Not only Saudi Arabia and Russia but every authoritarian regime especially China puts preservation of power (literal and figurative) ahead of global climate considerations. The tendency of some climate activists to wish for authoritarian powers to short circuit debate is a little revealing. Perhaps they know that the only certain way to rapidly cut carbon emissions is in fact to follow the North Korean model. (Though for which low emissions are a byproduct and not purposeful).
Also, a more reasonable and less millenarian approach by environmental activists tends to be more fruitful in democracies. It will be free markets and technology that clean up the environment, not authoritarian diktats and regressive subsistence farming regimes.
The notion that the world can/should/will limit carbon emissions is just nonsense. In 1990, the world produced 21,549 tonnes of CO2. In 1995, the number was 22,201 tonnes. In 2000, the number was 23,849. In 2005, the number was 28,399. In 2010, the number was 31,291. In 2015, the number was 33,206. in 2020, the number was 32,319. The world is going to produce vast amounts of CO2 in 2030, 40, and 50 no matter what.
Even when authoritarianism seems to "work" in the short term, it still tends to perform badly in the long run, and climate is the ultimate long term problem.
Green mobs are not the answer. They're part of the problem. As the author points out, Germany is a perfect example of this. Adults need to manage this very manageable (not existential) problem. Failing that, consumers will. They will not be led back into a pre-industrial green delusion.
Sadly, such types of opinions even exist among followers of Greta and similar movements as XR. One problem is that many people see climate change and climate transformation as only pure technical things leading to conclusion that the solution is in centralisation and technocracy. However, the thing is that climate transformation can and should also be done locally and decentralised as well. For example, large and big cities as in Bombay, Boston and Berlin are also critical for climate transformation and future of our planet.
I am personally active in a decentralised community called SEEDS where community citizens are using a climate friendly cryptocurrency to co-create projects that are facilitating climate transformation and regenerative development https://seedslibrary.com/
"First, democratically-elected parliaments must continue to lock in long-term climate action." This might be the problem rather than the solution.
Locking in too often means locking in to today's technology. What we really need are smaller steps. If governments take the next step, we can minimize the law of unintended consequences, while we learn what works and what doesn't work.
If each year we did the one, most-consequential thing we could do, we would make steady progress, while allowing future governments maximum flexibility.
No doubt that democracies are more innovative and that it is innovation that is needed to address climate change. But note the irony in Progressives use of NON-REPRESENTATIVE, hence NON-DEMOCRATIC institutions (SEC, Federal Reserve, administrative agencies, etc.) and methods to achieve climate goals.
Not only Saudi Arabia and Russia but every authoritarian regime especially China puts preservation of power (literal and figurative) ahead of global climate considerations. The tendency of some climate activists to wish for authoritarian powers to short circuit debate is a little revealing. Perhaps they know that the only certain way to rapidly cut carbon emissions is in fact to follow the North Korean model. (Though for which low emissions are a byproduct and not purposeful).
Also, a more reasonable and less millenarian approach by environmental activists tends to be more fruitful in democracies. It will be free markets and technology that clean up the environment, not authoritarian diktats and regressive subsistence farming regimes.
The notion that the world can/should/will limit carbon emissions is just nonsense. In 1990, the world produced 21,549 tonnes of CO2. In 1995, the number was 22,201 tonnes. In 2000, the number was 23,849. In 2005, the number was 28,399. In 2010, the number was 31,291. In 2015, the number was 33,206. in 2020, the number was 32,319. The world is going to produce vast amounts of CO2 in 2030, 40, and 50 no matter what.
Even when authoritarianism seems to "work" in the short term, it still tends to perform badly in the long run, and climate is the ultimate long term problem.
Green mobs are not the answer. They're part of the problem. As the author points out, Germany is a perfect example of this. Adults need to manage this very manageable (not existential) problem. Failing that, consumers will. They will not be led back into a pre-industrial green delusion.
Sadly, such types of opinions even exist among followers of Greta and similar movements as XR. One problem is that many people see climate change and climate transformation as only pure technical things leading to conclusion that the solution is in centralisation and technocracy. However, the thing is that climate transformation can and should also be done locally and decentralised as well. For example, large and big cities as in Bombay, Boston and Berlin are also critical for climate transformation and future of our planet.
I am personally active in a decentralised community called SEEDS where community citizens are using a climate friendly cryptocurrency to co-create projects that are facilitating climate transformation and regenerative development https://seedslibrary.com/
"First, democratically-elected parliaments must continue to lock in long-term climate action." This might be the problem rather than the solution.
Locking in too often means locking in to today's technology. What we really need are smaller steps. If governments take the next step, we can minimize the law of unintended consequences, while we learn what works and what doesn't work.
If each year we did the one, most-consequential thing we could do, we would make steady progress, while allowing future governments maximum flexibility.
No doubt that democracies are more innovative and that it is innovation that is needed to address climate change. But note the irony in Progressives use of NON-REPRESENTATIVE, hence NON-DEMOCRATIC institutions (SEC, Federal Reserve, administrative agencies, etc.) and methods to achieve climate goals.