Governance for a Hothouse Earth: Balancing Adaptation and Freedom

How can societies best organize themselves to implement crucial adaptation strategies while preserving human rights and fostering the innovation needed for survival? This post outlines the challenges and potential solutions for governance in a climate-changed world.

Header Image Caption

Contemporary autocrats: Recep Erdogan, Kim Un, Donald Trump (candidate), Rodrigo Duterte, Abdel el-Sisi

The Autocratic Temptation

In times of crisis, there’s often a push towards autocratic rule. The argument is that centralized, authoritarian control can implement necessary changes more quickly and efficiently. However, history shows us the dangers of this approach:

Autocrats have little respect for individual rights.
  1. Suppression of creativity and innovation: Autocracies stifle the very ingenuity needed to solve complex problems (Acemoglu & Robinson 2012).
  2. Corruption and resource misallocation: Without checks and balances, leaders may prioritize their own interests over societal needs (Schedler et al. 1999).
  3. Resistance and instability: Harsh restrictions often breed resentment, potentially leading to social unrest or collapse (Gurr 2015).

While autocracies might seem equipped to handle immediate crises, they often lack the flexibility and distributed problem-solving capabilities crucial for long-term adaptation (Popper 2013).

The Case for Constitutional Democracy

A robust constitutional democracy, properly structured, may offer the best framework for climate adaptation (Dryzek & Stevenson 2011):

  1. Harnessing collective intelligence: Democratic systems can tap into the diverse knowledge and skills of the entire population (Landemore 2017).
  2. Adaptability: Regular elections and peaceful transfers of power allow for course corrections and alternative approaches (Przeworski 2000).
  3. Protection of individual rights: Enshrined freedoms can safeguard against the abuses common in autocracies (Dahl 2008).
  4. Transparency and accountability: Open governance can help ensure resources are used efficiently and fairly (Florini 2007).

However, current democratic systems, including the U.S., have shown weaknesses in addressing long-term, complex challenges like climate change (Lazarus 2009). Reforms are needed to create a more responsive and effective democracy.

Proposed Constitutional Reforms

Here are potential reforms for the U. S. Constitution that will strengthen democratic governance for climate adaptation:

  1. Direct voting: Eliminate the Electoral College to ensure equal representation (Edwards 2011).
  2. Campaign finance reform: Strict limits on political spending to reduce the influence of special interests and wealth on policy (Lessig 2015).
  3. Anti-corruption measures: Stringent rules against gifts or favors for elected officials at all levels (Warren 2004).
  4. Independent enforcement: Create robust, non-partisan mechanisms to enforce constitutional and legal requirements (Ackerman 2000).
  5. Long-term planning requirements: Mandate the creation and regular updating of multi-decade adaptation strategies (Boston 2017).
  6. Scientific advisory boards: Establish permanent, independent scientific bodies to inform policy decisions (Pielke Jr. 2007).
  7. Environmental rights: Enshrine the right to a stable climate and healthy environment in the constitution (Boyd 2011).
  8. Intergenerational equity: Create legal frameworks to consider the rights of future generations in present-day decisions (Gosseries and Meyer 2009).
  9. Participatory decision-making: Implement systems for direct citizen involvement in adaptation planning (Fung and Wright 2003).
  10. Global cooperation frameworks: Establish constitutional provisions for international biosphere cooperation and resource sharing (Biermann 2014).
  11. Anti-gerrymandering provisions: Establish independent redistricting commissions with clear criteria for drawing fair districts without partisan manipulation of electoral boundaries (McGhee and Stephanopoulos 2015).
  12. Senate representation reform: Adjust the allocation of Senate seats based on population, with states receiving one to three senators to ensure more proportional representation while maintaining a degree of state equality (Lee and Oppenheimer 1999).
  13. Higher education reform: Provide free public higher education, including mandatory coursework in government and constitutional literacy for all students, with institutional accreditation contingent on offering these courses (Goldrick-Rab 2016, Levinson 2012).
  14. Universal healthcare provision: Establish a constitutional right to free, comprehensive healthcare for all citizens, ensuring equitable access to medical services regardless of socioeconomic status (Daniels 2008).
  15. Federal office candidate competency requirements: Institute mandatory competency testing for all federal office candidates, including assessment of constitutional literacy, in addition to existing petition signature requirements (Achen and Bartels 2016).
  16. Environmental impact assessment: Mandate comprehensive environmental impact assessments for all major federal policies and projects, with clear mechanisms for public participation and scientific review (Glasson and Therivel 2013).
  17. Ranked choice voting: Implement ranked choice voting for federal elections to reduce political polarization and encourage more diverse representation (Drutman 2020).
  18. Term limits: Establish term limits for Supreme Court justices and members of Congress to prevent entrenchment and promote fresh perspectives in governance (Crane and Pilon 1994).
  19. Digital rights and privacy: Enshrine strong digital privacy rights and data protection in the constitution to address emerging challenges in the information age (Solove 2011).
  20. Indigenous rights: Strengthen constitutional protections for indigenous peoples’ rights, including land rights and cultural preservation, in line with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Lightfoot 2016).
  21. Progressive taxation framework: Establish constitutional guidelines for a progressive federal tax system, setting maximum tax rates for various income brackets and corporate entities, while ensuring sufficient revenue for social programs and environmental initiatives. Include provisions for higher rates on top earners and large corporations to support other reforms (Piketty et al. 2014, Saez and Zucman 2019).

