Green Pledges Boost Autocratic Power

Climate's New Cold War: Can Democracies Broker a Green Future with Fossil Fuel Autocrats?

The world faces a stark contradiction in its fight against climate breakdown. A significant portion of the planet's greenhouse gas output originates from undemocratic nations. Furthermore, a large number of the primary exporters of oil and gas operate under authoritarian rule. This reality places autocratic governments at the absolute centre of any effort to secure a livable future for the planet. Their decisions will either accelerate disaster or catalyse salvation. While the unpredictable nature of democratic electorates presents its own challenges, the opaque and unaccountable power structures of autocracies create a far more difficult and inscrutable problem for global climate diplomacy to solve. The path to a stable climate runs directly through these regimes.

The Carbon Leviathans

A select group of huge fossil fuel corporations, sometimes known as the "carbon majors", hold immense power over the world’s energy systems. Among the twenty corporations with the world's largest carbon footprint, a remarkable sixteen are owned by states. In 2023, these companies accounted for over 50 percent of worldwide emissions. This concentration of power in state hands creates a unique challenge. These companies answer not to shareholders or the public but are answerable straight to the state authorities that control them. This creates a direct link between national policy and corporate action, for better or for worse. It bypasses the usual pressures of market forces and shareholder activism that can influence privately-owned corporations.

Authoritarian Ownership

The vast majority of these state-controlled energy behemoths are the property of autocracies or regimes with authoritarian characteristics. Well-known entities in this category include Saudi Aramco, along with the National Iranian Oil Company, and China's CHN Energy and Jinneng Holding Group. Their vast operations are interwoven with the political and economic stability of their home nations. Of the top five individual corporate emitters worldwide, only Coal India operates within a democracy. This fact fundamentally shapes the landscape of climate negotiations, turning corporate strategy into a direct extension of national geopolitical interests. It means dealing with these companies is the same as dealing with their governments.

A Shifting Diplomatic View

For a long time, a pragmatic viewpoint guided climate negotiators. The primary goal was to secure agreement on emissions targets, regardless of a nation's governance model. The chief U.S. negotiator for Barack Obama, Todd Stern, who was instrumental in crafting the Paris accord, recalled that the democratic standing of other governments was not a key focus during those discussions. The focus remained squarely on the shared global threat and the need for collective action. This approach prioritised universal participation over political judgment, aiming to build the broadest possible coalition.

A New Era of Obstruction

That old pragmatism is now facing a severe test. The power that a small number of autocratic nations now hold over the planet's climate destiny is unprecedented. Their choices could, by themselves, decide if the world is successful in restricting global temperature increases to less severe levels. Historically, countries including Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia maintained a subdued presence in climate negotiations. Other countries often accepted this, fearing that confrontation could fracture the already delicate negotiation process. More recently, this situation has altered significantly. These countries have started adopting a more assertive and obstructive stance.

The Saudi-Russian Axis

During recent UN climate conferences, especially at COP28 in Dubai, Russia and Saudi Arabia have energetically tried to obstruct progress. Their strategy focuses on a subtle but critical distinction in language. They advocate for texts that target "emissions" rather than the "fossil fuels" that create them. This approach promotes reliance on unproven and expensive carbon capture technologies, which effectively permits the continued extraction and sale of oil and natural gas. This position directly opposes the "fossil fuel phase-out" goal sought by the European Union, many developing nations, and various island states threatened by rising seas. It is a clear attempt to derail global momentum.

China’s Calculated Ambiguity

China occupies a complex and pivotal position in this geopolitical landscape. While its climate envoy once called a fossil fuel phase-out "unrealistic," the nation has also participated in important climate diplomacy. A major agreement with the United States, known as the Sunnylands deal, resulted in China's first-ever commitment to cover all greenhouse gases, methane included, in its subsequent national climate strategy. This was a notable step forward. Still, Beijing sided with Moscow and Riyadh to advocate for "phasing down" rather than "phasing out" language at COP28, highlighting a continued commitment to its domestic coal industry and a reluctance to fully commit to ending fossil fuel use.

