Democracy’s Divisive Position in Environmental Political Theory: A Comparative Analysis of Denmark, China, and the USA

The need to lower emissions to prevent catastrophic climate change is clear, but the political path to achieve such a future is unclear. The emerging field of environmental political theory is divided on the best form of governance to successfully mitigate the climate crisis. Liberal democracies around the world are dealing with climate change with various levels of success, while authoritarian regimes are providing a potential alternative path. This paper utilizes three environmental political frameworks that fall across the spectrum of theory: "Too Hot to Handle? The Democratic Challenge of Climate Change" by Rebecca Willis, "The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy" by David Shearman and Joseph Wayne, and "Climate Leviathan: A Political Theory for Our Future by Geoff Mann and Joel Wainwright." To understand the strengths and weaknesses of each theory as well as the field as a whole, Denmark, China, and the United States are used to see how the theories perform in the real world and extrapolate issues that are hindering the efficacy of environmental political theory in securing positive sustainable governance. This analysis concludes with three main findings: environmental theory is too broad in its scope, effective frameworks must focus on the domestic political level, and new environmental political theories should work to provide specific guidance and policy reforms to reach its end goal.