How Authoritarianism Threatens Climate Action—and What We Can Do About It

Person holding a printed copy of The Anti-Autocracy Handbook: A Scholars’ Guide to Navigating Democratic Backsliding, placed on a modern desk beside a glass of water, glasses, and a book.
The Anti-Autocracy Handbook offers scholars and concerned citizens practical strategies to recognize and resist democratic backsliding worldwide.

Climate Crisis and Rising Authoritarianism

The fight against climate change is urgent. From stronger hurricanes to record-breaking wildfires, we’re seeing how environmental damage is affecting our lives, our health, and our future. We need governments that act boldly—supporting science, protecting ecosystems, and investing in sustainable energy.

But here’s the problem: around the world, democracy is weakening. As of 2025, 72% of the global population lives under authoritarian rule (Our World in Data, 2025). That means decisions about the environment are being made behind closed doors, without public debate, input from scientists, or the freedom to organize and protest.

When democracy erodes, climate action slows down—or even reverses.

3 Tactics Autocrats Use to Undermine Climate Truth

Authoritarian leaders often use a familiar playbook to shut down climate efforts. These tactics make it harder for us to work together, share facts, and push for change.

Populism

Autocrats often claim to represent “the real people” against so-called “elites.” Environmentalists, scientists, and activists are painted as out of touch or as enemies of economic growth. We’ve all heard messages like:

  • “They care more about trees than our jobs.”

  • “Climate rules are killing small businesses.”

Polarization

Instead of bringing us together to solve problems, these leaders divide us. They frame the climate debate as a fight between “pro-economy” and “pro-environment.” But that’s a false choice. In truth, we can have both—but only with honest leadership and a commitment to facts.

We’ve seen this kind of rhetoric used to create fear and distrust. For example:

  • During wildfires in the western U.S., climate regulations were blamed for preventing forest management, despite scientific evidence that climate change was the real driver of more intense fires.

  • In Brazil, environmental protections in the Amazon were rolled back under the argument that indigenous land rights and conservation efforts were standing in the way of economic growth and agriculture.

  • In Australia, leaders have claimed that transitioning away from coal would destroy communities—ignoring opportunities for renewable energy jobs and cleaner air.

  • In the U.S., efforts to ban gas stoves or regulate methane emissions have been painted as “attacks on personal freedom” or “government overreach,” rather than smart policy to protect health and reduce climate risk.

These arguments aren’t just political talking points—they’re tactics to delay action, confuse the public, and weaken support for urgent climate solutions.

By turning climate change into a culture war, autocratic-leaning leaders make it harder to build the broad coalitions we need. The more we’re divided, the less power we have to demand meaningful change.

Instead of bringing us together to solve problems, these leaders divide us. They frame the climate debate as a fight between “pro-economy” and “pro-environment.” In truth, we can have both—but only with honest leadership.

Post-truth

This is when facts are buried under lies and confusion. Misinformation spreads through social media and partisan news outlets. People are left unsure of what’s real. When that happens, public trust in science—and in one another—breaks down.

What Happens to Science in Autocratic Systems

Science depends on freedom—freedom to ask questions, publish findings, and share data across borders. But under authoritarian rule, science often becomes one of the first victims.

In early 2025, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) canceled nearly 800 research projects. This included many studies focused on climate change, vaccine hesitancy, and LGBTQ+ issues (The Anti-Autocracy Handbook, 2025).

At the same time:

  • The U.S. withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement

  • Clean energy programs were dismantled

  • Scientists were banned from collaborating with global health agencies like the WHO

When governments silence science, our communities are left vulnerable. We lose access to life-saving information. And the climate crisis continues unchecked.

Why Silence and Self-Censorship Make Things Worse

We may wonder: why don’t more people speak out? The truth is, many are scared. Scientists have faced online harassment, legal threats, or even job loss just for sharing their findings.

Some researchers have stopped speaking publicly about climate to avoid becoming targets. This self-censorship, while understandable, allows misinformation to spread even more.

