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

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Nanotechnology - Rahul Rao ****

There was a time when nanotechnology was both going to transform the world and wipe us out - a similar position to our view of AI today. On the positive transformation side there was K. Eric Drexler's visions in the 1986 Engines of Creation. Arguably as much science fiction as engineering possibilities, it predicted the ability to use vast armies of assemblers to put objects together from individual atoms.  On the negative side was the vision of grey goo, out of control nanotechnology consuming all in its path as it made more and more copies of itself. In 2003, for instance, the then Prince Charles made the headlines  when newspapers reported ‘The prince has raised the spectre of the “grey goo” catastrophe in which sub-microscopic machines designed to share intelligence and replicate themselves take over and devour the planet.’ These days the expectations have been eased down a notch or two. Where nanotechnology has succeeded, it has been with the likes of atom-thick mat...
Post a Comment
Read more