Could Climate Change Kill Liberalism?

[BridgeTheGap]

Liberalism in the classical sense isn’t the opposite of conservativism but rather “the proposition that we’re all free to do as we please, other than to impede the freedoms of others,” writes Timothy Ferris in the Future Issue of The Oxford American (#70).

“An independent political philosophy with no inherent ties to either the left or the right,” he explains, “liberalism forms the basis of liberal democracy, the most popular and successful form of governance ever deployed.”

Liberalism has been widely embraced, posits Ferris, with most Americans sharing basic classical liberal beliefs and liberal democracies comprising “nearly half of all humanity.” But one thing could be its undoing: catastrophic climate change.

“The liberal democracies have already demonstrated a disturbing tendency to revert to authoritarianism in times of emergency,” he notes, citing Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, FDR’s confinement of Japanese Americans in concentration camps during World War II, and George W. Bush’s disregard for due process at Guantánamo Bay.

Read more: http://www.utne.com/Environment/Could-Climate-Change-Kill-Liberalism.aspx#ixzz1C9WUxKz7

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. It is an interesting dilemma

Progressives see the iceberg of global warming coming (can you make that pun?). Conservatives don't want to be herded into things they do not approve of and in a sense that is a sympathetic point. Even in something as tangible as 9/11 there is a very necessary debate about how far we should or should not move to defend ourselves.

With something like climate change we have computer models predicting dire situations decades into the future. It would be like demanding the passage of the Patriot Act all the way back into September of 1991 based on a computer model.

In other words, we have to figure out how to "sell" conservatives and skeptics on the idea of acting in appreciable ways while preserving for them essential civil liberties and we should make a point of demonstrating our appreciation for their concerns.

And to be perfectly honest I think that serves progressives as well. We have to invest in our own sense of liberty. The last thing we want is to create a monolithic governmental enterprise that rules all and then have some computer virus or Supreme Court bench select a president who may only have his (or her) own interests at heart.

[BridgeTheGap]

3. At one point does government do a mandatory debate, with required coverage by mainstream media?

There is too large of a disconnect happening here.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. Interesting concept

Please understand, I'm not poo-pooing you idea just bringing more points for consideration.

That being said:

The president or any memeber of either house of congress can propose a law or blue-ribbon panel or wahtnot. Getting the proposal debated is another issue as the majority party controls what comes out of committee to the full chamber. In other words, if the majority doesn't want it, it ain't seeing the light of day.

Even then getting the public tuned in would be the trick. Let's face it, you ahve to be a real hardcore poli-sci junkie to watch CSPAN and not slide into a coma.

Perhaps a "rope-a-dope" strategy would be in order. If people like Darryl Issa want to investigate climate change research under the pretense of searching out fraud then let him have his investigation and we should encourage it with the intent of bringing our best evidence.

[groovedaddy]

5. Maybe the "deniers" would want the publicity to make their case...of course they already

have their rw audience, but do they see that as being enough?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. So? The evidence is on our side

It would be an unfair trial if a lawyer demanded closed hearings because he was afraid of what opposing council would have to say.

The surest verdicts come after BOTH sides have publicly pleaded their respective cases.

In fact, not being public is hurting the green movement. To be certain skeptics are doing their best to amplify their voices as loud as possible. Sure, we can whisper to the guy next to us all day long but what will that get us?

The sooner we are out in the opne and publicly debating the better and if that means we meet them on their forum so what? The evidence is the evidence.

[Petrodollar Warfare]

2. I disagree, Peak Oil is the bigger and more immediate threat.

IMO, the bigger and most immediate threat to liberal democracies is likely global Peak Oil, which many unbiased analysts suggest either occured in 2008 at around 86 million barrels a day (m/b/d), or will occur by 2012 or 2015, topping at around 90 m/b/d before going into permanent decline.

Afterall, global oil production has essentailly been on a plateau since mid-2005, vacilating +/- 1.5 million barrels a day. Despite a four-fold increase in price from 2003-2008 - there was no appreciable increase in oil production from Saudi Arabia and other OPEC prioducers. That should tell us something.

Hence, I suspect that diminshing hydrocarbons on a glaobal basis, year after year, with its attending macroeconomic, geopolitical, and societal/psychological effects, could facilitate the rise of authoritarian and militarisitic leaders in some of today's "liberal democracies" (think G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney, but on steriods...) The EU seems to be slowly acknowleding this issue, for example:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRU01112520101110

Global oil availability has peaked -EU energy chief

BRUSSELS | Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:11am EST

BRUSSELS Nov 10 (Reuters) - The availability of oil worldwide has already peaked, the European Union's energy chief Guenther Oettinger said on Wednesday.

"My fear is that the global consumption of oil is going to increase, but European oil consumption has already reached its peak. The amount of oil available globally, I think, has already peaked," Oettinger told a news briefing in Brussels.

He was presenting a new EU energy strategy for investing 1 trillion euros over the next decade in a common EU energy network, to curb the bloc's dependence on fossil fuel imports.

..unfortuantely I didn't hear Obama call for similar measures in last night's SOTU speach. Another tragic missed opportunity.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. I don't understand the point of the article at all

The worry seems to be that people will agree with the soundbite from Lovelock. But all it suggests as an alternative is 'go green'. Great - Lovelock calls his solution 'going green' too. So we haven't any idea what is different from Lovelock. Presumably they think there's a democratic majority waiting to support all kinds of green policies, but there's nothing about what the problem has been so far in getting them voted for. Or how we can change things.

The article boils down to "I disagree with Lovelock". :shrug:

FWIW, here, at least, is the Lovelock quote in the interview:

On how humans will ever manage to tackle climate change:

We need a more authoritative world. We've become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It's all very well, but there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example – where you can't do that. You've got to have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it. And they should be very accountable too, of course.

But it can't happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems. What's the alternative to democracy? There isn't one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock

[saras]

8. The very CONCEPT of pollution should have killed that definition

OK, so "we’re all free to do as we please, other than to impede the freedoms of others". If we take this seriously, using the best available knowledge, none of us, individually or as groups, are free to pollute - with any pollution - ever.

This puts us back before the Industrial Revolution, which (even if you exclude colonialism) was based on the idea that harming others could be justified by some other form of gain, and that the two could be mediated by money.

Of course, before that, the majority of the world believed that simply having superior power was sufficient justification for harming others.

The article seems to suggest, quite sensibly, I think, that actual democracy is more likely to be an effective tool than money to make good decisions about harm vs. benefit decisions. The issue the article is hinting at but not addressing is that you can't make a democracy of stupid or propagandized people function.

My own opinion is that the project of dismantling the global propaganda system, and replacing it with an educational system that produces sane, well-informed adults, is more important, and more difficult, than stopping global warming.

[groovedaddy]

9. "an educational system that produces sane, well-informed adults, is more important"

Amen! The only other alternative is to impose it, which would be anti-democratic. And, yes, something does need to be done about it. That said, the entrenched oligarchy has historically recognized the "danger" of an informed citizenry (dangerous to their power, that is!). That's why the focus on education is a joke, educating only for the technocracy. REAL education begins with the development of critical thinking skills. It is also vital for healthy democracy.