And it’s not just about facts—it’s about people. The pressure to stay quiet can take a toll. Many scientists and activists report anxiety, burnout, and a feeling of isolation. They’re not just defending their work—they’re trying to protect their families and livelihoods, too.

We don’t need to be scientists or politicians to make a difference. What we do—and how we show up—matters.

What We Can Do—Even if We’re Just Individuals

If our personal risk is low:

  • Speak out: Write letters to the editor or post on social media about why climate truth matters

  • Join a local group: Support environmental or science-based organizations

  • Share voices: Amplify scientists, students, and communities speaking up

If our risk is higher (e.g., we’re public figures, immigrants, or part of a marginalized group):

  • Help protect vulnerable research: Backup and archive climate data

  • Build circles of solidarity: Create support systems within our communities or workplaces

  • Document censorship: If safe to do so, record and report efforts to silence truth

Even small acts—like refusing to repeat false claims—can help keep truth alive.

The Power of 3.5%: Hope in Collective Action

Here’s something encouraging: nonviolent movements that mobilize just 3.5% of the population almost always succeed (Chenoweth & Stephan, 2011). That’s about 12 million people in the U.S.

We don’t need a majority to protect democracy or fight for climate justice—we just need enough people who are committed, informed, and connected.

Together, we can slow democratic backsliding, protect science, and keep pushing for a healthy, just, and sustainable future.

Protecting Democracy Is Climate Action

If we care about clean air, safe water, healthy forests, and a livable planet—then we care about democracy, too.

We can’t tackle climate change in a world where scientists are silenced, facts are twisted, and decisions are made in secret. By protecting the right to speak, research, protest, and vote, we’re also protecting our planet.

Let’s keep asking questions. Let’s keep telling the truth. And let’s keep building the future we all deserve—together.


Overview of the Source: The Anti-Autocracy Handbook

This article is based on The Anti-Autocracy Handbook: A Scholars’ Guide to Navigating Democratic Backsliding (2025). Written by more than 20 scholars around the world, the handbook explains how authoritarian regimes gain and maintain power—and what we can do to resist.

Key features of the handbook include:

  • A clear breakdown of authoritarian tactics like populism, polarization, and misinformation

  • Real-life examples of how science—including climate research—is being attacked

  • Strategies for protecting truth, data, and fellow researchers
  • Practical steps we can take, based on our level of personal risk


Sources:

Lewandowsky, S., Kempe, V., Armaos, K., Hahn, U., Abels, C. M., Wibisono, S., Louis, W., Sah, S., Pagel, C., Jankowicz, N., DiResta, R., Markolin, P., Schoenemann, H., Hertwig, R., Crull, H., Mauer, B., Holford, D., Lopez-Lopez, E., & Cook, J. (2025, June 19). The Anti-Autocracy Handbook: A Scholars’ Guide to Navigating Democratic Backsliding. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15510834

Our World in Data. (2025). Less Democratic: Share of Population Living in Autocratic Regimes. https://ourworldindata.org/less-democratic

Chenoweth, E., & Stephan, M. J. (2011). Why civil resistance works: The strategic logic of nonviolent conflict. Columbia University Press.

Carbon Capture Isn’t a Free Pass: Why Cutting Emissions Still Matters

A 4-panel infographic titled 'How Carbon Dioxide Mixes Underground Over Time' showing the stages of CO₂ injection and mixing in a saline aquifer: initial diffusion, formation of fingers, active mixing with plumes, and eventual saturation. Includes a color legend for caprock, injected CO₂, and brine.

How CO₂ Mixes Underground Over Time — This visual shows the four main stages of carbon dioxide mixing after underground injection: from initial diffusion to active mixing and eventual stabilization. While carbon capture helps, the slow pace of mixing shows why cutting emissions remains essential.


We’re capturing carbon to fight climate change—but does that mean we can keep burning fossil fuels? A new study says: not so fast.

We all want to believe in solutions. With headlines about new technologies to capture carbon dioxide (CO₂) and store it deep underground, it’s easy to feel hopeful. And we should—these tools are an important part of the climate puzzle.

But a recent scientific study reminds us of something important: carbon capture is not a substitute for cutting emissions. It can help, but it can’t do the job alone.

Here’s what the study found—and why it matters for anyone concerned about climate change.

The Bottom Line

Scientists recently ran some of the most advanced computer simulations to better understand what happens after CO₂ is stored underground. What they found is simple, but powerful:

  • CO₂ mixes underground more slowly than we thought.

  • Even when conditions are ideal, it can take decades to fully trap the carbon.

  • Thankfully, the study offers a new model to help us predict and manage the process more accurately.

What does this mean in plain terms?

Carbon capture can help us buy time—but we still need to slash emissions at the source.

How CO₂ Storage Works (Simple Explainer)

Let’s break it down.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a method of taking CO₂—usually from power plants or factories—and injecting it deep underground, into rock layers filled with salty water (called brine). Once underground, the CO₂ begins to mix with the brine. Over time, it becomes trapped and less likely to escape back into the air.

But here’s the key: this process doesn’t happen instantly.

  • At first, the CO₂ just sits there.

  • Then, it starts to mix with the brine slowly.

  • Eventually, if enough time passes, it becomes safely diluted and stored.

This is why we can’t rely on carbon capture alone. If we keep emitting at today’s pace, storage can’t keep up.

What the Study Found (Key Takeaways)

A team of international scientists ran 3D simulations to understand how CO₂ moves and mixes underground. Their findings give us a more realistic picture than older studies.

CO₂ Storage Happens in 3 Stages

  1. Diffusion Phase: The CO₂ sits near the top, barely moving, and starts to slowly dissolve.

  2. Mixing Phase: Fingers or “plumes” of CO₂-rich water begin to form and sink, helping the mixing process.

  3. Shutdown Phase: As the space fills up, mixing slows, and it becomes harder for new CO₂ to enter the system.

The 13.5% Surprise

Older research assumed that CO₂ mixes 25% better in 3D (real-world) environments than in simpler 2D models. But this new study found the actual difference is only 13.5%. This matters because it corrects an overestimate in how fast and how much carbon we can safely store.

A Better Model

The study also introduced a simple, accurate formula to predict how CO₂ behaves underground over time. This helps engineers and policymakers design storage projects that are safer and more reliable.

In short: better science means better planning—and fewer excuses to delay real climate action.

Why It Matters for the Real World

We need trust in climate solutions. That means knowing how long it takes for stored CO₂ to become safe and stable underground.

Let’s take a real example: the Sleipner site in the North Sea, one of the world’s longest-running carbon storage projects.

  • After 20 years, only about 50% of the injected CO₂ has fully mixed.

  • To reach 90%, it could take more than 100 years.

That’s valuable progress—but it’s slow. We can’t lean on carbon capture alone, especially if emissions continue at today’s rates.

What This Means for Climate Activists

For climate activists, concerned citizens, and policymakers, this study offers a powerful reminder: Carbon capture is not a free pass to keep polluting.

Instead, it should be used alongside deep emissions cuts to help us reach climate goals faster and safer. Use this research to ask more questions:

  • How long will it take for the CO₂ to safely mix underground?

  • What’s being done to monitor leakage risk over time?

  • Are we also cutting emissions at the source—or just relying on storage?

The answers to these questions matter—because our planet’s future depends on both honest science and decisive action.

The Big Picture

Climate change is a big problem—and we need many tools to solve it. Carbon capture is one of those tools. But we shouldn’t treat it like a silver bullet.

“Carbon capture isn’t a free pass—it buys us time, but only if we use that time to slash emissions.”

This study helps us see that clearly. It’s not about losing hope—it’s about staying realistic, smart, and focused on solutions that truly work.

Final Thought

If we’re serious about protecting our planet, we must keep reducing the amount of CO₂ we put into the air—even as we work to store what’s already there. Science, like this study, helps point us in the right direction. It’s up to all of us—activists, voters, leaders, and everyday people—to act on that knowledge.


Source: De Paoli, M., Zonta, F., Enzenberger, L., Coliban, E., & Pirozzoli, S. (2025). Simulation and modeling of convective mixing of carbon dioxide in geological formations. Geophysical Research Letters, 52, e2025GL114804.

The Legal Liability Japanese Companies Face: Why Climate Change Risks Are a Growing Concern

Cover page of the report titled

The cover page of the “Directors’ Duties Regarding Climate Change in Japan: 2025” report by Dr. Yoshihiro Yamada, Dr. Janis Sarra, and Dr. Masafumi Nakahigashi, published by the Commonwealth Climate and Law Initiative (CCLI). The image of Mount Fuji symbolizes Japan’s resilience amidst the challenges of climate change.


Why Climate Change Matters

Climate change is a global challenge that’s affecting every corner of the world. Rising temperatures, extreme weather events, and unpredictable climate patterns are causing disruption, and no country is immune from its effects. Japan, an island nation, is particularly vulnerable to climate change because of its geographical location and dense population. Companies in Japan are now facing significant risks, not only from the physical impacts of climate change but also from the legal and financial responsibilities that come with it.

As climate change accelerates, the risks to businesses are no longer something that can be ignored or delayed. Corporate leaders in Japan are beginning to understand that failing to take action on climate-related risks could lead to severe consequences.

What Are the Risks of Climate Change?

Climate change poses two major types of risks to businesses: physical and transition risks.

Physical Risks are those that arise from the direct impact of climate change. These risks are divided into two categories:

  • Acute (immediate) risks: These are extreme events such as typhoons, floods, and heatwaves. For example, in recent years, Japan has experienced severe typhoons and record-breaking heatwaves, causing massive destruction.

  • Chronic (long-term) risks: These refer to gradual changes such as rising sea levels and ongoing temperature increases. Both of which can have a slower but equally harmful impact on businesses, especially those relying on natural resources.

Transition Risks are related to the global shift toward a more sustainable, low-carbon economy. As governments, investors, and consumers push for greener practices, businesses face new challenges:

  • Regulatory risks: New laws and policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions could impact how companies operate.

  • Market risks: As consumers demand greener products, companies that do not adapt may lose market share.

  • Technological risks: Companies that fail to innovate and adopt clean technologies might fall behind their competitors.

Why Japanese Companies Are Concerned About Climate Change

Japan faces multiple concerns when it comes to climate change. These concerns are not just about the physical damage caused by storms and rising seas—they also include financial and legal risks that could severely affect businesses.

Physical Risks: Japan is especially vulnerable to climate events like typhoons, heatwaves, and rising sea levels. For example, over the past decade, Japan has faced over JPY 13.7 trillion (USD $90.8 billion) in climate-related damages. Coastal cities like Tokyo, Osaka, and Nagoya are at high risk of flooding. The country’s agricultural sector is struggling with changes in temperature and rainfall patterns.

Transition Risks: The global shift towards sustainability presents challenges for Japanese businesses. Companies that fail to reduce their carbon footprint or invest in cleaner technologies may lose out to more forward-thinking competitors. Additionally, businesses face the risk of stranded assets—where investments in fossil fuel infrastructure become worthless as the world moves toward renewable energy.

Legal and Financial Liability: Directors of Japanese companies have a legal responsibility to ensure that climate risks are managed properly. If they fail to take action, they could be held personally liable. Japanese laws now require businesses to disclose material climate risks, and failure to do so could lead to lawsuits for breach of fiduciary duty. The pressure is mounting for directors to act, as investors and regulators increasingly demand transparency on climate-related risks.

Investor Pressure: Institutional investors are increasingly focused on sustainability. In Japan, investors representing trillions of dollars are demanding that companies disclose their climate-related risks and take meaningful action. If a company fails to do so, it risks losing investor confidence, which could lead to higher costs of capital and reduced access to funding.

Systemic Risk to the Economy: The Bank of Japan has warned that failing to address climate risks could destabilize the financial system. Mismanagement of these risks could lead to falling asset prices, loss of economic stability, and even disruptions in Japan’s banking system.

How Climate Change Affects Japanese Companies

The effects of climate change are already being felt across many industries in Japan. For instance, the manufacturing sector is vulnerable to extreme weather events that damage facilities and disrupt supply chains. Similarly, Japan’s agricultural sector faces challenges like reduced rice yields due to rising temperatures and unpredictable rainfall patterns.

The economic costs of not addressing these risks are significant. Companies that fail to prepare for climate change may suffer from damaged infrastructure, lost productivity, and increased operational costs. In some cases, the financial impact can be devastating, leading to significant losses in revenue and long-term damage to a company’s bottom line.

Legal Responsibilities for Directors in Japan

Corporate directors in Japan have a legal duty to manage the risks their companies face, including climate-related risks. According to Japanese corporate law, directors must act in the best interests of the company and ensure the company complies with all applicable laws and regulations. This includes climate-related risks.

Under Japan’s Corporate Governance Code, directors are required to oversee the company’s efforts to identify, assess, and manage climate risks. Failure to do so could result in personal liability. In particular, if a director neglects to integrate climate change into their governance strategy, they could face lawsuits from shareholders or be found in breach of their fiduciary duties.

The Role of Climate Governance in Business Success

Proper climate governance is crucial for businesses to remain competitive in a world that is increasingly focused on sustainability. Companies that integrate climate risks into their strategy are better positioned to succeed in the long term. Effective climate governance allows businesses to anticipate regulatory changes, innovate with cleaner technologies, and align with consumer preferences for environmentally friendly products.

In the long run, companies that take climate action seriously can build resilience, improve their reputation, and reduce risks associated with physical and transition challenges. On the other hand, companies that ignore climate risks may find themselves falling behind their competitors or even facing financial ruin.

The Growing Importance of Sustainability

As global investors push for more sustainable business practices, companies that fail to disclose their climate risks or take action to address them are likely to see a loss of investor confidence. Investors are increasingly looking for companies that are committed to reducing their carbon footprint and addressing climate-related risks in their business strategies.

Failure to meet these expectations could not only damage a company’s reputation but also increase the cost of capital and make it more difficult to attract investment in the future. Companies that adopt sustainability practices now will likely enjoy a competitive advantage in attracting responsible investors and staying ahead of regulatory trends.

What Should Directors Do?

Directors of Japanese companies must act now to integrate climate risk management into their governance structures. They should:

  • Assess and disclose climate risks transparently.

  • Seek expert advice to ensure they are making informed decisions about climate change.

  • Ensure that the company’s strategy includes clear goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate impacts.

By taking these steps, directors can help safeguard their companies from the financial and legal risks associated with climate change and position them for long-term success in a decarbonized economy.

Call to Action

Japan is taking significant steps to address climate change, with its corporate sector increasingly aware of the legal and financial risks posed by climate impacts. As one of the countries leading the way in climate governance, Japan is setting a strong example for others to follow. However, the fight against climate change requires a global effort. The United States and other countries must step up their efforts to integrate climate risk into corporate governance, adopt stricter environmental regulations, and encourage businesses to embrace sustainability.

As individuals, we can support companies and governments that are prioritizing climate action. We can demand greater transparency and accountability from businesses on their climate-related actions and encourage them to follow Japan’s lead in addressing climate risks head-on. We need to act now—climate change is a challenge that requires bold leadership across the globe. Let’s work together to make sure that countries, especially those with significant global influence, do not fall behind in this critical fight for our planet’s future.


Yamada, Y., Sarra, J., & Nakahigashi, M. (2025). Directors’ Duties Regarding Climate Change in Japan: 2025. Commonwealth Climate and Law Initiative.