Perhaps uniquely, climate change reveals the tension between science and democracy. Conventionally depicted as an issue that can be comprehended solely through science, the changing climate is regarded as a problem that demands both a scientific explanation and a scientific solution. It is often seen as the responsibility of scientists to ‘lead’ society towards innovative measures (Crutzen 2002). Many concerned by climate change are becoming frustrated with democratic processes and institutions that appear to obstruct the possibility of effective and prompt global agreement on, and implementation of, such measures. Relying upon democracy seems not only tedious but also perilous.
To view democracy as a procedure that simply fails to produce the right ends, however, is a misunderstanding of democracy. Democracy does not guarantee sustainability, but it can offer legitimacy. To undermine democracy in order to institute and implement solutions is actually to undermine those solutions right from the start. This paper argues that any feasible and legitimate approach to sustainability demands not that democracy is renounced but that, in contrast, it is re-embedded. It suggests that an agonistic approach offers a different and promising approach to reconstructing the relation between climate change and democracy.
There are three dimensions to this agonistic re-embedding: (1) The enlivening of democratic debate. Innovative solutions emerge precisely through the contestation between different ideas within the democratic process itself. Animated argument and passionate contestation, encouraged in an agonistic approach, are precisely what allow alternatives to circulate and consolidate. (2) The connecting of the climate discussion with other related areas of social and environmental policy. Climate change cannot be completely separated out from other issues such as inequality for example (Laurent 2013). But these connections will be understood differently. Agonism acknowledges that climate change will be framed in various ways by different political positions. (3) The localizing of the debate. A shift away from the aim of global agreement towards local disagreement could precipitate both a revitalized democratic discussion but also a greater understanding of the diverse causes and effects of a changing climate. The paper argues that climate change is not only a problem to be solved, but an opportunity to re-embed our democratic practices and institutions.
