Climate action by dictate? Or democracy?

In India’s pledge for net-zero emissions, the world’s largest democracy faces off with the largest dictatorship, China, on which type of governance is best to curb carbon emissions.

AP
Climate activists in the Philippines, a democracy, carry a slogan during a rally outside the Chinese consulate in Makati, Philippines, ahead of the UN Climate Change Summit (COP26) in Glasgow, Scotland .

One pleasant surprise at this month’s global climate talks in Scotland was India’s commitment to achieve net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2070. Yet the pledge by the world’s largest democracy came 10 years after one made by China, a dictatorship that also set a more ambitious date of 2060 to achieve neutrality, or 10 years earlier than India’s.

Still, the pledges by the world’s two most populous nations have brought up another comparison, one critical to achieving global climate targets: Which type of government, a top-down authoritarian one or a consensus-building democracy, will succeed in curbing emissions faster and better?

Among some climate activists, a sense of climate emergency has raised frustrations over democracy’s often slow or flip-flopping pace in bringing rapid results on emissions cuts. In a report last year by Deutsche Bank, analyst Eric Heymann wrote, “I know that ‘eco-dictatorship’ is a nasty word. But we may have to ask ourselves the question whether and to what extent we may be willing to accept some kind of eco-dictatorship (in the form of regulatory law) in order to move towards climate neutrality.”

On the other side, Yaqiu Wang, a researcher at Human Rights Watch, tweeted this during the climate talks in Glasgow: “An unaccountable government that disrespects freedom of speech, citizen participation, and other basic human rights is ill-equipped in addressing climate change, even if it wants to.” 

Indeed, the values of democracy that allow grassroots activism to push for tough climate action may be winning, based on a comparison between China and the United States.

The U.S. has exceeded the targets of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol by 11% while China’s emissions have gone up by 43%. Green activists in China have been suppressed as the country keeps building more coal-fired power plants; in the U.S., activists are flourishing, even being elected to office, as coal plants are being shut down.

One country now debating this issue is Germany, the world’s fourth-largest economy, which pledges climate neutrality by 2045.

After an election there Sept. 26, three political parties – the left-leaning Social Democrats, the business-friendly Free Democrats, and the environmentalist Greens – are currently negotiating to form a new governing coalition. By some media accounts, the talks have stalled because the Greens insist on a super-ministry that would have absolute power to control any decision by other ministries that might affect climate, such as transport, construction, and agriculture. The Greens chairperson, Annalena Baerbock, demands a “binding climate check” on any new laws or policies.

Less than a month after this year’s United Nations Climate Change Conference ends, President Joe Biden plans to hold a virtual summit of leaders from the world’s democracies. Climate change is not on the agenda. Perhaps it should be. Governments that rely on transparency, accountability, and equal rights could be the ones that best bring humanity back into equilibrium with the environment. India’s climate pledge could finally help the world settle this debate.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.