As certain groups of politicians opt to deprioritize climate mitigation — or even outright deny the existence of a crisis — one must wonder whether they are living in a bubble. As recent extreme weather events in the UK and Spain have demonstrated, leaders cannot hide from global warming — and there are potential political repercussions for those who try to.
Storm Bert swept through the UK over the weekend, causing widespread flooding and disruption. At least five deaths have been reported in England and Wales since the storm hit. In Spain, heavy rainfall at the end of last month led to devastating flash floods that killed more than 220 people. In all three places, the electorate is angry and politicians are playing blame games.
In Wales, one of the areas most affected by Storm Bert, several ministers — including Labour Member of Parliament for Cardiff West Alex Barros-Curtis and Welsh Conservatives leader Andrew RT Davies — have raised concerns that there was only a yellow warning, the least severe alert category, in place from the UK Meteorological Office, the national weather service. Residents, too, have questioned where the notifications were and why more flood defenses had not been put in place.
The Met Office might be the wrong target for such blame. Alarms for Storm Bert were issued 48 hours in advance, while the responsibility for flood warnings lies with separate agencies in England, Wales and Scotland.
In response to the criticism, Met Office services director Simon Brown said that rainfall levels were “within the expected range of that forecast.”
Weather alerts in the UK also work on a matrix system, based on likelihood and severity. A yellow warning could cover the same potential impacts as an amber or red warning, but with less certainty of occurring — so the question might be whether local officials were properly equipped to interpret weather and flood warnings. It also highlights the challenges of storm notifications. If people feel caught unaware, then there clearly is a need for better communication.
In Spain, where emergency alerts were sent too late, the political response has descended even further into finger-pointing and public anger has grown fierce.
Valencia regional government head Carlos Mazon of the conservative People’s Party faced criticism after it emerged that he had been at a three-hour lunch with a journalist on the day of the flooding. He blamed “fragmented, inaccurate and late” details provided by the river basin authority, overseen by the Spanish Ministry of Environment, and spoke of a “two-and-a-half-hour information blackout.”
Teresa Ribera, a socialist politician and former minister of environment (she has been replaced by Spanish Vice President Sara Aagesen as of Monday, as she transitions into a new senior role at the European Commission), has in turn put the onus on what she says was incompetence among regional officials.
The frustration is clear. Tens of thousands of Spaniards have called for Mazon’s resignation. He might survive for now, but it raises the question of retribution — his party might yet pay for its failures in future elections. For a faction that has repeatedly talked down the threat of climate change and colluded with far-right party Vox to hinder decarbonization efforts, that has got to sting.
There is growing evidence that extreme weather influences voter choice in elections. How that swings for incumbents depends less on the event itself and more on blame attribution — do people feel supported by the government or ignored?
If voters feel that the government’s response has been sufficient, there might well be a rally-round-the-flag effect that boosts leaders’ popularity, as seen briefly during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, if people feel or perceive a failure to maintain and update flood defenses, for example, they would seek revenge at the polls.
A study of three UK general elections by King’s College London political science professor Sarah Birch found evidence that the party with a strong position on the environment saw increases in votes in seats that had experienced major flooding. A 2016 study examined the effects of Cyclone Gudrun, which hit Sweden in 2005. The destruction led to a decline in support for the government in affected areas of almost four percentage points at the next national poll.
Optics matter in this respect, too. One of the reasons cited for the German Christian Democratic Union’s worst election result in its history in 2021 was outrage over then-chancellor candidate Armin Laschet laughing during a visit to a flood-devastated area.
Disaster-related shifts at the polling booth are likely to be amplified at the local level, where the issues are more salient — but in a close race, that can make all the difference.
In contrast to Spain, there is some sense of accountability in the UK’s response, with the Met Office and Natural Resources Wales, one of the agencies in charge of flood alerts, saying they would review what happened with Storm Bert and commit to learning lessons. That might soothe public discontent.
Just a few months into his term, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer also primed us to blame the previous administration. On Nov. 13, he said during a session in Parliament: “The last government left flood defenses in the worst condition on record. We are investing ￡2.4 billion in flood resilience over the next two years, and we have launched a flood resilience taskforce to coordinate national and local flood preparation to better protect communities and our economy.” As this government’s tenure progresses, expect to see support wax or wane in flood-affected areas based on how effective these interventions are.
As the climate crisis intensifies weather conditions and makes the need for adaptation more urgent, the effects on partisan politics are likely to increase. Even if parties want to distance themselves from effective climate policymaking, as the Conservatives and People’s Party have certainly tried, they would still be held accountable for the consequences.
Lara Williams is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering climate change.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
RSS