Calf-high water covered the kitchen floor. Shards of PVC floated into the dry lab and silt coated fish tanks. Hurricane Dorian had left its mark on the Virginia Tech Seafood Research Center.
Outside of water lines left on cabinet doors, little of my workplace had been affected by the storm. Pipettes and refrigerators sat on counters and cinderblocks, lifted high by my colleagues and me twenty-four hours earlier. It was an arduous task, but one that my colleagues informed me had become a tradition in the lab––a requirement for a “true Seafood Research Center experience.” Given that the James River entered the lab even on high tides, the normalization of flooding by my colleagues was hardly surprising. It was also a brief glimpse at our future: a world in which climate change visibly shapes a new “normal.”
I’ve become nearly desensitized to articles about global warming. As a 22-year-old science geek who attended a small liberal arts college in the Northeast, constant discussion of our impending doom has threatened to transform a desire for action into a subconscious, ever-present anxiety. A few projections about the year 2100, and the expected warming of 4°C, have recently helped me break through this haze and inspired me to take concerted action on climate change.
- Climate change will force approximately one in five people from their homes globally
- Forest fires the size of Massachusetts will burn the United States
- 8°C of warming from a possible feedback loop could result in the deaths of billions
This commitment to action has led me down both intellectual and tangible paths. Even as I march under signs calling for political action, I wonder: Can we really expect a few protests to inspire policy change rapid enough to combat global warming? Does the severity of climate change necessitate not just new climate policy but a new system of government altogether?
Current political and legislative trends suggest forward momentum and growing public concern over our climate. Strong climate policy forms a central plank in every democratic presidential candidates’ platform. The Sunrise Movement, the candidacy of Jay Inslee and legislation like Nevada’s SB 358 (a renewable portfolio standard committing the state to 100% renewable energy by 2050) further indicate a national appetite for change.
Yet change comes slowly. Carbon taxes––among the most effective ways to decrease carbon emissions––remain politically unpopular even in the most liberal of states. Discussions of solutions continue to focus on individual instead of corporate responsibility––an issue clearly manifested in the emphasis on straws and cheeseburgers during the recent CNN climate town hall. If a democratic candidate wins the presidency next year, they would need to reduce carbon emissions at rates over five times those of the last 17 years in order to fulfill their promised decarbonization goals––a herculean task even without their numerous other policy commitments. These realities inspire a radical question: is democracy––a system built on consensus––the best means to solve a problem that worsens daily? Or does authoritarianism––a system for rapid, unilateral policy decisions––compose the better form of governance under climate change?
A quick glance at Climate Action Tracker’s visualization of international variation in climate policy suggests little divergence in quality between democratic and authoritarian nations. Kazakhstan, ranked 144th on The Economist’s Democracy Index, performs comparably to Norway, ranked 1st. China, ranked 130th, outperforms the United States, ranked 25th. An examination of variation in rates of policy change, however, suggests that there are both advantages and disadvantages to authoritarianism. China serves as a case study for this analysis.
China, a semi-authoritarian regime, is the world’s largest producer of carbon emissions. Yet Chinese climate policy has improved substantially in recent years, driven by significant investments in renewable energy and the development of the world’s largest national carbon trading program. China’s climate policy has been so effective, in fact, that the nation is expected to achieve its Paris Agreement commitments between five and ten years earlier than promised. Such rapid change in policy is partially thanks to the Chinese government’s unilateral decision making.
Other analyses suggest that China’s progress may be fleeting. Distance––both physical and institutional––between centralized policymakers and local governments complicates policy implementation. Directives to prioritize both economic growth and environmental protection, seemingly overlapping policy objectives, further confound execution. In fact, some scholars argue that the very lack of public participation in Chinese climate policy will slow China’s advance towards deep decarbonization––a commitment to low carbon emissions that will require significant changes at every level of governance.
Other authoritarian nations offer further examples of the successes and failures of unilateral decision-making. From the early 1980s to the late 1990s, Egypt––first under President Anwar Sadat and then under President Hosni Mubarak––developed well-run nature reserves widely respected throughout the Middle-East. Yet during the early 2000s, these nature reserves began to experience a lack of funding and diminution of their institutional autonomy––largely a result of former President Mubarak’s mid-tenure campaign to increase central authority. With no avenue for grassroots defense of the parks, the once-effective reserves declined precipitously.
These examples illustrate authoritarianism’s advantages and drawbacks as a governmental system under climate change. What authoritarianism offers in rapidity it lacks in durability. Strong policies can appear one year and disappear the next. Common sense states that democracy’s slow stability trumps potentially mercurial authoritarianism for issues with long time frames. Climate change, however, is an issue whose decisive moment of action was not today, but yesterday. The world will already see many of the disastrous impacts of climate change––even immediate action could only avert the most catastrophic effects. Can we afford the comfort of democracy with such a fate looming before us? Would the climate benefits of authoritarianism ever outweigh the loss of the freedoms we enjoy under our current political system? Even were we to reject authoritarianism, might it be wise to exchange some basic freedoms for increased governmental control of climate policy in the manner we have for other issues of personal safety? Whatever our course, we must act quickly. My lab is sinking.
Off the Clock 