Conclusion

Autocracy often leads to fascism.

The governance structures we choose today will profoundly shape our ability to navigate the challenges of a hothouse Earth. While autocracy may promise quick action, it risks creating brittle systems incapable of the sustained, creative adaptation we’ll need. Moreover, autocracy often leads to fascism. A reformed constitutional democracy, balancing individual rights with collective action, offers our best hope for implementing comprehensive adaptation strategies while maintaining the social cohesion and innovation necessary for long-term survival.

As we face unprecedented challenges, we must not only adapt our physical infrastructure and economies but also strengthen our systems of governance to meet the demands of a climate-changed world.

References for Governance of a Hothouse Earth

Acemoglu, D., and Robinson, J. A. 2012. Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty, pp. 150-152. Crown Books, Maryland.

Achen, C. H., and Bartels, L. M. 2016. Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton University Press.

Ackerman, B. 2000. The new separation of powers. Harvard law review, 633-729.

Adams, J., & Nettle, D. 2009. Time perspective, personality and smoking, body mass, and physical activity: An empirical study. British Journal of Health Psychology, 14: 83-105.

Averchenkova, A., Fankhauser, S., and Finnegan, J. (2018). The role of independent bodies in climate governance: the UK’s Committee on Climate Change. London: Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.

Bäckstrand, K., Khan, J., Kronsell, A., and Lövbrand, E. (Eds.). (2010). Environmental politics and deliberative democracy: Examining the promise of new modes of governance. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Ballard, K., & Knutson, B. 2009. Dissociable neural representations of future reward magnitude and delay during temporal discounting. NeuroImage, 45: 143-150.

Biermann, F. 2014. Earth system governance: World politics in the Anthropocene. MIT Press.

Biermann, F., et al. (2012). Navigating the Anthropocene: improving earth system governance. Science, 335(6074) 1306-1307.

Boston, J. 2017. Governing for the future: Designing democratic institutions for a better tomorrow. Emerald Group Publishing.

Boyd, D. R. 2011. The environmental rights revolution: A global study of constitutions, human rights, and the environment. UBC Press.

Chaffin, B. C., Gosnell, H., and Cosens, B. A. (2014). A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: synthesis and future directions. Ecology and Society 19(3).

Chapron, G. (2017). The environment needs cryptogovernance. Nature, 545(7655), 403-405.

Collins, A., Miller, J., Coughlin, D., and Kirk, S. (2015). The production of quick scoping reviews and rapid evidence assessments: a how to guide. NERC.

Crane, E. H., and Pilon, R. 1994. The politics and law of term limits. Cato Institute.

Dahl, R. A. 2008. On democracy. Yale university press.

Daniels, N. 2008. Just health: Meeting health needs fairly. Cambridge University Press.

Devaney, L., Torney, D., Brereton, P., and Coleman, M. (2020). Ireland’s Citizens’ Assembly on Climate Change: Lessons for Deliberative Public Engagement and Communication. Environmental Communication 14(2) 141-146.

Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., … and Zlatanova, D. (2015). The IPBES Conceptual Framework—connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14 1-16.

Drutman, L. 2020. Breaking the two-party doom loop: The case for multiparty democracy in America. Oxford University Press.

Dryzek, J. S., and Stevenson, H. 2011. Global democracy and earth system governance. Ecological Economics, 70: 1865-1874.

Edwards, III, G. C. 2011. Why the Electoral College is bad for America. Yale University Press.

Florini, A. 2007. The right to know: Transparency for an open world. Columbia University Press.

Ford, J. D., Cameron, L., Rubis, J., Maillet, M., Nakashima, D., Willox, A. C., and Pearce, T. (2016). Including indigenous knowledge and experience in IPCC assessment reports. Nature Climate Change, 6(4), 349-353.

