As the dust settles on the COP28 climate summit that concluded last week in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, a sobering reality is looming. After the legalistic niceties of environmental diplomacy, the dirtier business of political maneuvering is going to consume the world’s democracies over the next 12 months. Next year, climate is to be on the ballot in a way we have rarely seen.
Voters in countries representing more than 40 percent of the world’s population — and roughly the same share of emissions — are to go to the polls between now and the end of next year. In places, that offers the prospect to break gridlocks on climate and energy policies.
In others, it might offer an opportunity for a climate-denying backlash. Far too few places show a decent chance of accelerating the transition to clean energy in the way advocated by the COP28 agreement. Here is a review of some of the key events:
Two of the world’s three biggest democracies face elections in the first half of next year, but neither offers a strong prospect of change.
India and Indonesia have made positive noises lately about switching to clean power. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has promised 500 gigawatts of renewables by 2030 and Indonesian President Joko Widodo has signed up for a US$20 billion deal to retire the nation’s coal generators early.
However, in each case, coal’s deep political, economic and social roots have stymied efforts at reform. Elections are not likely to change that dynamic: Modi is well ahead in the polls, while the front-runner in Jakarta, Prabowo Subianto, is essentially a continuity candidate who has picked Widodo’s son as his running mate.
Prospects are moderately better in two other leading emerging markets equally wedded to fossil fuels: Mexico and South Africa.
In the former, poll-leading former Mexico City mayor Claudia Sheinbaum, a protege of Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, is a former climate scientist who has contributed to reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
However, it remains unclear whether that background could lead to a switch from Lopez Obrador’s policies, which have favored state oil company Pemex and a growing dependence on gas imported from the US.
In South Africa, the ruling African National Congress (ANC) faces the first prospect of losing since democratic elections began in 1994. In energy terms, that would almost certainly be good news.
The opposition Democratic Alliance’s support of private and solar generation, in contrast to the ANC’s death pact with the corruption-riddled, financially incontinent Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd, offers the best prospect for the country to emerge from its current cycle of power cuts and pollution.
Next is a group of nations where the prospects of real democratic elections seem remote. In Bangladesh and Pakistan, incumbent governments have favored energy policies wedded to imported natural gas. The ripples of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have pushed liquefied natural gas (LNG) prices out of reach, leading to power cuts, savage increases in electricity bills and often violent protests.
Jailed opposition leaders in each country have offered the promise of more balanced, cleaner energy policies, but the electoral system remains heavily weighted against them.
Elections of sorts are also to be held in two of the world’s biggest historic oil exporters — Russia and Venezuela — though the chances of real change in either country seem remote in the extreme.
In Taiwan, polls appear to be tightening between the incumbent center-left Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and center-right Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) ahead of the Jan. 13 vote.
On paper, the opposition has a mildly more progressive climate policy, since its spurning of the DPP’s anti-nuclear stance gives a lower fossil fuel share in 2030. In practice, it is an open question whether either side could succeed in implementing their green energy policies.
South Korea also has legislative ballots in April, but they are unlikely to break the gridlock that has pitted the unpopular center-right South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol against a more climate-focused assembly for the past two years.
The core developed countries of North America and Europe might be the place where major change is most likely, but in most cases, the mood music is not positive for climate action.
Right-wing, climate-denialist parties in Europe such as the Alternative for Germany and Dutch Freedom Party have seen strong performances in recent opinion surveys and votes.
Even so, it is likely the left-right coalition in the European Parliament would remain in control even if such factions make a strong showing in elections on June 9.
The UK probably offers the best prospect of major positive change, with opposition leader Keir Starmer well ahead in the polls. He has promised to turn the kingdom into a “clean energy superpower,” in stark contrast to British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who has torn up his predecessors’ green-tinged policies.
Set against that is the most substantive climate poll of the year, the US presidential election on Nov. 5. Former US president Donald Trump’s first term in office failed to break a long-standing trend of falling emissions.
Even so, it is impossible to overstate the contrast a second term would present to the policies of US President Joe Biden, who has promised a zero-carbon grid and mostly electric new car fleet by 2035.
In climate diplomacy, where Washington’s on-again, off-again alliance with Beijing has been essential to bringing other nations to the table over the past three years, the return of a more sinophobic administration would be further bad news.
That is not what the world needs right now. Thanks to the rapid greening of the power sectors in China, Europe and the US, and the speedy uptake of electric vehicles, there is a real prospect that emissions globally peak next year or the year after.
To build on those gains and accelerate the path to net zero, however, further political will is needed to ratchet up policies that are still driving the world to more than 2?C of warming. The bonanza of elections due next year is unlikely to deliver that.
David Fickling is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering energy and commodities. Previously, he worked for Bloomberg News, the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS