Saturday, April 19, 2014
Exit from comment view mode. Click to hide this space
5

A Democratic Hurricane

NEW YORK – Nothing concentrates the mind like a full-blown crisis. Like millions of other people in New York City, I heard Hurricane Sandy rattling my windows and battering my doors. I was luckier than many. Rattling is all it did.

For many years, experts have been warning that such storms would overwhelm the city’s antiquated urban infrastructure. Salt water came streaming into open subways. Damage to the power supply reduced a third of Manhattan to a pre-modern state of darkness. And that was just New York. In parts of New Jersey, many people fortunate enough still to have a house are cut off by rivers of raw sewage lapping at their doors.

No one can say with certainty that this particular storm was caused by global warming, but almost all experts agree that the effects of polar-ice melt and sea-level rise will make future storms worse. And yet neither candidate in the United States’ presidential campaign bothered to mention the potentially catastrophic consequences of climate change.

In this sense, Hurricane Sandy was like gun violence. Throughout the campaign season – and despite several highly publicized mass shootings in this period – neither President Barack Obama nor his challenger, Mitt Romney, wished to discuss the problem of laws in many states that allow almost anyone to carry lethal weapons and spray death around at random.

The reason, of course, is that there are not enough votes to be gained in addressing these matters. Even if a majority of Americans agree that climate change is real, future disasters seem a long way off, or might happen somewhere else, so why worry about them now? Perhaps more should be done to protect New York, among many other places, against future flooding, but, as a former city official told an interviewer: “Until things happen, people aren’t willing to pay for it.”

Does this point to a serious weakness in the democratic system? Most voters, after all, think about their immediate interests – less taxation, more jobs, lower gasoline prices, and so on – and not about planning for the future, which is, in any case, unpredictable. We want to feel good right now. And that is precisely the sentiment to which democratically elected politicians will cater. The future will take care of itself.

There is something to be said for this attitude. The kind of politics that imposes sacrifices for the sake of future utopias has caused immense human suffering in the service of a variety of impossible ideals. Better, then, to stick to the here and now.

Yet postponing, for the sake of immediate gratification, a certain degree of planning for the future collective good can be as disastrous as indulging in utopian schemes. Perhaps there are some non-utopian ways of transcending selfish interests and doing what is necessary. For example, in various countries, voters have been tempted to elect business tycoons: enough with politicians bickering over selfish interests – let the can-do strongmen take charge and run countries like corporations.

Silvio Berlusconi was one such figure. Mitt Romney, in a milder, less flamboyant manner, has appealed to these sentiments as well: he knew how to run an investment company, so why not the US federal government?

In practice, however, such tycoon politicians have their own interests and gratifications to pursue. Berlusconi did indeed run Italy the way he runs his companies: like a private fiefdom, promoting cronies, intimidating critics, and paying people vast sums of money in exchange for their slavish devotion. And, two years after the earthquake in L’Aquila in 2009, which killed hundreds of people, nothing much had been done to reconstruct the city, despite an initial flurry of publicity stunts showing Berlusconi, posing in a fireman’s hat, personally taking charge.

What about the more serious-minded technocrats who run the Leninist-capitalist People’s Republic of China? The “Chinese model,” combining a capitalist economy with authoritarian government, has frequently been hailed as superior to the messy, dithering, compromising ways of liberal democracies. With no need to concern themselves about elections, China’s leaders can afford to plan for the longer term and do what is necessary without being impeded by petty selfish interests or a carping press.

These arrangements have indeed made it possible for China to build entire cities in a matter of years, as well as high-speed railways, opera houses, stadiums, industrial parks, massive dams, and whatnot. Many people have been lifted out of poverty, and those with the right political connections have become enormously rich.

But the lack of transparency in this type of autocracy has also led to massive corruption and huge blunders, not to mention the growing signs of ecological ruin. Chinese critics of the government, or even those who simply wish to report mistakes or wrongdoing, are silenced with a heavy hand: beatings in police stations, draconian jail sentences, or even murder.

That is what happened to the parents who openly expressed their anger about the ill-constructed school buildings that collapsed in the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, killing their children. The children died because corrupt local officials had allowed developers to enrich themselves by using inferior building materials.

Despite its flaws, a system in which elected officials are held publicly accountable and can be voted out of office is still preferable to rule by tycoons or technocrats. And, sometimes, radical changes are made, even in democracies, though a severe crisis often is required to mobilize voters behind a collective push for essential reform, as was true of the Great Depression in the 1930’s, which led to Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.

Perhaps Hurricane Sandy will spur US citizens and politicians to take climate change seriously – and to implement public policies aimed at protecting America’s cities and coastlines. If so, we can only hope that this crisis will not have come too late.

Exit from comment view mode. Click to hide this space
Hide Comments Hide Comments Read Comments (5)

Please login or register to post a comment

  1. Commentedjames durante

    The resistance to action on climate change is complex. Some of the most powerful corporate entities on the planet spend considerable resources to undermine, distort or simply lie about the science behind the problem. Their enormous lobbying resources are used to develop, at the very best, minimal changes in the status quo.

    As Zsolt points out, a long history of intertwining cultural factors--western metaphysics, Judao-Christian religion, modern physics--all present a picture of "Man, the master controller of Nature." Cap that off with the most extreme technological hubris ever seen and you get a pretty staunch cultural wall of resistance to meaningful climate change policies.

    Then there is the simple fact that no one, ever, at least in any mainstream context, presents simple historical information on the collapse of civilizations. Like each before us we never dream that a catastrophic declines i not only possible but the actual fate of every preceding civilization (unless it was taken over by a larger civilization).

    Finally, the very electronic media that enables widespread information is almost entirely devoted to advertising and distractions.

    Democracy and short-term policy making is a rather small factor compared to these others. I mean it did come up in several debates, the Keystone XL pipeline. Canada's tar sands: game over for this civilization.

  2. CommentedZsolt Hermann

    I do not think it matters what system we are talking about, whether a democratic or despotic regime has to tackle today's problem, since it does not depend on governance but on human nature.
    And regardless of culture or governing structure we all only concentrate on short term profit for ourselves, how much we can gain for ourselves, how we can stamp our own authority on our surroundings, and how we can exploit the whole system for self gain.
    And it does not matter if these hurricanes are directly related to global warming, or how much percent of global warming is attributed to direct or indirect human effect.
    What is more important is that although humanity as a species is part of the vast natural system, we still think we are above it, and we can do whatever we want and exploit or shape the system to our liking.
    Even if we forget the natural environment today we have enough evidence to see that the constant quantitative growth economic model turned out be a cancer for human society, exceedingly exhausting the natural and human resources threatening our future.
    Besides despite evolving into a global, interconnected human network, we still make decisions and action based on self calculations, totally ignoring the needs and the well being of the whole system.
    Even the reaction to the hurricane in the world media, or films like "Argo" show that New York city and its troubles, or 6 Americans trapped in Tehran are much more important than disasters elsewhere or thousands suffering daily if they exist in "less important" locations.
    Humanity today is violating all the strict, unchanging natural laws governing the living ecosystem all around the Universe.
    This is not Hollywood, there is no happy ending, there are no appeal processes. Either we learn what laws we need to follow and adapt to them or we will suffer.
    If not natural catastrophes, then famine, water shortage, extinction of crucial plants or other animate species like bees, diseases or wars will end our existence.

Featured