I want to raise a couple of very difficult questions. The Roman historian, Polybius wrote that some issues are best dealt with by democratic governments and some others by authoritarian governments. Which is better, he argued, depends upon the issues being faced. When the issues are primarily national Democracy is best because it allows the issues to be expressed by various interest groups, setting the conditions for resolution. But if the problem is from outside then a united government is the best with authoritarian control in order to have a united front. The Romans actually voted some governments in and some governments out based on this contingency. His influence on the founding fathers of the US was not to focus on oscillation between appropriate types of government but on the principle of checks and balances creating harmony. This approach lost the critical edge that requires thinking. In trying to think this through I concluded that climate, change is in the category of transnational problems but noticed there was no obvious candidate to fulfill the authoritarian role.
Then along comes Trump. Could he seize on the climate issue to create a platform for his own quasi-authoritarian regime? (this is so unobvious. But remember the country and the world could fall into a highly chaotic state appearing even to Trump to be ungovernable). The hope is not that the authoritarian approach dominates all politics but that it has enough leverage to lead while the majority of the population works on local opportunities to increase local viability. They will do this anyway. The unknown is can any kind of legitimated central government, transborder, emerge?