Democracy in a Hotter Time: Climate Change and Democratic Transformation is a collection of essays that examines the relationship between climate change and democracy. I found it very disappointing.

The book is edited by David W. Orr, a Professor of Practice at Arizona State University and the Paul Sears Distinguished Professor of Environmental Studies and Politics emeritus at Oberlin College. He’s the author of eight books. In his introductory essay, Orr describes this book as a “scouting expedition” that explores important aspects of the territory ahead. I’m sorry to report that the scouts didn’t bring back much useful intelligence.

This is a shame because I agree with the central argument of the book: we’re facing a dual crisis of climate change and democracy. (I think the term polycrisis describes our situation better.)

Democracy in a Hotter Time:
Climate Change and Democratic Transformation
Edited by David W. Orr
The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2023

Even well-functioning democracies struggle to respond to climate change. Mitigating and adapting to climate change places enormous burdens on governments, but the long-term benefits don’t deliver short-term payoffs to politicians worried about re-election. Yet we must act quickly and decisively, and our actions must be sustained over years and decades. We lack the political structures and institutions to deal with the “long emergency” of climate change.

As Orr writes in his introduction:

“Democracy has always demanded a great deal from citizens. Now it requires learning how to be dual citizens in a political system and in an ecological community and knowing why these are inseparable.” [p. 7]

But the climate isn’t waiting. It has become, in effect, a very demanding constituent that doesn’t care about political parties, ideologies or jurisdictional boundaries. It doesn’t negotiate and it doesn’t compromise. It simply demands action and now it’s bringing down fire, flood and plague upon us all.

And our democracies are far from well-functioning. At a time when it’s needed most, democracy is under attack and in retreat in many places around the world including here in the US.

While most of the essays in this book do a good job diagnosing these problems, few of them propose practical solutions.

The closest thing to an action plan comes in the essay “Breaking Policy Gridlocks” by William S. Becker. Some of the items on his list make a lot of sense, like depoliticizing science by forbidding administration officials from editing or censoring government-sponsored research. Others, like rebalancing the Supreme Court or ending the filibuster are fine ideas but seem unlikely given our dysfunctional Congress and polarized society. Still, at least he tries to identify concrete steps.

Unfortunately, the very first item on Becker’s list is nationalizing the oil and gas industry.

“It’s apparent that the US transition to clean energy will not happen, or will not happen rapidly enough, unless the government nationalizes oil and gas production.” [p. 137]

Becker produces no evidence or arguments to support this claim. I guess it’s just “apparent.”

Actually, it’s nonsense.

Put a price on carbon. Bury the oil and gas industry under a mountain of regulations. End their subsides. Tax their profits. Tax their assets. Put their CEOs on trial for crimes against humanity. I would support any and all of these measures. But why nationalize them? Why spend hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to purchase what should soon become stranded assets? Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Mexico, Brazil and other countries have nationalized their oil industries yet none of them are on a fast track to net zero. Why would the US be any different? How exactly would nationalization accelerate the transition to clean energy?  Becker doesn’t answer any of these questions.

This isn’t the only entry in the book that makes broad claims without supporting evidence. In her essay “Confronting Climate Change in Extremely Online Times,” Holly Jean Buck asserts that:

“The emerging evidence is that the measures to respond to COVID-19 exacerbated inequality, benefited billionaires, and exacerbated repression in many countries where the pandemic was used as an excuse for bans on protest, censorship and police violence.” [p. 110]

What is this emerging evidence? Buck shares none of it, not even a footnote. Indeed, from my reading, the entire book is basically devoid of solid data.

Another thing that’s missing from Democracy in a Hotter Time is clear evidence that democracy really is better than autocracy in dealing with climate change. I certainly believe it’s better. Autocracies have a poor track record caring for their natural environments. They don’t permit citizens to protest let alone vote for more action on climate. And even if they do take action, they’re unlikely to consider issues of justice and equity. Yet I’m not aware of any solid evidence that democracy necessarily leads to better environmental outcomes, and this book doesn’t provide any. The contributors just seem to assume democracy is better.

The book’s most thought-provoking essay for me was “Democratic Governance for the Long Emergency” by Ann Florini, Gordon LaForge and Anne-Marie Slaughter. These authors draw a distinction between government and governance. While government holds formal decision-making and enforcement power in a given place, governance refers to the broader practices, institutions and information systems that groups of people use to set goals and implement decisions. Governance extends well beyond government. Corporations, religious organizations, tribal groups, sports teams, clubs and even families all have their own means of governance which are often “more open, participatory, inclusive, transparent, dynamic and very, very messy.”

To address the climate crisis, the authors argue that democracies need structural changes to their systems of governance that broaden participation and inclusion, increase distribution and transparency of information, and communicate a shared positive vision of the future.

“To that end, democratic governance amid the environmental crisis is not about finding the one ‘optimal’ policy or a silver-bullet ‘best practice.’ Rather, it is about creating an enabling environment for widespread participation in inclusive governance, and for constant experimentation and learning.” [p. 156]

This essay also provides the clearest rationale for why democracy is superior to autocracy in dealing with climate change. Autocracies may appear to deal with crises more efficiently than “unruly democracies,” but they can do that only if,

“… decision-makers have adequate knowledge of the details of all relevant issues, the means to ensure decisions are implemented as intended, and true concern for the public welfare over private interests – standards many autocrats are unlikely to meet.” [p. 155]

Unfortunately, neither this one essay nor the afterword by Kim Stanley Robinson, author of the fabulous novel The Ministry for the Future, could redeem the whole book. The fourteen essays in Democracy in a Hotter Time were written mainly by professors or policy researchers. For the most part, their writing is stiff and soporific. And almost all the essays begin with a litany of climate doom and missed opportunities. I’m not disputing the facts or the urgency, but did they really need to be rehashed over and over?

It’s too bad this book was such a disappointment because how we defend democracy and reshape it for the challenges of the climate crisis are critically important issues.

Thanks for reading.

---

Click here for more posts on climate change.

If you enjoyed this review, please subscribe to Unsolicited Feedback.