In Case You Thought Thought Global Warming Was Really About Climate

Fortunately, after years of skeptics trying to warn folks about this, the global warming folks are doing us the favor of being honest about their goals.  From the catalog description for the book "The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy."

In this provocative book, Shearman and Smith present evidence that the
fundamental problem causing environmental destruction--and climate
change in particular--is the operation of liberal democracy. Its flaws
and contradictions bestow upon government--and its institutions, laws,
and the markets and corporations that provide its sustenance--an
inability to make decisions that could provide a sustainable society.
Having argued that democracy has failed humanity, the authors go even
further and demonstrate that this failure can easily lead to
authoritarianism without our even noticing. Even more provocatively,
they assert that there is merit in preparing for this eventuality if we
want to survive climate change. They are not suggesting that existing
authoritarian regimes are more successful in mitigating greenhouse
emissions, for to be successful economically they have adopted the
market system with alacrity. Nevertheless, the authors conclude that an
authoritarian form of government is necessary, but this will be
governance by experts and not by those who seek power. There are in
existence highly successful authoritarian structures--for example, in
medicine and in corporate empires--that are capable of implementing
urgent decisions impossible under liberal democracy. Society is verging
on a philosophical choice between "liberty" or "life."

By the way, for a description of why this technocratic fascism by the experts never works, read here.  By the way, when you see this...

Nevertheless, the authors conclude that an
authoritarian form of government is necessary, but this will be
governance by experts and not by those who seek power. means "We support fascism as long as we are the fuhrer." 


  1. morganovich:

    this sounds an awful lot like the way a great deal of fascism gets started. idealistic experts who "know best" and "don't want power" just to "do the right thing". and fortunately, even though you are too stupid, they happen to know precisely what that is.

    these people need a copy of "animal farm".

  2. Randomscrub:

    Obviously these people have never read The Road to Serfdom. The end of chapter 4 is devoted to describing precisely how such experts seek authoritarian planning power in order to force people into pursuing such ends as the experts desire, but cannot convince the free market to implement.

    Bah. Idiots.

    I wish Hayek (or Friedman) was still around to give an updated version on why Green totalitarianism sucks in many of the same ways as jackboot totalitarianism.

  3. Spruance:

    "Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity."
    (Mike Hulme, Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, University of East Anglia im Guardian)

  4. Frederick Davies:

    "I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that men have invented, at least in the field of government, in a thousand years. I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free, even when the former is dangerous and the latter safe. I believe that the finest qualities of man can flourish only in free air – that progress made under the shadow of the policeman's club is false progress, and of no permanent value. I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave."
    H. L. Mencken

  5. bill-tb:

    I think you got it exactly right. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    One thing I have always wondered is why can we easilt change the heavens, only if we have enough taxes, but have so much trouble with a border fence and control. One of the mysteries of life.

  6. Mark:

    Because a border fence is meaningless and control of such a long border virtually impossible when the illegal immigrants are determined.

    The only effective "fence" would be a fence that is lethal. That is, a fence that created enough of a probability of "ultimate" failure that it would dissuade people from crossing it.

    The proposed border fence is far from lethal. One news show hired a bunch of illegal immigrants to construct a section of fencing that would be identical to the border fence. It took them several hours to build. Then, they had two of the immigrants go over, two through, and two under. It took them all of 30 seconds to get climb over, smash through, or tunnel under.

    The fact is, fortunate or otherwise, is that when there is such disparite differences between one side of an imaginary line and the other side, there is very little that can be done to stop the flow of people from desperation to opportunity.

    THe other fact is that the reason politicians of both sides, including Republicans from Ronald Reagan to George Bush to John McCain, do not fight this illegal immigration is that they realize that such illegal immigration is a net benefit to the United States; that even though critics complain of the utilization of social services by such immigrants, the politicians know that the actual tax revenues collected from such sources outweighs these costs.

    ANd, for those conservatives that preach the "what would Reagan do?" line, Reagan was the biggest emancipator of illegal immigrants in US (probably WORLD) history. It was HIS policy that granted amnesty to illegal immigrants.

  7. Dan:

    1. The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.
    2. The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

    H. L. Mencken

  8. Corky Boyd:

    Sounds like China would be the ideal society to start this concept: An authoritarian single party state that can't be pressured into errors by the proletariat. Yet they are building 200 coal fired power plants. How can this happen?

    If there were only a state that follows their model, lets have them move there. Zimbabwe, North Korea and the people's paradise of Cuba would be a good place to send them. Of course they might have a problem publishing their drivel there. Pesky little censorship laws.

  9. kebko:

    It seems that democracy is taking all the credit when the real insight of the American Constitution was limited government. So, I think these people don't deserve derision for their critique of democracy. But, unfortunately, I don't think limited government is what they have in mind.
    But, I have little doubt that a monarchy operating under a strict, limiting constitution, with checks in place, would create a better world than a democracy without limits, or with limits nobody seems to regard anymore. I don't know if it's possible to create such a government, however.

  10. tehag:

    "an authoritarian form of government is necessary, but this will be governance by experts and not by those who seek power"

    What a monumentally silly idea. Contrary to the assertions the book's publisher, I can and will ignore the authors purported dilemma. How, exactly, will those who seek power voluntarily step aside to be ruled by self-anointed experts?

  11. terrence:

    In keeping with this eco-facsism, here is what a friut loop in Canada says:
    "David Suzuki has called for political leaders to be thrown in jail for ignoring the science behind climate change."