Lazar and Wallace make a compelling case that, although climate disasters undercut democratic legitimacy, “authoritarianism is not the answer.” The authors of this essay agree, but do not view regime type as the primary constraint on climate-policy outcomes. Here, the authors draw on research on political institutions and climate policy to highlight two overlooked features of the conversation. First, even if democracy is better on average in addressing climate change, there is a lot of variation: Procarbon interests can capture the process in both autocracies and democracies, sometimes to very similar degrees. Second, there are dangerous feedback effects between climate change and democracy, because climate-induced instability can destabilize democracies, reduce the likelihood that green policies will work, and even prompt repression.
About the Authors
Emilie M. Hafner-Burton
Emilie M. Hafner-Burton is a professor in the Department of Political Science and School of Global Policy and Strategy at the University of California (UC), San Diego, Inaugural Peter Cowhey Chair for Public Policy, and research director of the UC Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation’s Future of Democracy Initiative.
Christina J. Schneider is professor in the Department of Political Science at UC San Diego and co-director for the UC Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation’s Future of Democracy Initiative.
Climate change is an urgent and unparalleled threat. Our best hope lies in radical, principled activism — at once more democratic and more authoritarian.
