When it comes to addressing the climate crisis, how do you negotiate with an autocracy? This question is increasingly critical as the majority of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions originate from non-democratic countries. Many of the major oil and gas suppliers, such as the Gulf petrostates, Russia, and Venezuela, also fall under this category. Their significant impact places autocratic nations at the forefront of global climate discussions, and their actions will be crucial for the planet’s future.
While democracies are often swayed by the unpredictable whims of electorates, autocratic nations present a different challenge. These governments tend to be more opaque, making it difficult to predict their actions. Among the world’s largest fossil fuel companies, known as the “carbon majors,” 16 out of the top 20 are state-owned and responsible for 52% of global emissions in 2023. These companies, such as Saudi Arabia’s Aramco and China’s CHN Energy, are primarily accountable to the governments that own them.
The Role of Autocracies in Climate Negotiations
The importance of autocracies in climate negotiations cannot be understated. Todd Stern, the US chief negotiator under Barack Obama, noted that during past negotiations, the democratic nature of governments was not a primary concern. However, the power wielded by a few autocratic states has grown significantly, and their actions could determine the success of global efforts to limit climate change.
“The carbon majors [of all kinds] are keeping the world hooked on fossil fuels, with no plans to slow production,” said Christiana Figueres, the former UN climate chief.
Efforts to engage these nations in climate action are complicated by their economic reliance on fossil fuels. Countries like Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia have historically maintained a low profile in negotiations, but recent actions suggest a more active role in obstructing progress. Russia, for instance, has been a source of climate disinformation, while Saudi Arabia has attempted to weaken commitments at UN climate summits.
Potential for Progress in Authoritarian States
Despite these challenges, there is room for optimism. Authoritarian states, with their centralized power, can potentially implement climate policies more swiftly than democracies. Francis Fukuyama, a scholar of political systems, argues that these states can direct companies to adopt low-carbon technologies without facing the entrenched interest groups that democracies contend with.
China serves as a notable example. As the world’s largest producer of renewable energy, China has made significant strides in exporting electric vehicles and solar panels. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, director general of the World Trade Organization, credits China’s leadership for this transformation, highlighting that an autocracy can still be a responsible climate actor.
“You can have a situation in which an autocracy decides that this is the right thing to do because it’s existential,” Okonjo-Iweala said.
Challenges and Obstacles
However, the advantages of autocracies can be misleading. Research by Ross Mittiga, an associate professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies, suggests that there is no clear evidence that democracies are better or worse equipped to tackle the climate crisis than autocracies. Internal factors, such as a lack of public pressure and transparency, pose significant obstacles to climate action in authoritarian regimes.
Historically, public protest has been a powerful driver of environmental action. For example, the first Earth Day demonstrations in the US in 1970 led to significant legislative changes. In contrast, protests in authoritarian countries can be perilous, as seen in Georgia, where activists face repression and limited resources.
Economic Interests and Information Flows
Fossil fuels often represent a dominant economic interest in autocratic countries, leaving little room for internal resistance. Paul Bledsoe, a former Clinton White House climate adviser, points out that Russia’s high methane emissions from hydrocarbon production remain unaddressed due to a lack of incentives.
Shiran Victoria Shen, a senior research scholar at Stanford University, notes that information asymmetries in autocracies can hinder the implementation of environmental strategies. Leaders may not receive accurate reports from local enforcers, complicating compliance efforts.
External Pressure and Diplomatic Efforts
External pressure, such as carbon border adjustment mechanisms (CBAMs), offers a potential avenue for encouraging climate action. However, these measures face challenges, as smaller developing countries fear penalties. The EU’s CBAM is in its reporting stage but has yet to be fully operational.
Diplomatic initiatives, like France’s “360 degree diplomacy” before the 2015 Paris summit, demonstrate the potential for international cooperation. Brazil, hosting the upcoming Cop30, is adopting a similar approach by appointing special envoys to facilitate dialogue.
“We must try to meet countries where they are. Everyone is looking for growth and we must be able to demonstrate that green growth is possible,” said Vera Songwe, a Cameroonian economist.
Personal relationships can also play a role in bridging divides, as seen in the rapport between John Kerry and his Chinese counterpart, Xie Zhenhua. However, political changes, such as the US withdrawal from the Paris agreement, can disrupt these efforts.
The Role of Democracies
Democracies are not immune to criticism. Many continue to pursue fossil fuel expansion despite pledges to combat climate change. Jayati Ghosh, an Indian development economist, argues that capital exerts significant pressure in democracies, complicating climate efforts.
Ultimately, the path to effective climate action requires collaboration between all nations, regardless of their political systems. As the world grapples with the urgent need to address climate change, finding common ground and fostering cooperation will be essential for a sustainable future.
