There’s A Case For A Coercive Green New Deal Or Something

The subhead on this is great, though it doesn’t stand up to the call for an authoritarian style government

The Case for a Coercive Green New Deal
Only a massive, democratically elected administrative apparatus can stop climate change.

Perhaps the very far left The Nation means for a government democratically elected should become authoritarian, then be democratic like Saddam Hussein’s type of voting, or the Nazis. Stick with me for a long excerpt to make it perfectly clear their intentions

At its best, Earth was once likened to a spaceship that sails through the heavens with a crew working together for the common good. Thanks to climate change, this metaphor no longer works. Our planet is now more like a lifeboat that’s sprung a major leak. People onboard are beginning to panic and the clock is ticking.

It is, however, the perfect environment to test out the best way to deal with life-and-death situations.

For such a test, imagine not one but two lifeboats of survivors bobbing in an endless, empty sea. Both contain the same number of people and a limited amount of food. Based on some educated guesses by one knowledgeable crewmember, the boats are at least five days from land, if everyone rows together and they don’t veer off course.

In the first boat, the survivors debate the problem: Should they stay in place and conserve their energy or strike off in search of land? They divide into three committees to address the different aspects of the problem and present their findings, making sure everyone has input. They debate for hours, growing weaker and weaker until they no longer have the energy to do anything and the issue decides itself.

In the second boat, one person takes control, believing he alone has the skill and knowledge to steer the lifeboat toward land. Not everyone agrees, but dissenters are silenced. The others agree that there’s no time for more discussion. The new leader imposes rules on who rows and who eats. When someone falls deathly ill, he orders the incapacitated man thrown overboard.

On Lifeboat Earth, time and resources are similarly limited. According to most climate scientists, the window of opportunity to prevent irrevocable climate change is about a dozen years. Opinion is divided, however, on how to address this problem with the urgency it requires.

The international community has tried, in a roughly democratic fashion, to avoid the apocalypse. In 2015, the countries of the world came together in Paris and negotiated a non-binding climate accord that was a victory for compromise but a failure for shrinking the planet’s actual carbon footprint. In a number of countries around the world, democratic elections subsequently brought climate-change deniers like Donald Trump to power, further compromising that accord.

In this way, the planet risks following the first lifeboat scenario: talking ourselves to death.

So, wait, the Paris Climate Agreement is now bad? I thought it was historic? No? Of course, it really was part of lifeboat 2, since it was written in a way to avoid having to put it in front of most legislative bodies, especially the US Congress.

The second lifeboat option—think of it as eco-authoritarianism—seems to better fit the temper of the times. The current climate emergency coincides with a profound disillusionment with the liberal world order. Authoritarianism has become significantly more popular these days, even in otherwise democratic societies like India, Brazil, and the United States.

Writer John Feffer does sort of attempt to walk balk wanting an authoritarian style green government

Ultimately, they want to eliminate what Garrett Hardin identified as the only way to avoid the tragedy of the commons: “mutual coercion mutually agreed upon.” To push through a Green New Deal in the United States, for instance, a distinctly non-Republican Congress would have to coerce a range of powerful interests (coal companies, oil and gas corporations, auto manufacturers, the Pentagon, and so on) to fall into line. And for any global pact that implements something similar, an international authority like the UN would have to coerce recalcitrant or non-compliant countries to do the same.

Something as transformative as the Green New Deal—a democratically achieved Climate Leviathan—will not come about because the Democratic Party or Xi Jinping or the UN secretary general suddenly realizes that radical change is necessary, nor simply through ordinary parliamentary and congressional procedure. Major change of this sort could only come from a far more basic form of democracy: people in the streets engaged in actions like school strikes and coal mine blockades. This is the kind of pressure that progressive legislators could then use to push through a mutually agreed-upon Green New Deal capable of building a powerful administrative force that might convince or coerce everyone into preserving the global commons.

Coercion: It’s not exactly a sexy campaign slogan. But if democracies don’t embrace moonshots like the Green New Deal—along with the administrative apparatus to force powerful interests to comply—then the increasing political and economic chaos of climate change will usher in yet more authoritarian regimes that offer an entirely different coercive agenda.

Except, what of those who do not believe in what the climate cultists are pushing? That’s why this is authoritarian. Feffer tries to paint the coercion as totally democratic, but, it’s not. And this is what they want. And you will be forced to comply.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

4 Responses to “There’s A Case For A Coercive Green New Deal Or Something”

  1. MrToad says:

    In the end I would imagine it will go exactly like immigration & Obamacare went, the Judicial Branch will make the new Green Laws.

  2. Doom and Gloom says:

    It is quite evident why the left is pushing Green In America. It is written in plain sight in the Green New Deal. The complete reworking of America and turning it into a nation in which corporations are smashed and everyone has a government job including free education where the people will be retrained to think properly about how desperate this world is based upon a few molecules of Co2.

    The only think keeping the world alive is that most people flock to the big cities leaving 90 percent of the world still producing oxygen and sinking co2.

    In the end. The left will win. They will fear monger the nation into giving them a shot and when they do they will write and pass a bill using 51 votes and once a bill is in effect well guess what it is like Obamacare. Once passed it is next to impossible to repeal it.

    Obama care was written to fail. The Green New Deal will be written to fail so that more harsh measure are needed to completely transform America into the fascist state run by communists.

    Let their be no mistake AGW is not about the weather. Its about transforming America into a giant plantation where all people are told by a few what they will and will not do with their lives. Authoritarianism at its greatest.

  3. Dana says:

    “One man would have ruled eventually. As Rome under Caesar. Think of its accomplishments.” — Khan Noonien Singh

    The justification for the rule of one man, or a small oligarchy of the elites has been with us for a long time. Certainly the men who achieved that were more interested in personal power, wealth and achievement, but there were those who did not achieve it who justified it anyway. Plato, in his Republic, tells us that, as the best, brightest and wisest of men, philosophers should have exclusive rule, while the second-most important caste, the soldiers, should enforce it.

    And even today, we see it in the Democratic Party, the denizens of which keep telling us that they are more intelligent, better educated and just plain more noble than us plebeians, and that, therefore, they should be taking the decisions for our country. It is, after all, for our own good!

    The Republicans make similar arguments, of course, but they aren’t quite as smarmy or full of themselves as the Democrats.

    The left are still aghast at the notion that they aren’t in charge, that the scumbag Donald Trump is President and that Her Royal Highness was denied the throne. And that denial came not from the university professors and graduates of Hahvahd, but from the lowly hourly workers of this country. How dare they?

    We will see more and more of this, as the Democrats continue to embrace some form of socialism, because the essence of socialism is that the welfare of the community outweighs the rights of the individual, and that means those individuals who exercise their rights in ways of which the socialists disapprove must be stamped down. In the end, the left believe in freedom of choice on exactly one subject.

  4. Professor Hale says:

    There is always a great reason for coercion. Other people don’t do what you want without it.

Bad Behavior has blocked 11486 access attempts in the last 7 days.