Saudi Arabia currently controls 17% of proven global petroleum reserves. It is classified as an oil-dependent economy because as of 2022 it earns 80% of its export income through oil and more than 40% of its GDP depends on petroleum exports, making it the third-most oil-reliant country in the world after Kuwait and Libya. These numbers are down from a decade ago, when in 2012 over 90% of export income and 45% of GDP depended on oil. Clearly, Saudi Arabia’s attempts to diversify its economy have made some progress, with forays into industries such as transportation and entertainment. 

The Russian invasion of Ukraine and resulting Western sanctions on Russian oil has skyrocketed demand for oil globally, causing oil prices to increase. However, this will not be the case forever. Oil is simply not a viable option any longer for Saudi Arabia’s future. It is estimated that at the current rates of extraction, Saudi oil reserves will be completely depleted in 60 years. Oil revenues are also expected to decline significantly by 2040 because of decreases in global demand. 

Other high-oil countries (HOCs) in the Middle East — such as Bahrain, Qatar, and the UAE — have faced the similar dilemma of finding a sustainable solution to the survival of their nations built on the export of an unsustainable resource. For example, Qatar — an economy built on oil and natural gas — has attempted to increase its global influence by investing in infrastructure attractive enough to draw foreign interest, such as Education City in Doha, which has branches of prestigious Western universities such as Georgetown and Cornell, or the hosting of the 2022 World Cup. 

Saudi Vision 2030 is an initiative conceptualized and led by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to distance the Saudi economy from its reliance on oil — and by extent, dependence on foreign trading partners — and diversify the economy. Bin Salman is attempting  to lead the country into the future and away from what he termed “a case of oil addiction.” The initiative was introduced in April 2016, with components such as the establishment of an e-government system, the creation of a Saudi tourism industry and allowing women to drive. 

The creation of this project was spurred by the steep decrease in crude oil prices in the summer of 2014, resulting in a state budget deficit of almost $100 billion in 2015, with the Vision released the following year.

Saudi Arabia, like most HOCs in the Middle East, is a rentier state, with a significant portion of its income relying on revenues from the sale of oil to outside sources. The primary goal of the Vision was to reduce Saudi economic dependency on foreign entities.

The Saudi Vision 2030 is built around three themes: a vibrant society, a thriving economy and an ambitious nation. One component of the Vision is the National Transformation Plan (NTP), which was implemented from 2016-2020 and aimed to boost non-oil revenue to $141 billion. The plan was successful, creating almost half a million non-government jobs, transforming 24 government agencies such as the Ministry of Investment to increase efficiency and ease of foreign participation, as well as furthering bin Salman’s drive toward the secularization of the Saudi government. At the end of 2022, Saudi Arabia reported its first budget surplus in almost a decade, thanks in large part to the results of this plan. 

Another component of the Vision that has gained widespread attention and apprehension is NEOM, a planned smart city with a budget of $500 billion to be built in northern Saudi Arabia’s Takbuk province, on the coast of the Gulf of Aqaba. NEOM stands for New Future, combining the Greek word neos, meaning new, and the Arabic word mustaqbal, meaning future. 

The smart city has faced skepticism over its feasibility, but if successful would diversify the Saudi economy through tourism, similar to the restructuring of tourism industries in Gulf countries such as Qatar and the UAE. 

Part of NEOM, The Line, began construction in October of 2022. The Line is a futuristic sustainable city that is planned to revolutionize urban living by running on 100% renewable energy. It will accommodate 9 million residents within 34 square kilometers, which is unheard of compared to other cities of a similar capacity. The initiative’s focus on sustainability is driven by the desire to base the Saudi economy on ventures that — unlike the oil that has built Saudi Arabia — are not finite, investing in Saudi Arabia’s long-term future while appealing to foreign investment in their economy.

Part of the vibrant economy pillar of the Vision is a $2 trillion transformation fund aiming to reduce unemployment, increase female participation in the workforce, boost the role of the private sector in GDP, increase the localization of oil and gas sectors and increase foreign direct investment from 3.8% of GDP to the international level of 5.7%.. 

The Vision is not the first of its kind in the region, with projects such as UAE Vision 2021 and Abu Dhabi Vision 2030 which share similar objectives of social reform through economic diversification. 

In the case of UAE Vision 2021, the objective of transforming the federation of states economically, politically, and socially to become “among the best countries in the world” was successfully completed over the decade since it launched. Saudi Vision 2030 mimics the methods used by the UAE of attracting foreign investors and integrating itself into the global tourism industry, expanding the international appeal of what is portrayed to be the technologically advanced ultra-wealthy utopia of the UAE.

The oil boom in the Middle East really began after the end of WWII, when HOCs in the region began producing oil on a large scale and resulting in immense revenues flowing into economically underdeveloped nations. Although it would be reasonably assumed that these economic inflows from high oil demand would lead to rapid growth, these countries were not equipped to ensure they benefited most effectively from the oil wealth. 

Oil-dependent economies in the Middle East began to develop symptoms of the “resource curse,” which is a paradoxical situation where a country possesses an abundance of valuable natural resources but underperforms in terms of economic development. One clear example of this is Saudi Arabia, where the Saudi royal family is the richest in the world with an estimated $1.4 trillion in oil wealth, while 20% of the country’s population lives in poverty.  

