Other Answers (14)

• That%26#039;s not necessarily a bad idea as long as those experts only had the authority to enact laws which would preserve the environment.
  
  However, I think that would only become necessary if democracies first failed to preserve the environment on their own. I assume the author%26#039;s argument is that democracies have already failed to do so, but I think we haven%26#039;t yet been given enough of a chance.
  
  If at some point in the future it becomes clear that we won%26#039;t be able to avoid catastrophic climate change without taking major steps, and democracies have failed to take action to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, then yes at that point it may be necessary to have some sort of authoritarian portion of government (not the entire government, however).
  
  If I need to choose between the preservation of our society and democracy, I would choose preservation. Particularly if the failure of democracy has made this choice necessary. But we certainly haven%26#039;t reached that point yet, and won%26#039;t for a few decades.
  
  I%26#039;m trying to do my part %26lt;grin%26gt;.
  
  EDIT - Wow - I%26#039;ve never disagreed with Ben O so much in my life. Leave the US for a %26quot;tax haven%26quot;? Wow. Talk about being driven by money.
  
  If money is your motivation, you should be leading the fight against global warming:
  
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6096...
• Authoritarian dictatorships DO NOT have the best interest of the people. To many people believe that the American Constitution and the freedoms it grants it bad for the world. These new age Socialist apparently do not know their history. There has never been a successful socialist, communist, or Marxist society. Under a government controlled society all free thought will be banned. The people in power will do anything to stay in power. Look at the plot of Star Wars Ep 3. If you have expert scientist in power who is to saw that they will not lie and cheat to make sure they stay in power.
  On climate change, the Earth%26#039;s climate has been changing for millions of years. Either we adapt to these changes or we become the extinct species. Put look at our history man has always adapted to his surroundings
• well, china%26#039;s one child policy was %26#039;a good thing%26#039; their stripping of indonesia%26#039;s forests and economic imperialism in africa is %26#039;a bad thging%26#039;; communist russia%26#039;s old low efficiency very dirty and wasteful industrial complex was %26#039;a bad thing%26#039;, cuba%26#039;s organic green revolution makes them the only country in the world living withing their own footprint. so mixed results there already for the %26#039;totalitarian%26#039; states.
  russia%26#039;s boreal forests dissapearing through illegal logging into china, the deserts of western china and mongolia spreading hundreds of kilometers every year, have been a result of %26#039;free trade%26#039; activity after the old forestry and herding co-ops have been disbanded, so %26#039;capitalism%26#039; obviously is not the best system in all cases either.
  in my opinion, the best systems are ones that encourage people to feel %26#039;ownership%26#039; and to participate fully in a scheme, especially ones designed on a local scale with the community%26#039;s help and reflecting their needs and wants. i%26#039;m a hippy anarchist, so sue me. we will be the ones that make it through when %26#039;society%26#039; collapses.
  
  edit; typing a bit fast there, pet subject.
  hundreds of square kilometers a year. the dust is terrible, blows all the way to peking.
• There are no Democracies in existence today.
  People don%26#039;t seem to understand that with Liberty comes Responsibility.
  The author obviously is one of those people who think that %26quot;he knows best%26quot; and would like a Technocracy. He also holds China as an example of eliminating plastic bags, but they also mandate abortion for a family if they have over so many children. Some example.
  If this type of government were the norm, all of the people who have any undesirable genes would be prohibited from having children. Ugly people would also be in that class. Unproductive or low IQ people would be isolated. People with genetic diseases would be isolated.
  Please understand, there is no such thing as a good dictatorship. Now for your reading assignment, read 1984 by George Orwell.
• I perceive something in this argument. In the past most environmental concerns impacted largely on companies (albeit they usually passed the cost onto consumers or alternatively lost business). It was the will of the common man through the democratic system that forced industry to clean up its act with regard to many forms of air, water, land and noise pollution. Often companies would fight tooth and nail to prevent these restrictions being placed on their operations often claiming for example that measures were not practicable or inordinately expensive.
  
  In the instance of GW it is the common man who is being asked to consider the effects of his lifestyle in terms of carbon emissions and his reaction is often instinctively hostile (as was that of companies when they alone were mainly affected). Who is there in a democracy to impose the changes that may be necessary, when it is the voters themselves upon whom the burden falls?
• No I don%26#039;t agree with that assertion.