cattywompapotamus

cattywompapotamus t1_iwuyit0 wrote

Democratic countries may have established the systemic conditions for climate change, but is that because they were democratic? I don't think so. I think it has more to do with their geographic and economic circumstances.

If your standard for a properly functioning government is one that solves the most urgent problems in a society, then it's probably safe to say that there has never been a properly functioning government. Only varieties of better or worse.

Which other system would be capable of addressing the issue of climate change? Good question. Almost certainly one that has never existed before. It would be one that facilitates (or forces) coordinated action on a global scale, because carbon emissions are essentially a global collective action problem.

6

cattywompapotamus t1_iwusj75 wrote

I am skeptical that action/inaction on climate change has much to do with mode of governance. For example, China has also contributed significantly to climate change with a completely different governing system. Russia and Saudi Arabia too.

Climate change is a dilemma rooted in the petrochemical energy system that has powered modern civilization for 300 years, regardless of governance.

29

cattywompapotamus t1_isvf01i wrote

I think it's more a matter of emphasizing historical details selectively. There is more history than can be written, so the choice of which information constitutes relevant history is a reflection of values. For example, A People's History of the United States was an unprecedented book for it's time because it examined a familiar historical chronology from an uncommon perspective. Both ways of telling the story are true, but with contrasting emphasis.

5