Asset-Herausgeber

CC BY-NC 2.0 - NASA - Flickr

Einzeltitel

Autocracy versus Democracy: Who is doing more to protect the climate?

von Jasper Eitze, Denis Schrey, Louis Mourier

The Multinational Development Policy Dialogue - KAS in Brussels is happy to share with you our #MDPD Briefs on climate change, climate protection, climate policies & environment.

The greater the pressure to limit global warming to an acceptable level, the louder the demands for an ambitious approach to climate protection. In democratic societies some groups demand “radical” action, even at the expense of democratic majorities and legislative processes. Illegal action becomes morally justified as part of a fight of “good versus evil”. These groups feel emboldened by the position of certain democratic governments that in the past years have been opposed to climate protection, such as the US, Brazil and Australia. At the same time, authoritarian regimes try to present themselves as effective protectors of the climate. As such, democracies face the challenge to prove that they are capable of sustainable, effective climate policy based on civil liberties, political participation and pluralistic political competition. It is therefore worth taking a closer look at the truth of common allegations against democratic systems with regard to climate protection.

Asset-Herausgeber

Criticism #1: “Unlike authoritarian governments, which can impose top-down climate protection, democracies shy away from drastic climate-protection policies.”

 

It is true that climate action requires a cross-generational policy approach. In this context, there is a widespread belief that autocracies enjoy long-term stability and can therefore ensure consistent climate protection. At first glance, autocratic governments appear to have an advantage because they can prescribe climate-protection measures regardless of voter attitudes, while in democracies climate policy is sometimes forced to take a back seat when other issues are at the forefront of public attention.

 

However, it would be premature to conclude that democracies are unable to implement ambitious, long-term climate-protection measures. If we shift our focus to the potential of civic engagement and the free formation of opinions, a different picture emerges. Critical thinking

and a highly educated populace have produced social movements in Western democracies that have been calling for environmental and climate protection since the 1980s. The most recent example is the Fridays for Future Initiative, based on which European democracies have shown that they are capable of ambitious climate policy. In that vein, the new EU Commission has announced the European Green Deal, which aims to

achieve a climate-neutral Europe by 2050. This goal has already had an impact on the EU’s Multiannual Financial Framework, increasing the budget share for climate protection from 20% to 30%.

 

Democracies also enable climate policy action at other levels: in the US, individual cities and states promote climate protection regardless of the Trump administration’s policies. It is expected that these efforts will reduce national emissions by 25% by 2030 (compared to 2005 levels). This is only possible due to the decision- and policy-making powers of sub-national entities in the US – something which seems impossible in centralised, autocratic systems.

 

---

💡 Download & read the full text! (button at the top right)

📱 FlipBook version:

🔗AudioBook version - #BooKAS: https://bit.ly/3gmcb6W &

👉 Follow our media channels: linktr.ee/MDPD

---

Asset-Herausgeber

Kontakt

Jasper Eitze

Kontakt

Louis Mourier

comment-portlet

Asset-Herausgeber

Asset-Herausgeber