Fung, A., and Wright, E. O. 2003. Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. Verso.

Gilley, B. (2012). Authoritarian environmentalism and China’s response to climate change. Environmental Politics 21(2) 287-307.

Glasson, J., and Therivel, R. 2013. Introduction to environmental impact assessment. Routledge.

Goldrick-Rab, S. 2016. Paying the price: College costs, financial aid, and the betrayal of the American dream. University of Chicago Press.

Gopel, M. (2012). Ombudspersons for Future Generations as Sustainability Implementation Units. London: Stakeholder Forum.

Gosseries, A., and Meyer, L. H. (Eds). 2009. Intergenerational justice. Oxford University Press.

Griskevicius, V., et al. 2011. Environmental contingency in life history strategies: the influence of mortality and socioeconomic status on reproductive timing. Journal Pers Soc Psychology 100: 241-254.

Griskevicius, V., et al. 2013. When the economy falters, do people spend or save? Responses to resource scarcity depend on childhood environments. Psychological Science, 24: 197-205.

Gurr, T. R. 2015. Why men rebel. Routledge. 446 p

Huitema, D., Mostert, E., Egas, W., Moellenkamp, S., Pahl-Wostl, C., and Yalcin, R. (2009). Adaptive water governance: assessing the institutional prescriptions of adaptive (co-) management from a governance perspective and defining a research agenda. Ecology and society 14(1).

IPCC. (2022). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.

Kauffman, C. M., and Martin, P. L. (2017). Can Rights of Nature Make Development More Sustainable? Why Some Ecuadorian lawsuits Succeed and Others Fail. World Development, 92 130-142.

Landemore, H. 2017. Democratic reason: Politics, collective intelligence, and the rule of the many. Princeton University Press.

Lazarus, R. J. 2009. Super wicked problems and climate change: Restraining the present to liberate the future. Cornell L. Rev., 94, 1153.

Lebel, L., Anderies, J. M., Campbell, B., Folke, C., Hatfield-Dodds, S., Hughes, T. P., and Wilson, J. (2006). Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. Ecology and society 11(1).

Lee, F. E., and Oppenheimer, B. I. 1999. Sizing up the Senate: The unequal consequences of equal representation. University of Chicago Press.

Lessig, L. 2015. Republic, lost: The corruption of equality and the steps to end it. Twelve.

Levinson, M. 2012. No citizen left behind. Harvard University Press.

Lightfoot, S. 2016. Global indigenous politics: A subtle revolution. Routledge.

McGhee, E., and Stephanopoulos, N. O. 2015. Partisan gerrymandering and the efficiency gap. University of Chicago Law Review, 82: 831-900.

New Zealand Government. (2019). Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019. Wellington: Parliamentary Counsel Office.

Pielke Jr, R. A. 2007. The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press.

Piketty, T., Saez, E., and Stantcheva, S. 2014. Optimal taxation of top labor incomes: A tale of three elasticities. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6(1): 230-271.

Popper, K. 2013. The open society and its enemies. Princeton University Press.

Przeworski, A. 2000. Democracy and development: Political institutions and well-being in the world, 1950-1990. Cambridge University Press.

Rockefeller Foundation and Global Business Network. (2010). Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development. New York: The Rockefeller Foundation.

Rockström, J., et al. 2024. The planetary commons: A new paradigm for safeguarding Earth-regulating systems in the Anthropocene. – Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) 121, 5, e2301531121.

Romer, D., Duckworth, A. L., Sznitman, S., & Park, S. 2010. Can adolescents learn self-control? Delay of gratification in the development of control over risk taking. Prevention Science, 11: 319-330.

Saez, E., and Zucman, G. 2019. The triumph of injustice: How the rich dodge taxes and how to make them pay. W.W. Norton & Company.

Schedler, A., Diamond, L. J., and Plattner, M. F. 1999. The self-restraining state: Power and accountability in new democracies. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Schmeier, S. (2013). Governing international watercourses: River basin organizations and the sustainable governance of internationally shared rivers and lakes. Routledge.

Shamosh, N. A., and Gray, J. R. 2008. Delay discounting and intelligence: A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 36: 289-305.

Solove, D. J. 2011. Nothing to hide: The false tradeoff between privacy and security. Yale University Press.

Wang, M., Rieger, M. O., and Hens, T. 2016. How time preferences differ: Evidence from 53 countries. Journal of Economic Psychology, 52: 115-135.

Warren, M. E. 2004. What does corruption mean in a democracy? American journal of political science, 48: 328-343.

Will, J. R., and Daly, E. (2015). Global environmental constitutionalism. Cambridge University Press.

Latest Posts