Description
“A Paradoxical Threat to Democracy” examines in-depth the two major threats U.S. democracy faces—climate change and autocracy—and how the mitigation of these threats is paradoxical. The first paradox relates to how United States Department of Defense lists climate change as a national security threat, therefore making the Department responsible for its mitigation. However, this presentation sheds light on the Department of Defense’s role as a critical contributor to this threat by being the largest institutional consumer of fossil fuels in the world. How can the military fight climate change by being one of the highest consumers of fossil fuels in the world? A second paradox exists in that some scholars argue that democratic governments will not be enough to solve climate change. Specifically, in a democracy, individuals have the right to choose their own leaders and dissent to the state, both of which can deter the progress of climate policy. On the other hand, a well-intentioned ‘environmental authoritarianism’ would allow a government to smoothly implement environmental policy without interruption from individual dissent. The result would be a quick and effective response to climate change, abandoning individual liberty in favor of protecting the planet. Environmental authoritarianism would shake the foundation of the democratic world order held dear by the United States and NATO, which begs the question: how can the United States defend itself from the threats of climate change and autocracy, when autocracy is seen as one of the few solutions to combat climate change on an institutional level?
A Paradoxical Threat to Democracy
“A Paradoxical Threat to Democracy” examines in-depth the two major threats U.S. democracy faces—climate change and autocracy—and how the mitigation of these threats is paradoxical. The first paradox relates to how United States Department of Defense lists climate change as a national security threat, therefore making the Department responsible for its mitigation. However, this presentation sheds light on the Department of Defense’s role as a critical contributor to this threat by being the largest institutional consumer of fossil fuels in the world. How can the military fight climate change by being one of the highest consumers of fossil fuels in the world? A second paradox exists in that some scholars argue that democratic governments will not be enough to solve climate change. Specifically, in a democracy, individuals have the right to choose their own leaders and dissent to the state, both of which can deter the progress of climate policy. On the other hand, a well-intentioned ‘environmental authoritarianism’ would allow a government to smoothly implement environmental policy without interruption from individual dissent. The result would be a quick and effective response to climate change, abandoning individual liberty in favor of protecting the planet. Environmental authoritarianism would shake the foundation of the democratic world order held dear by the United States and NATO, which begs the question: how can the United States defend itself from the threats of climate change and autocracy, when autocracy is seen as one of the few solutions to combat climate change on an institutional level?