxpayer money. The very money generated from human productivity using fossil fuels.
A honest alternative energy company would sell me energy without asking me for money (from my taxes). Anything else is totalitarian however subtle it might look.
Still not convinved? Look at your own example: "...Crop failure rates increase, demographic pyramids have wide bases with lots of unemployed young men. Immigration soars, security threats increase (thanks to all those unemployed young men)"
You say you share democratic impulses, but yet dont you find it strange to find yourself using fear-mongering tactics as above? How did that come about? Perhaps when you tried to foist your altruist recommendations on the rest of us and it wont go down convincingly without alarmist scenarios.
Therefore there is nothing wrong if we see someone peddling alarmist scenarios and infer anti-democratic tendencies.
Thanks
Anand
Hi Malcolm,
I don't recall claiming to know what the world's poor want. I personally know only a few of them, after all. Your claim to know what the poor want is again fairly sweeping. Certainly many of the poor are more concerned about poverty alleviation than reducing carbon emissions, but I think it is inaccurate to say that there is no concern amongst developing nations about climate change. Indeed, many poorer nations were agitating for much more help in mitigating its effects than developed nations were willing to give. South Africa is considered a developing nation, and has pledged emissions cuts. No concern?
My climate impact scenario has a great deal of meaning to anyone with an agricultural livelihood that is made even harder by greater climatic variability, new and exotic crop pests, not to mention malaria, etc, if those things should come to pass.
How about my scenario of increasing insecurity, partially attributable to climate change, reducing democracy as nations clamp down for safety's sake? I thought you might address it, rather than simply question my judgement.
DeWitt, fair point, but what sort of time frame for stability? A few decades, a century? I can't point to an analysis, but it seems strong men don't last more than three or four decades. China is still going strong, but they have had to fuse capitalism with communism in order to maintain power. I would contrast that with our relative stability since the end of the Civil War.
Sorry Anand to ignore you in the last. I was writing my last before yours posted.
Leaving aside your comment that my political impulses are superficial, I don't see how you think AGW activism necessarily equates to totalitarianism. Do you mean to suggest that any group of people with a common governance interest, and who recommend a particular policy response, are necessarily totalitarians? If so, then all those advocating healthcare reform, abortion restrictions, gay rights, or any other issue under the sun must be totalitarian. Do you advocate a radical individualism that proscribes people organizing political action in common interest groups?
Taking your last point about carbon taxes, etc. being extortion rackets against the current generation for future ones, let me turn that around: I am more worried that the current generation is living at the expense of future generations (including my own child).
Moving along to energy and taxation. Governments run by taxation, and constantly use the tax code to incentivize certain behaviors and create common goods. Much of the technology we currently enjoy and use to fuel private business was developed with taxpayer money (see ARPANET). That alternative energy is being subsidized to achieve parity with fossil fuels (which are, by the way, subsidized, and have many of their costs externalized)is far from unprecedented. I believe it is in the common good to develop those technologies (which should include nukes).
I apologize if you found my scenario to be frightening. I was putting it forward as a thought exercise to point out that climate change could conceivably restrict democracy, but not in the way that people are posting here (i.e. totalitarianism to deal with effects of climate change, as opposed to totalitarianism to limit sources of climate change).
I am not trying to fearmonger. Instead, I am taking a stab at having a civil debate. What do you think of my scenario? Assuming that you accept that AGW is even a possibility, what do you think of it?
Anyway, I need to get some work done. Look forward to any further comments that might arise.
Best, M.
It is sort of humorous seeing so many people becoming despondent because the perceived problems attributed to Global Warming supposedly are difficult to remedy. Anyone remotely familiar with the work of Julian Simon (Google "doomslayer" or Simon/Ehrlich bet) would know that over time technological advances outrun scarcity or practical problems. In the time frame when Warming is supposed to cause major problems, it is virtually inevitable that there will be easy technological fixes. Simon demonstrated that knowledge advances exponentially in a manner similar to compound interest. With the increasingly rapid pace of increased knowledge what looks like major problems today will be trivial issues 50 years from now.
Too bad that so many scientists and others have such an uninformed view of our ability to solve problems.
JD
I want to throw this brilliant leftfield article about George Monbiot into the ring. It is about his transformation from ultra conservative, anti science, anti technology, anti globalisation extremist into a mainstream believer in 'climate science'. If you widen it out to the green movement in general, the picture is the same.
