Climate change and the failure of the democratic system

Humanity has difficulty responding to threats that will impact beyond a lifetime. Our individual psychological mechanisms of denial of major threats and the ideology that prevents collective action have been reviewed (1). Despite these impediments many in the community have recognised the threat. Environmental and other non-government organisations and professional associations are now scratching at the edges of the carbon mountain. The inertia resides with government and its confederates.

The Kyoto protocol recommends a minuscule step towards the huge reduction in greenhouse emissions necessary to mitigate global warming in any meaningful way. Yet after six years the protocol has not been implemented. During this period the scientific basis for the certainty and potential severity of warming has been greatly strengthened (2). There is already more than sufficient evidence for decisive action but there is an increasing gulf between scientific knowledge, and a political understanding and willingness to implement the appropriate solutions

There is recognition that that implementation of sustainable measures is influenced by historical investment, culture, religion and other social factors(3). Some of these will be discussed here

The Kyoto process appropriately involved mainly the polluters and the producers of fossil fuels. These are mainly the same nations that promulgate democracy and free trade as the solution to the world’s problems. It is pertinent to ask whether the increasing failures of the democratic system itself, some of which are apparent from the papers and discussions of other topics in this conference, will preclude an adequate international response to climate change.

The failures of the democratic system
These are increasingly apparent to writers, analysts and to the public. It is ten years since John Ralston Saul described the decline of democratic function into mere process in Voltaire’s Bastards (4). It was an emasculation of the real power of representative assemblies and its concomitant augmentation by the interposition of advisers. Saul points out that the demise of the Roman Senate under Augustus inaugurated the disintegration of Roman Society (4). In the same way the US now subverts its own extended ‘Empire’ built on (free) trade and financial control, by destroying the fragile legal and regulatory gains of the UN and other international institutions. In 2003, Clive Hamilton recognised that the cult of economic growth and its handmaiden neoliberalism have undermined democracy which is superseded by market totalitarianism (5). In effect democracy has been seduced by the glitter of consumption that hands world power to the corporates. At best, as noted by George Soros (6), the open democratic society has difficulty identifying a purpose, except by identifying an enemy such as communism or terrorism. The impending crisis of climate change is too intangible to identify as an enemy.

Today many recognise that power resides in a troika of government, its corporate allies and press barons who operate in opposition to the people and their organisations and institutions and that many major decisions are made which do not have consensus support in the communities. The major English speaking democracies manufacture and export billions of dollars of instruments of war and torture and frequently resort to arms to support their own interests. It is doubtful if this has community support. Decisions on trade and war lead to millions marching in the streets in frustration. In response to a march of two million in London, Mr Blair’s response “ What march?” epitomises the new order. The most extreme example of the new order is surely the capture of process by the neoliberals in the US, where fossil fuel corporatism holds financial and political power and determines climate change policy. Government inertia involves both ideology and political self interest. In Australia this is illustrated by the terms of reference for a report prepared for three state governments on the costs to Australia of ratification versus non-ratification of Kyoto (7). This attitude fails to recognise that climate change is a global problem and Australia’s true interests are intimately associated with all nations

The challenge is to determine how we promote the mitigation of climate change despite these hurdles. We can apply new approaches to the existing system or we can change the system.

Can the market economy deliver?
Some of those committed to the market economy believe that the mitigation of warming can be engineered by market forces. Both the capitalist Adair Turner (8) and the social economist Clive Hamilton (5) calculate that a significant reduction of emissions reduces GNP by an insignificant amount. In the UK, a study by Cambridge Econometrics indicates that a 17% reduction in emissions over a 10 year period will delay the expected GNP by 45 days (8, p295). In the US, it is calculated that adopting the Kyoto protocol will delay the expected GNP by 4 months in 2012 (5, p183). Thus there is only a small reduction in predicted prosperity. The market mechanisms used will be emissions trading and agreement on tax rises for fossil fuels thus promoting technological advance (8). Turner believes that missing ‘political leadership’ is responsible for the failure to promote these mechanisms. Pearman notes the substantial shift in the degree of interest of the private sector in supporting mitigation (3), and it is true that many industries for example automobile have already instituted important innovation. But the performance of the Bush administration and its financial links to the fossil fuel industry makes it difficult to be sanguine about these options. In Australia, government support for the development of alternative energy technology is very disappointing. In asking the market to deliver it should be recognised that corporate bodies are also responsible for an orchestrated campaign to challenge the evidence of climate change (9).

