Last autumn’s climate summit in Glasgow looked very much like its 25 predecessors. It had:
-
A conference hall the size a large aircraft carrier, stuffed with displays by problematic parties (the Saudis for example, with a giant pavilion saluting them for their efforts to promote a circular carbon economy agenda).
As I walked the halls and streets outside, it occurred to me that a lot had changed since 2015’s Paris climate conference. This was not because carbon levels and temperatures had increased.
The most dramatic shift was in the political environment. The world seemed to have moved away from democracy and towards autocracy over the past few years, which severely limited our ability to combat the climate crisis. Many Oligarchs had seized power and were using it for their own purposes. The whole gathering displayed a Potemkin quality, as if everyone was reciting a script which did not reflect the real politics of the planet.
It’s a lot easier to see the trend now that Russia has launched an oil-fueled invasion of Ukraine. But Putin is not the only case. Take a look at these examples.
Brazil was represented at Paris 2015 by Dilma Raousseff, a member of the Workers party. She had led the effort to reduce deforestation and forest fires in the Amazon. The country could be said to have done more on climate change than any other country by simply slowing down the cutting. Jair Bolsonaro in 2021 was the head of the government that empowered every mahogany poacher, cattle rancher, and big-time mahogany poacher in this country. He stated that people could eat less, and poop less, if they cared enough about the environment. If they care about democracy, they can go to jail. He explained that only God can remove me from the presidency before this year’s elections.
Or India, who may prove to be the most pivotal given its projected increases in energy use. India refused Greta Thunberg a visa to attend this meeting. Disha Ravi was at least released from jail.
Or Russia (about whom more in a moment) or China a decade back we could still, with some hazard, hold climate protests in Beijing. Don’t try it now.
Or, of coarse, the US, whose deep democratic problems have long plagued climate negotiation. We have a system for voluntary pledges and not a binding global agreement because the world realized that there would never be 66 votes to pass a treaty.
Joe Biden had hoped to arrive at the talks with a copy of the Build Back better bill in his pocket, start a bidding war against the Chinese, but Manchin of West Virginia was the biggest single recipient in DC of fossil fuel cash. Instead, Biden came empty-handed to the talks.
So we are left with a world where people want climate change action, but the systems aren’t delivering it. The UN Development Programme conducted a remarkable survey in 2021. They surveyed people via video-game networks across the globe to reach people less likely than traditional surveys to get their opinions. Despite the Covid pandemic 64% of respondents described climate change as a worldwide emergency. They also wanted to see broad climate policies that go beyond the current state. Achim Steiner, UNDP director, was the one who made this statement. SummaryThe survey results clearly show that people around the world support urgent climate action, regardless of their age, gender, or education level.
The irony is that environmentalists have sometimes longed for less democracy, and not more. If there were strongmen in power, surely they would make the tough decisions and guide us on the right track. We wouldn’t have to deal with the constant whims of lobbying and influence.
This is not right for at least one moral reason. Strongmen who can act immediately on the climate crisis are also able to act instantly on any number other things. As the people of Xinjiang or Tibet would testify if they were allowed to speak, It’s also wrong for several practical reasons.
These practical problems are caused by the fact that autocrats have their vested interests to please Modi who campaigned to be the world’s largest democracy from the corporate jet of Adani (the largest coal company in the subcontinent). You shouldn’t assume that China doesn’t have a fossil fuel lobby. Right now, it is busy telling Xi how economic growth depends upon more coal.
And that’s not all, autocrats often directly the accountable End resultThe use of fossil fuel. The most important thing about oil or gas is that it’s concentrated in a few areas around the world. Therefore, those who live on top of these spots or have other control over them end up with enormous amounts of unjustified power.
Boris Johnson was just off in Saudi Arabia to gather hydrocarbons the day following the execution of 81 people he did not like. If they didn’t have oil, would anyone pay any attention to the Saudi royal family? No. No. He and Charles, his brother, decided to use their winnings from America’s largest oil and natural gas barons to purchase the GOP. The rest is political history.
Vladimir Putin is the most prominent example of this phenomenon. His power rests almost entirely in the production of stuff you can burn. It would not be difficult to find electronics from China and textiles from India in my home, but I can’t find anything that says made in Russia. Sixty percent came from oil, and all of the political power that has subdued western Europe for decades came directly from the gas spigot. He and his hideous war are the result fossil fuel. His fossil fuel interests have done much in corrupting the rest of the globe.