The answer to the puzzle is of course massive corporate sponsorship from governments, banks and oil companies to promote global warming / emissions trading. Monbiot's columns were sponsored by Shell for months leading up to Copenhagen
Monbiot’s metamorphosis
George Monbiot, the Guardian columnist and predictor of the world’s end, has undergone a metamorphosis of Kafkaesque proportions in recent years. Never mind poor Gregor Samsa, who awoke one morning to find himself transmogrified into a monstrous insect; Monbiot has made an even more remarkable cross-species leap. Some time during the past five years he went to bed an hysteric, the closest thing Britain had to a nutty Nostradamus, and awoke to find himself labelled a man of reason, a ‘defender of truth’ no less, who is praised on the dust-jacket of his latest book for possessing a ‘dazzling command of science’ (only by Naomi Klein, admittedly, but still).
How has this happened?
How is it that Monbiot, who still writes the same old apocalyptic nonsense (think Book of Revelations but without the hot pokers or sex), can now pose – more than that, be hailed – as a scientific visionary? His metamorphosis from green-tinted despiser of all things modern to man with a dazzling command of science reveals a great deal about the politics of environmentalism, and how it has added a gloss of ‘scientific fact’ to long-standing middle-class prejudices against mass modern society.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5479/
Monbiot scans his blogs regularly and any mention of this article is immediately deleted.
mazibuko,
An hydraulic empire isn't so much about a strong man at the top but about a bureaucracy. The man at the top is the chief executive. Whether it's the actual emperor, the Grand Vizier or an eminence grise really doesn't matter. The ancient Chinese and Egyptian empires are the classic examples. So the time scale could be centuries to millenia.
Help me understand this. As a result of the sheer communications incompetence of global warming advocates, which has created this climate of skepticism far more than its opponents could possibly do, we are to change our systems of governance?
It's hard to imagine a worse, more credibility-sapping public affairs campaign than the de facto one put in place by global warming advocates. It has made the scientific community look, well, unscientific, petty, mean-spirited and dishonest. And I'm not even talking about "Climategate."
If you claim "consensus" while there is a chorus of dissenting voices out there, you erode public confidence. With every ad hominem attack, you erode public confidence. With every dismissive response, you erode public confidence. With every failure to comprehensively lay out the entire story and the science behind it you put yourself at the mercy of the exaggerated and hypothetical claims of advocacy groups, the public begins to perceive the issue as a cacophany of Chicken Littles.
It's shameful. Climategate truly is more of a crisis than many advocates believe. The public has a fair sense of right and wrong, and if they conclude, as they have, that the playing field was uneven and subject to manipulation, then you've lost credibility. This column will damage credibility even further. It will look to the public like the kid who, when losing the game, picks up his football and goes home.
None of this is the failure of democracy. That's the failure of the scientific community to make a clear and convincing case without chronically undermining their own efforts. By failing to do so, it failed to give political leaders, democratic or not, the political courage necessary to make great changes in society.
The same would be true even if we abandoned democracy. There would still by 200 or so nations out there needing to be on the same page. Even totalitarian regimes have to devote energy to minding the people's will or risk their overthrow. Rather than purging our systems of government, the dysfunctional global warming community should spend some time sifting through the ashes as to how it arrived at this point and find a way to regain its credibility.
This is a bogus strawdog argument. The authors find one pair of proponents of an authoritarian solution (Shearman & Smith - never heard of 'em) and then paint others with guilt by association. The fact that many, like Krugman and Hansen, feel that democracy has not seriously addressed climate does not mean that their prescription is authoritarian; it could just as well be more, and more informed, democracy.
And just what does that "more, and more informed democracy" look like?
The authors suggest that "Democratically organized societies are too cumbersome to avoid climate change; they act neither timely nor are they responsive in the necessary comprehensive manner. The "big decisions" to be taken need a strong state." That sounds awfully authoritarian to me.
Just because something is called a "People's Republic" doesn't mean it upholds democratic principles.
Sean -
The authors suggest that "Democratically organized societies are too cumbersome to avoid climate change; .... The "big decisions" to be taken need a strong state." That sounds awfully authoritarian to me.
It is authoritarian, but Stehr and von Storch said that, with attribution only to some vague movement. The only citation they provide supporting the notion that such a view exists is Shearman & Smith, but even that appears to be out of context if you read their book prospectus. http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/C34504.aspx Absent any actual examples, it's a strawdog argument.
And just what does that "more, and more informed democracy" look like?
If you can't imagine what more widespread and robust democratic institutions and a better-informed electorate would look like, I really can't help you.
Anyway, the point is inessential. The key is that, if Hansen or Krugman or anyone else argues that democracy has so far failed to address climate, it doesn't follow that they are calling for an authoritarian alternative.
Post a Comment