Should the concept of ‘the commons’ be revived?
A key consequence of free market ideology, in which individualism dominates collectivism, has been the erosion of the environmental commons ranging from the destruction of forests to the privatisation of water. The atmosphere represents the last frontier. The right to the commons has legal implications in common law and it is appropriate and just that control of emitters should be attempted by legal means. At the extreme, an island inundated by sea level rise caused by climate change may have legal redress. The development of the Climate Justice Program of lawyers, academics and environmental organisations aims to hold government and corporations responsible for the consequences of climate change. Cases are underway against the US export credit agencies for funding fossil fuel projects and against the US Environmental Protection Agency. The quest is not dissimilar to the control of the tobacco industry where legal action has aided regulatory reform and has had an educational role. As scientists we can support the climate change legal activities by providing our scientific expertise.

Empower the developing nations?
The 5 billion people in the poor and developing world produce a quarter or less per capita of emissions of those produced by the one billion rich. The poor countries were not included in the Kyoto protocol, but the US and Australia claimed that it was unfair that the poor countries were not asked to cut their emissions (10). There has been little further debate on the role of the developing countries except to note the expectation that alleviation of poverty will surely increase per capita emissions in these countries and indeed they are projected to constitute 47% of global emissions by 2030. But must this be so?

The People’s Republic of China may hold the key to innovative measures that can both arrest the expected surge in emissions from developing countries and. provide developed nations with the means to alternative energy. China curbs individual freedom in favour of communal need. The State will implement those measures seen to be in the common good. These may be unwise in the case of massive dams, pragmatic as with population policy or vital as with massive reafforestation to prevent recurrent floods. The cheap labour of China could provide the world with solar, wind and other alternative energy that would quell the Western governments complaints of uneconomic energy. It would fuel an energy revolution across its vast lands and provide export products external to the consumables that compound our problems. It would be financed by those companies at present financing the baubles made for our shores. It would be underwritten by the dictat of the Chinese government that this was now policy. Crises call for fast and sure action and an educated Chinese leadership could deliver. It would be the role of our scientists to interact with Chinese scientific institutions to activate this issue. Many poor countries provide economic zones in the hope of attracting investment to their sweatshop labour. These countries could adapt their system to alternative energy instrument manufacture.

Change the governance system?
It is becoming apparent that the fundamental problem of society is fundamentalism, the unreasoned and unregulated promulgation of market capitalism and economic growth without consideration for the future. John Maynard Keynes stated “The only people who believe in perpetual growth are madmen and economists”. The fundamentalist neoliberals and the Third Way apologists both avoid the issue of the end point of growth to infinity. It does not fit with their ideology. Even in its most democratic form our system cannot solve serious local environmental problems and it is evident that new forms of governance are necessary at all levels of decision making. There are plenty of ideas ranging from the post growth society (5) to the decentralisation theme of the global protest movement (11). None promise action in a time scale demanded by climate change. To retain an inhabitable earth we may have to compromise the eternal vicissitudes of democracy for an informed leadership that directs. There are countries that fall within this requirement and we should use them to initiate more active mitigation. We should reflect that we already use such models in our professional lives. Better to have emergency treatment by a surgical team with leadership, than heart failure treated by a democratic physicians committee!

References

(1) Shearman D. Time and tide wait for no man. BMJ:325;1466-1468 2002.
(2) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate change 2001. Third Assessment Report. Vols l-3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
(3) Pearman G I. Climate change. ISOS Conference, 2003.
(4) Saul JR. Voltaire’s bastards, The dictatorship of reason in the west. Canada, Penguin Books, 1992.
(5) Hamilton C. Growth fetish. Crows Nest, NSW, Allen & Unwin, 2003.
(6) Soros G. The global society and its enemies Australian Financial Review, 24 January 2003.
(7) Report of the Kyoto Protocol Ratification Group- A risk Assessment. The Cabinet Office of New South Wales 2003
(8) Turner A. Just capital, the liberal economy. London, Macmillan, 2001.
(9) Beder SD. Corporate hijacking of the greenhouse debate. Ecologist, 29;119-122, 1999.
(10) Hamilton C. Running from the storm. The development of climate change policy in Australia. Sydney, UNSW Press, 2001.
(11) Klein N. Fences and windows. London, Flamingo, 2002.