Abstract
In their contribution to this symposium on climate and democracy, Lazar and Wallace seek to defend democracy against an authoritarian alternative. This essay objects to two elements of their argument: first, that climate change is an urgent but essentially ordinary policy problem; and second, that in responding to the problem of climate change, humanity must choose between status quo democratic regimes and authoritarian alternatives. Against Lazar and Wallace, the author argues that our best hope to achieve democratically legitimate climate outcomes is to increase the democratic legitimacy of our institutions. Deliberative institutions like citizens' climate assemblies can offer improved reasoning that reflects the broad democratic interests.