Alarmist website, Grist.org has criticized American democracy for it’s inability to enact legislation on global warming, and asks if the Chinese are better placed in the 21st century because of what it calls their “quasi-dictatorship”.
Citing a BBC news story, the article comments that China’s Communist rulers were able to shut down an electricity power station during the recent bitterly cold winter, something that free democracies were good at preventing.
Noting that the democratic process is often lengthy and involves compromising, the article asked if Communist dictatorships like China’s might be better for lowering carbon emissions:
Is a nation ruled somewhat autocratically by engineers and scientists better equipped to confront the 21st century than a nation that has always been suspicious of intellectuals, a nation increasingly ruled by the checkbooks of lobbyists and the entrenched industries they represent? It would be horrible, if it were true, and this is the unconquerable nut of the problem the U.S. now faces: if we can’t get it together to transition to a sustainable resource base, what hope is there for the co-occurrence of both democracy and lasting material civilization?
I like the qualifying tone of the article: “Quasi-dictatorship” which is ruled “somewhat” autocratically.
In other words, it’s only a “bit” of an authoritarian dictatorship then?
In another article sure to stir controversy, the website notes the recent discussion amongst warmists over whether Genghis Khan was the greenest mass-slaughterer in history.
Grist argues that the Great Khan was not that green, commenting that:
But this notion that Genghis was green in any way is really off base. If there was anything he liked more than slaughtering entire cities, it was fathering children.
So what are they saying, that “Slaughtering entire cities” is Green, but “Fathering Children” is not?