A Conceit At The Table
To Talk Loudly, and Carry a Small Stick
TL:DR
This article argues that a nation's geopolitical power is intrinsically linked to its energy policy, emphasizing that economic robustness underpinned by a strong energy framework is crucial for maintaining influence in global affairs.
The pursuit of leading the energy transition, particularly towards decarbonization, is potentially counterproductive, as it leads to higher energy costs, industrial decline, and reduced economic leverage, thereby weakening a country's "hard power" — its economic and military might. This decline in hard power subsequently erodes the effectiveness of "soft power", where cultural and diplomatic influence is meant to be exerted.
Without economic and military strength, a nation's ability to influence international behavior diminishes, rendering its leadership in global initiatives like the energy transition inconsequential or even detrimental to its own standing in world affairs.
Speaking Power to Truth
Power is both a physical and political concept. In physics, power is defined as the rate at which energy is transferred or used.
In the realm of international relations, power is the capacity of a state to influence the behavior of other states. This kind of power is often divided conceptually into “hard power” which is economic and military and “soft power” which is cultural, ideological, and diplomatic. Soft power works particularly well when backed by hard power.
In the famous quote from Theodore Roosevelt, foreign policy is summed up as
“To speak softly and carry a big stick”.
A Conceit At The Table
Geopolitcal power is a somewhat abstract notion - but for many (Western) leaders it is a foregone conlclusion that they have a seat at the table. This comes from historical precedents and current economic strength. Being part of the G7 or the G20 is defined by economic ranking.
Because of this, a nation's energy policy plays a pivotal role in shaping its geo-political power. A robust energy policy can fuel economic growth, enhance national security, and bolster diplomatic influence. Wealthy countries have influence - whether it be through trade agreements, military assistance, the ability to impose financial sanctions, or hosting soccer World Cups.
The historical power of Western nations includes the development of modern infrastructure, robust systems of rule of law, and advancements in education and healthcare that have underpinned economic growth and societal stability. However, there's also a considerable negative aspect, notably the lingering guilt and responsibility for colonialism, resource exploitation and in some cases “cumulative carbon emissions”.
The world is changing and Western countries seem to have an inflated sense of importance in the modern world.
As their economic and military influence declines, there is an attempt to maintain leadership roles via diplomatic efforts and cultural diplomacy. There is a conceit that in areas like decarbonization, “providing leadership” will ensure everyone follows.
Worse, the conceit extends to lecturing and berrating recalcitrant others. This may have worked for the UK when “Britannia Ruled the Waves” - but is clearly now condescending, unwelcome and probably counterproductive, (as indeed it was historically).
COP Out
The Conference of the Parties (“COP”) number 21 was held in Paris in 2015. After the last-ditch agreement there was a happy consensus that the world would embrace the Net Zero objectives. The conceit of the club of rich contries was that simply providing "leadership" in the Energy Transition would be sufficient to "bring everyone along".
“Paris climate change agreement: the world's greatest diplomatic success” (The Guardian, of course)
We have set a course here. The world has come together around an agreement that will empower us to chart a new path for our planet, a smart and responsible path, a sustainable path. (John Kerry then US Secretary of State, 2015)
Many other countries have chosen to not be in the vanguard of the transition. Consequently, they have more pragmatic energy policies. Ironically, those policies are looking more and more attractive to voters in the club of (formerly) rich-countries. (Sinners and Losers)
Many Western, but also some developing nation governments (Colombia, Kenya), see merit in leading the quest to decarbonize, no matter how inconsequential their contributions. One does have to wonder if the news circus that erupted when Sao Tome e Principe announced its decarbonization plans was (hopefully) a call of the bottom on pointless virtue signalling (
substack).In a 2022 government discussion paper on decarbonizing the Canadian electricity system, up-front and centre is this reasoning:
“Canada must keep pace with, or even exceed, these targets in order to lead and compete in a net-zero emissions future.”1
Seems like the UK, Canada and many other “Western” countries are throwing a party, and no one is turning up. Nowhere was this more in evidence than at COP29, where the list of G-20 leaders who were NOT there completely overshadowed those who were. Indeed, apart from the UK - it is hard to think who was actually there.
To “Lead and Compete”….
I have discussed previously the danger of “leading” if/when a movement is herding itself towards a cliff edge.
In this post I am addressing the unrecognized irony that leading the Energy Transition decreases the power to influence others.
Specifically:
“Leadership” in climate and energy transition can be seen to be increasing energy costs for those countries at the tip of the spear.
High energy prices in turn weaken the industrial heart, which leads to job losses, lower tax revenues (companies closing, fewer well paid jobs), trade-defecits and weaker currencies.
A weaker economic-base leads to less economic leverage and to a weakened military, which combine to undermine the power of that country.
