[Rod_Cloutier]

Hi All,

John Michael Greer posted this excellent review of a new and controversial book, 'The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy'.

The Author of the book, Dr. David Shearman, has many impressive credentials and is arguing for a return to authoritarianism and facism as the way to solve climate change.

As John Michael Greer described the book:

“authoritarianism is the natural state of humanity” (p. xvi) and that people who agree with their views ought to form “an elite warrior leadership” to “battle for the future of the earth” (ibid). They propose the manufacture of a new eco-religion out of the green movement and New Age movement in order to “provide social glue for the masses” (p. 127), and spend a chapter discussing the training of “natural elites” to provide his imagined regime with “ecowarriors to do battle against the enemies of life” (p. 134). It’s all laid out in quite some detail; very nearly the only thing Shearman and Smith fail to mention is what symbol will go on their warrior elite’s armbands.

The full review is here:

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/ ... -results=2

Eco wars will not save the enviroment. A return to 1940's era facist government will not save the planet. I am continually surprised by the amount of right-wing hatred there is in our society. We need more Ghandi's and Jesus's, and less Hitler's and Stalin's, I think this should be obvious.

[Subjectivist]

Did you read the book yourself? If so, was it worth the investment of time and money?

[Outcast_Searcher]

Did you read the book yourself? If so, was it worth the investment of time and money?

I was curious about this myself. Looking on Amazon (where, to me, the overall reviews are often helpful as an indication of quality), I see it's 10 years old. I see that the 6 reviewers didn't like it because they don't like Fascism, etc.

It sounds like an interesting premise (since Democracy is clearly taking far too long to do something meaningful about this), but for me, I'd want something much more updated, and don't want to pay over 20 bucks for a radical opinion on well-outdated info. Unfortunately, I'm sure I won't find such an obscure book at my local library.

One thing about China's system -- if they REALLY want to get something important done, they just decree it and it begins to happen. This may or may not be a good thing if used a lot, but they at least can force major changes re AGW in China -- if the leaders really want it.

[asg70]

One thing about China's system -- if they REALLY want to get something important done, they just decree it and it begins to happen. This may or may not be a good thing if used a lot, but they at least can force major changes re AGW in China -- if the leaders really want it.

^ This.

China is sort of a demonstration of Al Bartlett's right-hand-list as they already did the one-child-policy (now loosening). Really, pick your poison here. If individual behavior won't self-regulate something will intervene, either the state or it falls through to Gaia.

[Subjectivist]

Yikes! I looked it up and even the Kindle version is 22 bucks! This is not an author that wants to convince Joe6P, because average folks will never buy such an expensive book.

[Plantagenet]

One thing about China's system -- if they REALLY want to get something important done, they just decree it and it begins to happen. This may or may not be a good thing if used a lot, but they at least can force major changes re AGW in China -- if the leaders really want it.

China is not a good argument for the ability of authoritarian governments to act on climate change. China's authoritarian government has gone for coal in a big way, resulting in China becoming far and away the biggest CO2 polluter on earth.


Authroritarian governments really suck at reducing CO2 emissions---look at China's record!

Cheers!

[onlooker]

It makes me think of a quote attributed to one of US founding fathers to the effect that those who would give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither

[Tanada]

It makes me think of a quote attributed to one of US founding fathers to the effect that those who would give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither

[asg70]

China is not a good argument for the ability of authoritarian governments to act on climate change.

add one word to the end of that sentence:

yet.

You seem to only view the world based on today and have a hard time seeing how trends might change.

[asg70]

It makes me think of a quote attributed to one of US founding fathers to the effect that those who would give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither

Ah, the 1700s. Back when the US was full of virgin forests and bountiful harvests. So easy to be an idealist back then.

Back then it was give me liberty or give me death.

Now it's give me liberty (i.e. tragedy of the commons) and you'll create death anyway.

[onlooker]

Asg, no sense surviving if the world we live in is not worth living in

[Plantagenet]

China is not a good argument for the ability of authoritarian governments to act on climate change.

add one word to the end of that sentence:

yet.

You seem to only view the world based on today and have a hard time seeing how trends might change.

Don't be silly.

Its easy to imagine that future trends can change. If you think about it for more than a millisecond, you can even figure out that the current trend of increasing CO2 emissions from China can only do one of three different things---it can either continue on the same trend, accelerate, or start decreasing.

