Politics and the Environment – serie

Environmentalists often predict an Apocalypse is coming: The earth will heat up like a greenhouse. We will run out of energy. Overpopulation will lead to starvation and war. Nuclear winter will kill all plants and animals. During the past fifty to one hundred years, Americans have heard many prophecies of doom, such as the Club of Rome report predicting the world economy would crash about the year 2020. These do not come as complete surprises without any warnings. Sometimes the United States simply ignores the threats, but other times it makes plans to prevent them. This provocative book asks whether American planning is different for dangers that are truly apocalyptic—ones that could end life on the planet or at least modern economic prosperity.This provocative book begins by asking whether American planning is different for dangers that are truly apocalyptic—ones that could end life on the planet or at least modern economic prosperity. It goes on to ask why Americans ignore so many problems like the greenhouse effect or an oil shortage or nuclear war, problems that have been forecast many times. Then when the United States does plan, why do those plans often go astray?

Environmentalists often predict an Apocalypse is coming: The earth will heat up like a greenhouse. We will run out of energy. Overpopulation will lead to starvation and war. Nuclear winter will kill all plants and animals. During the past fifty to one hundred years, Americans have heard many prophecies of doom, such as the Club of Rome report predicting the world economy would crash about the year 2020. These do not come as complete surprises without any warnings. Sometimes the United States simply ignores the threats, but other times it makes plans to prevent them. This provocative book asks whether American planning is different for dangers that are truly apocalyptic—ones that could end life on the planet or at least modern economic prosperity.This provocative book begins by asking whether American planning is different for dangers that are truly apocalyptic—ones that could end life on the planet or at least modern economic prosperity. It goes on to ask why Americans ignore so many problems like the greenhouse effect or an oil shortage or nuclear war, problems that have been forecast many times. Then when the United States does plan, why do those plans often go astray?

This provocative book presents compelling evidence that the fundamental problem behind environmental destruction—and climate change in particular—is the operation of liberal democracy.Climate change threatens the future of civilization, but humanity is impotent in effecting solutions. Even in those nations with a commitment to reduce greenhouse emissions, they continue to rise. This failure mirrors those in many other spheres that deplete the fish of the sea, erode fertile land, destroy native forests, pollute rivers and streams, and utilize the world's natural resources beyond their replacement rate. In this provocative book, Shearman and Smith present evidence that the fundamental problem causing environmental destruction—and climate change in particular—is the operation of liberal democracy. Its flaws and contradictions bestow upon government—and its institutions, laws, and the markets and corporations that provide its sustenance—an inability to make decisions that could provide a sustainable society.Having argued that democracy has failed humanity, the authors go even further and demonstrate that this failure can easily lead to authoritarianism without our even noticing. Even more provocatively, they assert that there is merit in preparing for this eventuality if we want to survive climate change. They are not suggesting that existing authoritarian regimes are more successful in mitigating greenhouse emissions, for to be successful economically they have adopted the market system with alacrity. Nevertheless, the authors conclude that an authoritarian form of government is necessary, but this will be governance by experts and not by those who seek power. There are in existence highly successful authoritarian structures—for example, in medicine and in corporate empires—that are capable of implementing urgent decisions impossible under liberal democracy. Society is verging on a philosophical choice between liberty or life. But there is a third way between democracy and authoritarianism that the authors leave for the final chapter. Having brought the reader to the realization that in order to halt or even slow the disastrous process of climate change we must choose between liberal democracy and a form of authoritarian government by experts, the authors offer up a radical reform of democracy that would entail the painful choice of curtailing our worldwide reliance on growth economies, along with various legal and fiscal reforms. Unpalatable as this choice may be, they argue for the adoption of this fundamental reform of democracy over the journey to authoritarianism.