Is representative democracy equipped to tackle climate change?
Kasper Nowak
The legacy of the recent history of combat against the climate crisis, most notably since the turn of the century, primarily carries the notion that this struggle is just as political, structural and institutional as it is scientific. Wide-spread expansion of technology and greenhouse gas emission was seemingly met with a balanced response in formof numerous public campaigns, spreading awareness of the issue. The beginning of the twenty-first century marked the full introduction of the problem of climate change into public consciousness – or rather, so it seems. For scientists leave no room for doubt that the current struggle is simply not enough to overcome an insurmountable problem such as climate change. Using the Paris Agreement as a measurement for advancement towards solving the issue, data published by the New York Times is highly pessimistic, with the majority of countries not even being on track of reaching the elusive 2 degree Celsius reduction goal. 1 But what is the role of politics and democracy in this international struggle? In this essay I want to argue how novel of a challenge climate change is to the modern political spectrum, characterized mostly by democratic systems, and how this novelty calls the effectiveness of democratic systems into question. But before I delve deeper into academic reasons for why the climate catastrophe is such an insurmountable problem, let me summarize my entire argument in a more bluntly. The main issue is that, on the surface, climate change is not an immediate danger. It does not cause unemployment. It does not accelerate inflation. It does not influence social care, it does not make citizens poorer, and it does not deepen social boundaries. Rather, climate change is like a toxic cloud, lingering seemingly outside of the political spectrum and gathering more and more traction through decisions inconsiderate of the long-term consequences. This cloud gets heavier and heavier until it eventually starts to condense and pour acid rain. Rain which floods coastal countries, which causes massive unemployment. Rain which burns through forests and wastelands, which destroys crops, which causes hurricanes, droughts and other natural disasters of paramount scale. Contrary to what might be the impression after delving deeper into this dissertation, I am by no means asserting that a zero-waste lifestyle, independent of systematic regulations, is absolutely ineffective. The United States Environmental Protection Agency estimated that around 42% of total emissions comes from individual households and could be reduced with decisions coming from individual consumers. 2 However, there are at least two reasons why one should not be satisfied solely with propagation of an environmentally-friendly lifestyle. First, there still remains the problem of the remaining 68%, contributed mainly by burning fossil fuels, as well as public and private means of transportation. And, secondly, a zero-waste lifestyle is still strongly tied to novel and liberal ideas in the public view. This consideration is naturally differentiated across countries; however, as much as this
1 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/07/climate/world-emissions-paris-goals-not-on- track.html. 2 https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions.
202
Made with FlippingBook Digital Publishing Software