Image Credit - Freepik

The Autocratic Advantage Theory

Some political scholars argue that authoritarian states possess a unique advantage in tackling the climate emergency. A suggestion from Francis Fukuyama, the well-known political scientist, is that since these regimes control all mechanisms of state power, they can enact broad transformations by executive order. An authoritarian leader, if convinced of the necessity, could mandate a country-wide transition toward technology with low carbon emissions without facing the legislative gridlock or powerful vested interests that often stymie action in democracies. This theoretical efficiency presents a tantalising possibility for rapid, top-down climate action, bypassing years of debate and opposition.

A Real-World Test Case

China is often presented as the prime example of this theory in action. The nation is currently the biggest global manufacturer and seller of green technologies, such as electric cars and solar panels. This transformation resulted from a concerted, state-directed industrial policy. The head of the World Trade Organization, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, attributes this success to the foresight of the leadership in China. She contends that an autocratic government can determine that addressing a threat to its existence is the correct course of action and that its system of governance is not an automatic barrier to acting as a conscientious global partner on climate issues.

The Illusion of Control

However, this apparent advantage often proves illusory upon closer examination. Comprehensive studies have not produced definitive proof that democratic or autocratic systems are intrinsically more capable of managing the climate emergency. According to Ross Mittiga, who is a scholar at London's School of Oriental and African Studies, no compelling evidence supports one type of government over another. He notes that all forms of government, democratic and otherwise, are not taking the basic steps needed to prevent a worldwide disaster. The supposed efficiency of autocracy does not always translate into effective environmental policy.

The Information Deficit

A major weakness within authoritarian structures is the distortion of how information moves. As pointed out by Shiran Victoria Shen, a Stanford University researcher, autocratic rulers may formulate good environmental plans but frequently face difficulties putting them into practice. The reason involves "information asymmetries," which means leaders fail to get truthful reports from officials on the ground. Lacking independent journalism or civic groups to confirm details, it becomes nearly impossible for central authorities to ensure their policies are actually being followed, making compliance difficult to monitor and enforce.

The Covert Coal Boom

China's recent history provides a stark illustration of this transparency problem. After the Paris accord was signed in 2016, observers thought China's emissions may have reached their apex. This hope was quickly dashed. However, predictions of falling coal use were contradicted by satellite pictures showing the nation was covertly building more plants powered by coal. The government had appeared ready to cancel contracts, but its actions told a different story. The country’s coal industry experienced a resurgence, and its output of emissions has climbed nearly every year since. When dealing with an autocratic government, it is impossible for the global community to know the reasoning behind a choice or whether it might be overturned.

Silencing the People

A fundamental difference between political systems lies in public pressure. For many decades, public demonstrations have served as a key catalyst for environmental gains in democratic nations. The inaugural Earth Day, held in the US during 1970, involved demonstrations by more than 20 million participants and was a direct cause for establishing the Environmental Protection Agency, the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Air Act during a Republican administration. This kind of bottom-up pressure is essential for holding governments accountable. In autocratic nations, such protest is perilous and often brutally suppressed, removing a key driver for change.

The Peril of Activism

In nations with weak or absent democratic structures, campaigning for climate measures can become a deadly pursuit. Take Georgia, for example, where the government has been steered toward extreme conservatism by Russian sway, environmental activists face a grim reality. Nugzar Kokhreidze, a co-founder of a local activist group, details a fearful environment where activists live under the continual danger of being detained or suppressed. Many have been forced to flee the country. This organized repression removes any domestic check on powerful, polluting industries, allowing them to operate with impunity and influence government policy without opposition.

Economies Fuelled by Carbon

For many autocratic regimes, fossil fuels are not just a part of the economy; they are the economy. Hydrocarbon profits in Iran, Russia, and Saudi Arabia finance the complete government machinery, from social services to the military. An observation from Paul Bledsoe, who advised on climate in the Clinton White House, is that these countries exhibit an unhealthy reliance on their resources, which is incredibly harmful to the planet. With protest and opposition completely eliminated, no domestic power exists that can question this economic approach, no matter how destructive it may be. This creates a powerful incentive to maintain the status quo.

