Abstract When scholars consider the relation between domestic political regimes and global climate change, they typically rely on assumptions about liberal democracy's core competencies with respect to environmental protection in general. As a result, an ostensibly normative debate pitting democracy against “eco-authoritarianism” depends for its resolution on causal theory and empirical analysis. I offer an integrated assessment of both empirical (causal) and normative (ethical) theories on democracy, autocracy, and climate change, concluding that democracy's superiority is less compellingly supported than regime-neutrality. Theoretically, the causal logic of environmentally protective democracy cannot readily be extended to climate change as a distinctive political problem. Empirically, my review of global statistical analyses of regime type and climate change reveals that the evidence is more consistent with regime-neutrality than democratic advantage. Regime-neutrality, in turn, revitalizes difficult normative arguments about trade-offs between democratic freedom and climatic stability. Something resembling the “win-win” situation of climate-fixing democracy may still be salvaged, theoretically. But political science's search for this outcome should take a realist turn: abandoning the liberal-authoritarian dichotomy in favor of a new one, pitting post-liberal forms of democracy against climate-fixing hybrid regimes.
Read full abstract