Ergo, this decreases the very influence that those leaders so dearly wish to exert.
Soft Power depends on economic strength - a lesson that those who believe in the Green Energy SuperPower Economy will realize too late.
The UK is a formerly wealthy country which is living on borrowed time; understandably, no one wants to admit this, least of all the politicians who by all appearances are in complete denial.
Despite this death-spiral, politicians must continue to promise the sun-lit uplands to get elected. Only then do they have to grapple with the reality of national finances. If there is one common thread through “Western” countries which embrace the Energy Transition it is that taxes are going up and discretionary spending is going down.2
The UK is, again, a (b)leading example. The new Labour government promised to fix things and have no tax increases. It is, IMHO, unfortunate that they are going to make things worse faster by believeing in the “Green SuperPower” nonsense. Other than the Net Zero obsession - this is not to knock Labour, or score political points - the country’s finances are a mess and that has been a progressive effect over several decades irrespective of the party in power.
The UK has had a disproportionate role in world affairs since it was at the vanguard of the industrial revolution. Even today it is one of a handful of nuclear powers and has a permenant seat on the UN Security Council. It has the 6th largest economy in the world (having been just overtaken by India). The apparent economic strength is a function of many things, not the least of which is significant infrastructure paid for by previous generations (and a colonial history). Despite this advantage the operating cost are outpacing income - making the country poorer. Increasing taxes is a poor solution - the Economics 101 Laffer Curve should be on every Chancellor of the Exchequer’s (Finance Minister’s) desk.
Meanwhile Europe:
One advantage of having many posts in “draft” format is that news stories drop in univited. Last week’s gem is perfect.
The EU wants to impose its sanctimonius climate totalitarianism on external parties - but forgets who is weilding the “big stick”. You’d think that they would have learnt something from their reliance on Russian gas, but it would appear not. Qatar may be bluffing, but the global LNG market is very liquid (pun intended), and the EU looks pretty weak on this.
The Great Game
“UK’s Starmer urges Iran to refrain from Israel attack”: Fifty years ago, this kind of headline might have made some sense. Today, with Iran selling its oil to China, supplying drones to Russia and on the brink of regional war that has US “boots on the ground” in Israel - my guess is that Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said “who are you, and why are you calling me?”
There may have been a time when leaders of vastly more populous countries responded to what politicians from the UK or Canada or Germany were saying, but those days are fading fast. Even the combined economic clout of the 450millon Europeans barely translates into political influence. Only the nuclear capability of certain countires combined with the US umbrella allows these voices to still be heard.
A weaker economic base leads less economic leverage and to a weakened military, which combine to undermine the influence that those leaders so dearly wish to exert.
Moral leadership is useful in many spheres, but if it reduces your ability to exert and maintain influence it is self-defeating. It is also a rather pointless exercise if no one even notices you. The worst possible outcome will be reserved for those at the forefront, countries like the UK and Germany which still have enough clout to be noticed. Other countries will learn the opposite lesson from that their Net Zero politicicans want - countries will look at the cost and chaos of the Energy Transition and say, “thanks, but no thanks”. Still, it is “leading by example” in some sense!
To “Lead and Compete”…. revisited
Just as with the examples of the UK and the EU above, Canada is learning some hard lessons, from friend and foe alike. The desire to ride the moral leadership horse, to (encourage) tell others what to do may well be one of the great strengths of the Western democracies - shining a light on human rights abuses, holding others to account etc is a noble cause. However, when this is extended to energy policy (and hence to economic well-being) it becomes a poisened challace. The current federal “Emissions Cap” legislation in Canada is a clear attempt to impose a production cap on the provinces - if successful, it will further reduce Canada’s economic strength and ironically make Canada’s climate “leadership” even more irrelevant.
In the famous quote from Theodore Roosevelt, foreign policy was summed up as “To speak softly and carry a big stick”.
Canadian foreign policy seems to have become “Speak loudly and carry a small stick”. No wonder Trump can joke(?) that Trudeau can be the Governor of the 51st State…
As a Post-Script - when we look at the list of recent COP climate conferences, we could be forgiven for noticing that the only countries apparently able to afford to host these jamborees are oil and gas producing countries… no irony here.
2021 COP 26 Scotland
2022 COP 27 Egypt
2023 COP 28 Abu Dhabi
2024 COP 29 Azerbaijan
2025 COP 30 Brazil
2026 COP 31 - Australia (pitching to Host)
A Clean Electricity Standard in support of a net-zero electricity sector: Discussion paper ECCC March 2022.
This trend of tightening budgets is a feature of mature, deindustrializing countries with adverse demoraphics, but is made worse by profilgate spending on the Energy Transition
Excellent article. Thank you.
Exactly what kind of small stick are you talking about? 🤔