It’s worth noting that Rex Tillerson, Donald Trump’s first secretary of states, carries the Order of Friendship. This was personally pinned on Tillersons lapel by Putin to thank him for the huge investments Tillersons (that would be Exxon), had made in Arctic, an area that was open to their exploitation because it had, umm… melted. These guys stick together: It is not surprising that Koch Industries declared that it would remain where it was when Coke and Pepsi, Starbucks, Amazon, and Starbucks left Russia last month. The family business was started by Stalin’s refineries.
Another way to put it is that hydrocarbons are by nature inclined towards support of despotism. They are high in energy and therefore very valuable. Geography and geology allow them to be controlled with relative ease. One pipeline and one terminal for oil are available.
Sun and wind are closer to democracy than they seem. They’re everywhere, diffuse rather than concentrated. My backyard doesn’t have oil, so there is no way I could have one. Even if there were an oilwell, I would have the responsibility of pumping it to a refiner. Since I am American, this would likely be a Koch company. But I can and do have a solar panel. My wife and me are the rulers of our tiny oligarchy, shielded from the market forces that Putins and Kochs can unleash. The cost of solar energy has not increased this year and will not increase next year.
As a general rule of thumb, those territories with the healthiest, least-captive-to-vested-interest democracies are making the most progress on climate change. Take a look around the globe at Iceland and Costa Rica, Europe at Finland and Spain, or the USA at California or New York. Climate campaigners have to work for democratic functioning states where people’s demands for a sustainable future are prioritized over ideology, vested interest, and personal fiefdoms.
Given the time constraints imposed by physics, it is necessary to take swift action everywhere. However, that strategy cannot be the only strategy. In fact, activists may have been a little too focused upon politics as a source to change and not enough attention to the other power centre in our civilization: money.
We could persuade the financial giants of the world to make changes. This would also result in rapid progress. It might be quicker, because stock exchanges are more speedy than parliaments.
The news is even better here. Let’s take my country as an illustration. The reddest and most corrupt areas of America are where political power has landed. Senators who represent a small number of people in the western states that are sparsely populated are able tie up our political lives, and they are almost all on big oil’s payroll. But the country’s economy has been dominated by money from the blue regions.
Because of this, many of us have worked hard on campaigns such as fossil fuel divestment. We won big victories with New Yorks large pension funds and Californias vast university system and were able to put real pressure upon big oil. Now we are doing the exact same thing with the large banks that provide the industrys financial support. We are well aware that we may not win over Montana and Mississippi so we need to have solutions that don’t depend on that.
These same principles apply globally. We might not be in a position to advocate in Beijing, Moscow or, more and more, Delhi. For these purposes, it is useful that the largest pots of cash remain in Manhattan and London, Frankfurt, Tokyo. These are the places where we can still make some noise.
They are also places where there is a real chance that the noise will be heard. People who have made their fortunes in the past, or industries that are already thriving, tend to be preferred by governments. This is because they can afford the bribes and those who have large voting blocs. But investors care about who will make the most money. next. Tesla is therefore worth more than General Motors in stock markets, if not in Congress.
If we can convince the world of money to do so, it is capable of doing so quickly. The news that Chase Bank, the world’s largest lender of fossil fuel, would announce that it was phasing out its support for this year’s announcement would quickly spread across stock markets. We feel it is worthwhile to mount more campaigns against these financial institutions and go to jail from their lobbies.
The world of money is at the least as unbalanced as the world of power, but it may be easier for climate activists to make progress.
Putin’s grotesque warfare might be where some of these strands meet. It demonstrates how fossil fuels can build autocracy and the power that controlling scarce resources gives to autocrats. It has also demonstrated the power of financial systems in putting pressure on the most stubborn political leaders: Russia is being systematically punished by banks and corporations, although my Ukrainian colleague SvitlanaRomanko and I both agree that this is a very effective punishment. It should be notedRecent developments have shown that they could do far more. The shock of war This may be strengthening the resolve, unity, and power of the world’s remaining democracies, and maybe even decreasing the attraction to would-be despots such as Donald Trump.
We have years, not decades to fix the climate crisis. We won’t have more moments like these. The brave people in Ukraine may be fighting for more that they can comprehend.
-
This story was published in the upcoming issue of Climate Coverage Nowa global network of news outlets that focuses on the climate story.
