Skip to main content

Democracy in a Hotter Time - David Orr (Ed.) ***

There's a certain class of book that is beloved of academic authors, but that is often almost unreadable. It consists of a series of essays on a particular theme, each by someone different. Often they repeat each other, lack any cohesion and are deadly dull. I can only think that academics like doing them because it's a quick way to get a brownie point for having something published. This is such a book, but the good news is it's one of the most interesting ones I've read.

The idea is to pull together two major world concerns: climate change and the state of democracy. Although there are a range of views, they all come from the same broad starting point that democracy is faring worse than it has for quite a while, that dealing effectively with climate change is best handled by democracy (despite some grudging acceptance that China is finally starting to get somewhere), and considering some of the impacts of climate change itself.

The reason I'd say it's one of the more interesting such books is that the overall thesis is an interesting one I've not seen elsewhere and there is some reasonably effective analysis of the state of democracy. It's rather more variable on climate change, veering from 'it can be fixed with tech' to 'it's the end of the world'. A lot of the useful content is very specific to the US - as the cover suggests, this is a very US-centric book (in fact you might think, reading it, the weird US version of democracy is its only form). This might seem to miss the point that climate change is a global issue, though to be fair part of the whole 'democracy to deal with climate change' picture makes it clear that global institutions rarely make things happen - that's down to individual countries.

This feels more of a political book than a scientific one, and (as is common in politics) there are some dubious numbers thrown around without apparent sources. For instance, we are told that 'as much as 37% of greenhouse gas emissions' are down to the food system, where the best estimate I can find is 26%. We are told that 'almost half of farmworkers are poisoned yearly' - which seems an extremely unlikely number, and isn't backed up in any way. And, one essay claims that the Earth's average temperature rise since 1959 is 6 degrees Fahrenheit - where the generally respectable NOAA tells us it's 2 degrees since 1880 - quite a disparity.

When I've helped undergraduates with their essay writing skills, something I always stress is not to make fact-like statements without evidence - but that happens a lot here. For example, we are told ‘there can be no decarbonisation without democratisation' - based on what? The same section, by Hélène Landemore argues strongly for citizens' assemblies and referenda rather than leaving dealing with climate change to career politicians as the latter are too easily swayed by vested interests. But this does assume 'the people' will do the right thing, which is a significant assumption, again with no evidence provided to back it up. For example, until relatively recently, the majority of British people wanted a return to capital punishment. It was only career politicians that stopped us having it. 

At least, however, Landemore offers solutions (even if rather poor ones). Some sections,  for example David Guston's Governing Science, Technology and Innovation in Hotter Times are just loaded with academic buzzwords and offer little value. Sadly, a lot of the content takes form ‘to do this, things have to be like that’ with no suggestion at all of how to make the required transformation happen. For example, Ann Florini, Gordon LaForge and Anne-Marie Slaughter in Democratic Governance for the Long Emergency offer us ‘Information systems have to be designed to ensure that the basic data are accurate, the information extracted from those data are of value, and the information is interpreted using beliefs and judgment systems that are rooted in reality.’ That sounds easy, doesn't it? 

One final niggle - the thing I found most distasteful is a quote on the cover that starts 'The brave authors of this remarkable compendium'. I'm sorry, there's nothing brave about writing an essay. The word is being relentlessly misused - this is just the latest example. Please stop.

Overall, although the book suffers from the format, is far too US-oriented for a global problem, and contains some essays that are unreadable academic speak, or offer sweeping 'solutions' with no clue as to how they could be implemented, it's an interesting pairing of climate change with democracy and should be of interest to anyone studying either.

Paperback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

I Wish They'd Taught Me That - Robin Pemantle and Julian Gould ***

Subtitled 'overlooked and omitted topics in mathematics', the obvious concern is that there is a good reason these topics are overlooked and omitted. Thankfully, this is not the case, but it's fair to say that despite attempts to dress it up that way, this isn't a recreational maths book. There's a fair description in the blurb: 'the topics which every undergraduate mathematics student "should" know, but has probably never encountered... magnificent secrets that are beautiful, useful and accessible.' As someone who many years ago did a degree with a fair amount of mathematics in it, I think it probably would have appealed back then - though to be honest a lot of it has disappeared from my memory, strongly reducing the entertainment value. Here's an example. The first real page contains the sentence:  'If you are handed a real number 𝓍 ∈  ⁠ ⁠,  one way to tell if 𝓍 is rational or irrational is to look at sequences of rational numbers q n ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...
Post a Comment
Read more

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...
Post a Comment
Read more