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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS