The Guardian managed to publish one of the most cynical and misleading pieces of ideological propaganda in recent memory, lazily framing the global climate crisis as a morality play between “virtuous democracies” and “villainous autocracies.” In their telling, democracies are supposedly straining every sinew to meet the climate challenge while autocracies, driven by opaque fossil-fuel interests, selfishly obstruct progress.
But let’s look at the facts — something The Guardian seems less interested in when it interferes with their simplistic narrative.
The reality: The US, a “democracy,” is a principal saboteur
The world’s only major country led by an open climate-change denier in recent years was not Russia, not China, not Saudi Arabia - but the self-described “beacon of democracy,” the United States. This democracy withdrew from the Paris Agreement, dismantled climate policies, and then aggressively promoted fossil fuel exports, becoming the world’s largest exporter of fossil fuels.
Even today, the US actively pressures others to maintain fossil fuel dependency. Recent trade policies under the Trump administration deploy tariffs and economic coercion to promote US hydrocarbons, explicitly undermining the global energy transition.
China’s inconvenient leadership on renewables
The narrative completely ignores the fact that China, an “autocracy,” is the principal driver of the global clean energy transition. China accounts for a staggering 74% of global solar and wind projects and is on track to install nearly 60% of all new renewable capacity worldwide between now and 2030, according to the International Energy Agency.
The New York Times itself recently documented how China is racing ahead toward renewables while the US government actively tries to keep the world hooked on fossil fuels. The Guardian’s framing is therefore not merely flawed — it’s fundamentally dishonest.
Per capita emissions tell the real story
If fairness and scientific rigor mattered in The Guardian’s editorial office, they might have acknowledged the vast inequalities in per capita CO₂ emissions, which is arguably the fairest way to assess responsibility.
The United States, Australia, and Canada have per capita emissions about three times the global average, far higher than China.
The worst offenders per capita include wealthy oil-producing states like Qatar and the UAE, whose tiny populations mask their disproportionate footprints.
Even within prosperous “democracies,” stark contrasts exist: France, the UK, and Portugal have much lower emissions than their wealthy democratic neighbours like Germany or Australia, largely due to differences in energy mix — not because of some inherent democratic virtue.
Meanwhile, much of Sub-Saharan Africa — home to over a billion people — has a per capita carbon footprint 150 times lower than the average American or Australian. The Guardian’s narrative completely ignores this basic reality.
Historical emissions: who built the carbon economy?
The US alone has emitted nearly one-quarter of all CO₂ since 1751 — about 400 billion tonnes. Even today’s large emitters like India and Brazil are minor players in this historical context. Africa’s contribution has been negligible despite colonial exploitation that helped fuel the industrialization of the West.
The Guardian’s framing obscures the fact that the world’s climate debt is overwhelmingly a legacy of “democracies,” not autocracies.
The hypocrisy of claiming moral superiority
Perhaps most farcical is The Guardian’s invocation of “information flows” and “accountability” as attributes of democracy supposedly enabling climate action — in the very same article that peddles disinformation about which countries are leading and lagging on decarbonisation.
If democracies are indeed so transparent and accountable, why does the democratic US pursue policies that sabotage global decarbonisation? Why does Australia continue its coal addiction? Why is Canada expanding its tar sands extraction?
The reality is far messier than The Guardian’s cheap dichotomy suggests: some democracies behave atrociously on climate; some autocracies outperform them. Policy choices, vested interests, and economic structures matter far more than regime type.
The Guardian’s framing is textbook ideological propaganda
Rather than grapple honestly with a complex global issue, The Guardian has resorted to tired Cold War binaries: us vs. them, democracies vs. autocracies, good vs. evil. The irony is that by clinging to this fiction, they obscure the very transparency and accountability they claim to uphold.
A serious conversation about climate justice must acknowledge historical responsibility, per capita emissions, energy policy choices, and real-world leadership on renewables — not indulge in facile ideological fairy tales.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/ju...
Guardian promotes a simplistic goodies vs baddies view of emissions
The Guardian’s dishonest framing turns climate action into a tired morality play, ignoring facts: it’s policy, not regime type, that determines leadership on decarbonization.
Rather than grapple honestly with a complex global issue, The Guardian has resorted to tired Cold War binaries: us vs. them, democracies vs. autocracies, good vs. evil. The irony is that by clinging to this fiction, they obscure the very transparency and accountability they claim to uphold.