If democracy is the best option...

In Jared Diamond's Collapse, about which you may be tired of reading here, he first discusses a number of historical instances of collapse of civilizations in which environmental degradation played an important role, as well as discussions of environmental problems in some contemporary societies. In one of the last chapters, he discusses how societies have failed to prevent serious environmental problems: failure to anticipate a problem, failure to perceive the problem, failure to try to solve it, and failure to actually solve it. He says that the third of these is, surprisingly, the most common. In discussing various forms of clashes of interests that can cause societies to fail to try to solve environmental problems, he adds:

A further conflict of interest involving rational behavior arises when the interests of the decision-making elite in power clash with the interests of the rest of society. Especially if the elite can insulate themselves from the consequences of their actions, they are likely to do things that profit themselves, regardless of whether those actions hurt everybody else. Such clashes ... are becoming increasingly frequent in the modern U.S., where rich people tend to live within their gated compounds and to drink bottled water. (pp. 430-1)

In Perfectly Legal, David Johnston describes how the U.S. tax code is increasingly shifting the burden of taxation off the wealthy and corporations and onto those whose income comes primarily from wages and salaries. (It can be a little dry, but, if you're as geeky as I am, you will find it gripping and devastating.) This is not directly an environmental issue, but it serves to illustrate the point that those who can fund political campaigns get laws written in their interests:

(I will insert the quote from Perfectly Legal when I get the book unpacked after the move. It's about how, in the 2002 congressional election cycle, something like 80% of campaign funds came from 10% of the donors, or somesuch.)

While this upward distribution of wealth is patently unfair, this combination of power and isolation of a wealthy elite can have more disastrous consequences, as Diamond points out.

In a previous post, I complained that no political group seemed to act "in the general interst". Then perhaps the best way to make collective decisions is through a contest of interests, fought as "fairly" as possible. In my limited understanding, this is the point of a democracy, but this is not how our democracy is working now. The best hope for it that I can see is Clean Money. If you're a Californian, please do sign up and become a member. If you're not, look for the activity in your state at Public Campaign. It's a great investment in our country.