But for some reason its hard for people to understand the significance of the actual current trends in CO2 emissions---and for China the current trend over the last ca. 20 years is for CO2 emissions to increase each year to the point that China is now the largest emitter of CO2 in the world, far exceeding the USA. If China continues to increase its CO2 emissions at the current rate it will add the equivalent of another "USA" of CO2 emissions in just 10 more years.


Cough! Cough! Beijing's air pollution is now much worse then it was when I was there about 8 years ago as a guest of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

[asg70]

Don't be silly.

Don't be patronizing. It's a real annoying tendency you have.

Cough! Cough! Beijing's air pollution is now much worse then it was when I was there about 8 years ago as a guest of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Nobody's disputing that. The question was whether authoritarian governments can change gears on a whim, and the answer is YES. China is not unconcerned about the local pollution situation. I know it's easy to think the government that brought us the Tiananmen Square massacre would just choke its citizens and cancer-cluster them to death forever, but there comes a point where it's unacceptable even for them. That's why even China signed onto the Paris agreement and now the US is the lone dissenter.

The two reasons China seems to be of two minds on this is that a) they don't want to risk economic growth and b) they are just not that bright about the environmental impacts of their actions. They are stumbling forward when they should know better from the lessons of history, but they will reach the same conclusions we did circa Silent Spring and the Cuyahoga River Fire, conclusions now being undone by your buddy, Trump.

[Cog]

China signed the Paris accords because it didn't affect them. Its not a huge sacrifice if they can continue to emit CO2 at will.

[onlooker]

How anybody can still put any value unto the sham that is the Paris climate accord is beyond me.

[asg70]

How anybody can still put any value unto the sham that is the Paris climate accord is beyond me.

So you think it's acceptable for the US to be the lone holdout? It's possible to be disappointed by it while still endorsing it as a baby-step. Instead people are using the logic above simply as an excuse to continue doing NOTHING, which is exactly what people like the Koch brothers would prefer.

[onlooker]

Funny, but I see it from a totally different vantage point. This so called Treaty is going to do pretty much NOTHING. Yet, it has been publicized as a great step forward and so it lulls the world's citizens into believing something of substance is being done when in reality it is NOT. So rather than being something productive it is just delaying longer any remediation of our contribution to GW. But then I ascribe to Rockman's thesis that most of the people who have any economic standing in this planet in reality do not really want the changes that cutting emission would entail.

[Tanada]

How anybody can still put any value unto the sham that is the Paris climate accord is beyond me.

So you think it's acceptable for the US to be the lone holdout? It's possible to be disappointed by it while still endorsing it as a baby-step. Instead people are using the logic above simply as an excuse to continue doing NOTHING, which is exactly what people like the Koch brothers would prefer.

An agreement that has no tangible impact isn't worth the electrons to store the text, yet three years after it was known the treaty would have zero impact on emissions some folks keep insisting it was a valuable exercise.

[asg70]

An agreement that has no tangible impact isn't worth the electrons to store the text, yet three years after it was known the treaty would have zero impact on emissions some folks keep insisting it was a valuable exercise.

Nothing you said invalidates what I said.

Approaching the issue from a passively naysaying attitude, waiting endlessly for some "perfect" agreement, only fosters inaction.

If anything, the US is going in reverse by gutting the EPA.

At some point you have to start passing go here, and not even signing the Paris agreements, politically speaking, is the wrong move.

There's nothing in the agreement that says it will be the only agreement ever needed. It's a baby-step.

I just see this embracing of nihilism here and that's far worse than signing a flawed treaty.

[Outcast_Searcher]

There's nothing in the agreement that says it will be the only agreement ever needed. It's a baby-step.

I just see this embracing of nihilism here and that's far worse than signing a flawed treaty.

IF Trump weren't an AGW denier, the Paris accords are so misleading (basically doing nothing except kicking the can) that I'd have no trouble with a PRINCIPLED politician who was strongly advocating for real action (and backing it with meaningful anti-AGW laws/proposals in his/her country) refusing to sign is on principle.

As far as anything to do with the environment, one can only hope Trump is limited to one term, IMO. And as far as the US, we have VERY LITTLE in principled, meaningful actions (or proposals) to truly deal with GHG production, so unless something changes a lot, it's not like I'd expect a US POTUS in the next decade or two to have the credibility to stand up for principle and credibly say the Paris accords aren't worth signing on principle).

Which is unfortunate, but like everybody else, I only get one vote, and when I write to the clowns inside the beltway about policy, I get a form letter back -- like everyone else but lobbyists bearing huge sacks of money.