Climate Action — Are Democracies Better Than Autocracies? - CleanTechnica

The article from CleanTechnica examines the complex relationship between political systems—democracies versus autocracies—and their effectiveness in addressing climate change. It highlights that most of the world's largest carbon emitters are state-owned fossil fuel companies operating within autocratic regimes, which rely heavily on fossil fuel revenues to sustain their power. For example, Russia, a leading emitter, has shown little incentive to reduce methane leaks despite the environmental and economic benefits, driven by political priorities rather than climate concerns. This reliance on fossil fuels makes it politically and economically challenging for autocratic governments to commit to meaningful climate action, as doing so could threaten their regimes. While democracies face their own challenges, such as entrenched interest groups slowing progress, some experts argue they may be better positioned to negotiate and implement climate policies. The article references views from climate negotiators and scholars, including Todd Stern and Francis Fukuyama, who suggest that authoritarian states theoretically have the power to enforce rapid climate action due to centralized control but often lack