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.
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
An elderly mother and her daughter were found dead in Kaohsiung after having not been seen for several days, discovered only when a foul odor began to spread and drew neighbors’ attention. There have been many similar cases, but it is particularly troubling that some of the victims were excluded from the social welfare safety net because they did not meet eligibility criteria. According to media reports, the middle-aged daughter had sought help from the local borough warden. Although the warden did step in, many services were unavailable without out-of-pocket payments due to issues with eligibility, leaving the warden’s hands
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi on Monday announced that she would dissolve parliament on Friday. Although the snap election on Feb. 8 might appear to be a domestic affair, it would have real implications for Taiwan and regional security. Whether the Takaichi-led coalition can advance a stronger security policy lies in not just gaining enough seats in parliament to pass legislation, but also in a public mandate to push forward reforms to upgrade the Japanese military. As one of Taiwan’s closest neighbors, a boost in Japan’s defense capabilities would serve as a strong deterrent to China in acting unilaterally in the
Taiwan last week finally reached a trade agreement with the US, reducing tariffs on Taiwanese goods to 15 percent, without stacking them on existing levies, from the 20 percent rate announced by US President Donald Trump’s administration in August last year. Taiwan also became the first country to secure most-favored-nation treatment for semiconductor and related suppliers under Section 232 of the US Trade Expansion Act. In return, Taiwanese chipmakers, electronics manufacturing service providers and other technology companies would invest US$250 billion in the US, while the government would provide credit guarantees of up to US$250 billion to support Taiwanese firms
RSS