{"id":180508,"date":"2022-01-01T14:21:21","date_gmt":"2022-01-01T13:21:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=180508"},"modified":"2022-01-01T14:21:22","modified_gmt":"2022-01-01T13:21:22","slug":"climate-lockdown-paper-published-in-prestigious-journal-laments-democracy-calls-for-authoritarian-environmentalism-modeled-after-covid-lockdowns-to-fight-climate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=180508","title":{"rendered":"Climate lockdown: Paper published in prestigious journal laments \u2018democracy\u2019 & calls for \u2018authoritarian environmentalism\u2019 modeled after COVID lockdowns to fight climate \u2019emergency\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Climate Depot<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Political Legitimacy, Authoritarianism, and Climate Change \u2013 Published online by Cambridge University Press \u2013 American Political Science Review<\/em> \u2013 December 6, 2021<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

ROSS MITTIGA<\/a> \u2013 Assistant Professor, Instituto de Ciencia Pol\u00edtica, Pontificia Universidad Cat\u00f3lica de Chile, Chile, ross.mittiga@uc.cl <\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Abstract Excerpt:<\/a> Is authoritarian power ever legitimate? \u2026 While, under normal conditions, maintaining democracy and rights is typically compatible with guaranteeing safety, in emergency situations, conflicts between these two aspects of legitimacy can and often do arise. A salient example of this is the COVID-19 pandemic, during which severe limitations on free movement and association have become legitimate techniques of government. Climate change poses an even graver threat to public safety. Consequently, I argue, legitimacy may require a similarly authoritarian approach.\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

.   . <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The paper\u2019s author Ross Mittaga, calls for \u201cauthoritarian environmentalism\u201d to address the alleged climate \u201cemergency.\u201d : \u201cIt is ultimately an empirical question whether authoritarian governance is better able to realize desired environmental outcomes and, if so why and to what extent? Yet, it is undeniable that nearly all wealthy democratic states have failed to respond adequately to the climate crisis. By contrast, various less affluent authoritarian regimes have been successful in implementing stringent climate policies\u2026\u201d<\/strong>  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

#<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Climate Depot Note: Here is a full report on the growing movement to push climate lockdowns:Reality Check: \u2018Climate lockdowns\u2019 touted by Gates & Soros funded professors, Govts, media, & academia<\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Watch:<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Watch: Morano\u2019s full 25 min speech on Climate Lockdowns at Heartland Skeptic Conference in Las Vegas<\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By: Marc Morano<\/a> \u2013 Climate Depot<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

December 31, 2021<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Abstract<\/a>: <\/strong>Is authoritarian power ever legitimate? The contemporary political theory literature\u2014which largely conceptualizes legitimacy in terms of democracy or basic rights\u2014would seem to suggest not. I argue, however, that there exists another, overlooked aspect of legitimacy concerning a government\u2019s ability to ensure safety and security. While, under normal conditions, maintaining democracy and rights is typically compatible with guaranteeing safety, in emergency situations, conflicts between these two aspects of legitimacy can and often do arise. A salient example of this is the COVID-19 pandemic, during which severe limitations on free movement and association have become legitimate techniques of government. Climate change poses an even graver threat to public safety. Consequently, I argue, legitimacy may require a similarly authoritarian approach. While unsettling, this suggests the political importance of climate action. For if we wish to avoid legitimating authoritarian power, we must act to prevent crises from arising that can only be resolved by such means.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

#<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Below is an analysis of the new study by Professor Alexander Wutke, Political Psychology at U Mannheim who does not support the paper\u2019s ideas.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/threadreaderapp.com\/thread\/1476850341564063756.html<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other academics have critiqued the paper.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Professor Alexander Wutke, Political Psychology at U Mannheim:<\/strong> \u201cA prestigious journal in political science, @apsrjournal<\/a>, has published a disturbing piece of l political theory. In my reading, it explicitly argues that we must put climate action over democracy and adopt authoritarian governance if democracies fail to act on climate change. The study\u2019s main question, as I see it, is whether we should abandon democracy to save the climate. It argues why it could be justified to dismantle democracy in order to ensure climate policies through authoritarian governance. To make the point of abandoning democratic governance the study builds on an unholy alliance of democracy-skeptic references from Hobbes to Schmitt to Extinction rebellion. \u2026 If most citizens disagree with you about the optimal trade-off between climate change mitigations and other goals, where do you take the right from to put your preferences over the expressed will of most other citizens? \u2026 Overall, I find the article troubling for the context in which it is published. We are going through a 3rd wave of autocratization as @AnnaLuehrmann \/ @StaffanILindber put it. Pressure on democracy is mounting from multiple sides. \u2026 In this climate, we need elites who stand up for the principle of self-governing free and equal people\u2026 I think my reading reflects the core argument of the article: a hierarchy of desired goals with climate politics first and democracy second. The article argues that crises not only can legitimize but may require authoritarian governance.\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Alexander Wuttke<\/a><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

A prestigious journal in political science, @apsrjournal<\/a>, has published a disturbing piece of l political theory. In my reading, it explicitly argues that we must put climate action over democracy and adopt authoritarian governance if democracies fail to act on climate change.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A longer thread to explain why I disagree with the study\u2019s conclusion and arguments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The author of the study is @RossMittiga<\/a>.
I\u2019ve been in touch with Ross before publishing this thread but let\u2019s focus on the study itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Political Legitimacy, Authoritarianism, and Climate Change | American Political Science Review | Cambridge Core <\/strong>Political Legitimacy, Authoritarianism, and Climate Changehttps:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/S0003055421001301<\/small><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I preface that I am no expert in political philosophy. I do not know the disciplinary standards or expectations. Please tell me where I get things wrong. Also, there is much to like about this article. It is well written and accessible for empirical scholars like myself. It does not shy away from controversial conclusions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is clearly written, even when calling for the dismantling of democracy. The study\u2019s main question, as I see it, is whether we should abandon democracy to save the climate. It argues why it could be justified to dismantle democracy in order to ensure climate policies through authoritarian governance. The study preemptively states that the relative efficacy of democracies vs authoritarian is an empirical question but still expresses sympathies with climate policies of authoritarian governments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I take from a recent\u00a0@vdeminstitute<\/a>\u00a0symposium that democracies are more likely to provide environmental goods for their citizens \u2013 but results seem less clear for global commons including climate politics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n