Image Credit - Freepik

Russia's Methane Problem

Russia's hydrocarbon industry is a clear example of this dynamic. The country's facilities for producing oil and gas have some of the most severe methane leaks on the planet. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and reducing these "fugitive emissions" is one of the most cost-effective ways to fight climate change. Yet, Moscow has declined to adopt significant measures, despite the potential financial benefit of such actions by capturing and selling the wasted gas. There is simply no incentive within the Russian system to prevent these massive emissions.

The External Pressure Cooker

With internal pressure non-existent, the international community must rely on external levers. Transparency remains a critical issue. Unlike publicly traded companies in regulated markets, companies controlled by the state in autocratic nations have minimal obligations to reveal their financial data or operations. For example, the kingdom of Saudi Arabia reduced plans for a public stock offering of Aramco, its massive oil company, in part to curb the financial examination that would have resulted. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for the outside world to hold these entities accountable for their environmental impact and investment decisions.

The Carbon Tariff Tool

To force change, some democracies are turning to economic measures. Proposals for a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) have been advanced by the UK and the EU. Under this framework, taxes would apply to imported products like cement and steel, calculated from the carbon output created when they were made. The goal is to create a level playing field for domestic industries that face carbon pricing and to incentivise foreign producers to decarbonise. It represents one of the few concrete tools available to apply pressure from the outside.

Diplomacy’s Personal Touch

Alongside economic threats, traditional diplomacy continues. Ahead of the Paris conference in 2015, the French government introduced a "360-degree diplomacy" strategy, using its entire global network of embassies and cultural institutions to advocate for climate action. Brazil, as the host of the upcoming Cop30 summit, is adopting a similar cooperative approach. Sometimes, personal relationships can break through political barriers. A cordial relationship between John Kerry, the U.S. envoy, and Xie Zhenhua, his equivalent in China, was seen as helpful to negotiations over many years, leading to a shared press event during COP28.

The Fragility of Friendship

However, these personal bonds are susceptible to the shifting winds of democratic politics. The successors to Kerry and Xie attempted to build a similar rapport. Yet, when a new administration took power in the U.S., that ongoing connection was severed. When important figures leave their posts, it can erase years of carefully built trust almost instantly. This highlights the inherent instability in relying on personal relationships to solve long-term structural problems, especially when one side of the partnership is subject to regular electoral turnover. The future of US-China climate cooperation now remains highly uncertain.

Democracy's Dirty Hands

While it is easy to point fingers at autocracies, democratic nations are far from blameless. America has in the past pulled out of the Paris climate accord and is currently taking apart its own environmental rules. Even with centrist governments that have vowed to act on climate, both Australia and Canada are moving forward with huge projects to expand fossil fuel extraction. Japan and the European Union remain heavily reliant on fossil fuels. After being elected on a pledge to stop issuing new licenses for North Sea oil and gas, the UK's Labour party is now weighing whether to approve the massive Rosebank oilfield.

The Hypocrisy Charge

This gap between words and actions leads to charges of hypocrisy. According to Jayati Ghosh, an economist specializing in development in India, democratic nations frequently exhibit more hypocrisy since their governmental structures are more vulnerable to the sway of money. Her point is that strong corporate and financial lobbies can place greater demands on politicians than any other group of stakeholders, including the public. This dynamic often leads to governments making bold climate pledges on the international stage while simultaneously subsidising and expanding fossil fuel production at home to appease powerful domestic lobbies.

A Common Path Forward

Ultimately, the climate crisis demands a new form of global cooperation that transcends political systems. A suggestion from Vera Songwe, who is a Cameroonian economist at the UN, is that the global community needs to discover methods for collaboration based on a shared purpose. The crucial point, she explains, is to engage with nations according to their current circumstances. Every nation is searching for economic growth and stability. The task for climate negotiators is to show persuasively that environmentally friendly growth is achievable and represents the most resilient and wealthy future available for every country, regardless of its form of government. This may be the only common ground available.