Because the oil in Saudi Arabia and many other Middle Eastern HOCs is under private ownership, usually by the monarch and their family, there has been little to no oversight of the management of oil revenues or requirements for their use in public endeavors. 

However, revenues from oil were used somewhat throughout the Gulf countries for domestic development, and throughout the 1950s and 1960s the societies of countries such as the UAE and Qatar were completely transformed. The effect oil has had on the Middle East cannot be understated. Life expectancy increased in Saudi Arabia from 40 in 1950 to 75 in 2022. Transportation and sewer systems were built, quality of life improved astronomically and infrastructure projects have continued over the decades.

Through the Vision’s economic reforms, Saudi Arabia has already enacted “sin taxes,” with a 100% excise tax on energy drinks and tobacco, and a 15% value-added tax on almost all goods and services. This is in addition to taxing the private sector and landowners, and removing subsidies and stipends, although currently personal income is not taxed for Saudi citizens. Before the Vision, the government had never directly taxed its citizens, but the goal of these reforms is to increase reliance on domestic revenue to finance Saudi Arabia instead of external funding. 

When a nation’s government utilizes taxation, this comes with the expectation of the country’s citizens of social pillars, such as infrastructure and government representation. When a state does not have to tax its citizens for financial support, this frees the government from any perceived social responsibility, creating a lack of accountability.

However, now that taxation has been implemented within Saudi Arabia in ways that affect its citizens, it would have been expected that the Saudis would protest for greater political participation. There was a trend on Twitter in 2020 shortly after further tax increases of posting pictures of the late King Abdullah, the former monarch who passed away in January of 2015, who was well-known for his concern for the poor. However, thus far, King Salman and the Crown Prince have managed any objections to the taxation by increasing social freedoms while also increasing repression. 

This taxation is occurring as the nation is moving away from providing the plethora of public services previously funded by oil revenues. Citizens are paying the government more money for less social infrastructure, reaping fewer of the government-subsidized benefits they had enjoyed for the last 50 years.

As more of Saudi Arabia’s wealth is generated domestically as a result of the Vision, Saudi Arabia’s susceptibility to the whims and ulterior motives of foreign governments may decrease as the nation becomes more reliant on apolitical private sector foreign direct investment in the future.

Over the six years that the Vision has been enacted there has been measurable social and economic success: the share of women in the labor market has increased to 37% from 17% in 2016, tourism increased by 4 billion visitors between 2017 and 2019, and foreign direct investment increased from $1.42 billion in 2017 to $5.4 billion in 2020. 

The Vision’s approach to ensure Saudi Arabia’s survival is having profound impacts on Saudi society and domestic governance. If successful, it could provide a model for other oil-dependent countries attempting to find their way into a future without the very resource that built their economies, ushering in an era of unprecedented political and social independence from the influence of foreign powers in the Gulf and profoundly transforming the political makeup of these societies. 

This conversation has followed the proliferation of nuclear power plants as well as its disasters, with infamous ones such as Chernobyl sticking in the public’s mind. However, there is no clear answer in this debate. Rather, it is important to recognize the merits of both sides and make informed decisions on a case-by-case basis. 

CONS – Ivana Karastoeva

A major concern regarding nuclear energy usage is safety in regards to humans, animals, and the land and ecosystems around us. 

The immediate fallout from the 1986 nuclear meltdown catastrophe in Chernobyl, Ukraine included radiation sickness, which caused the death of 134 workers present on the site. Meanwhile, those who survived suffered from radiation-induced cataracts. Long term health effects were also observed. According to the Journal of Radiological Protection, higher incidence of thyroid cancer among children and adolescents who were exposed to radiation has been observed 20 years following the incident. 

Moreover, the surrounding landscape was also heavily impacted. According to the Nuclear Energy Agency, a dense cloud of radioactive dust containing cesium-137 and more than a dozen other radionuclides engulfed surrounding forests and fields. Since then, the migration of airborne radionuclides into the forest soil has led to many plants adopting them into their life cycle, prolonging contamination. 

Though it appears that Chernobyl has been a flourishing biodiversity hub for plants and animals since the absence of humans, studies have shown that the radiation this wildlife has been exposed to has had extreme biological effects. For example, bird species residing in areas of high radiation have experienced higher mortality rates, smaller brains and mutations, evidencing significant genetic damage. 

A more recent example of nuclear power plants harming ecosystems is the Indian Point Nuclear Plant. This plant was permanently shut down on April 30, 2021, for unrelated reasons, but during its 59-year operation, it was discovered that the plant’s cooling water intake system had killed billions of fish, eggs and fish larvae annually, contributing to the decline of fish species populations in the Hudson River. 

National security is also a matter of concern. In the case of a terrorist attack or a foreign occupation during wartime as seen with the Russian occupation of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in southeastern Ukraine, nuclear power plants are vulnerable targets. 

Another concern that is brought up — if not the most important one — is the handling of nuclear waste. Nuclear fuel rods remain radioactive for about 10,000 years, and more than a quarter million metric tons of highly radioactive waste have been produced worldwide from nuclear plants and weapons production facilities. 

Despite this, there still exists no long-term solution to storing this waste safely and effectively. Currently, all nuclear waste produced by a plant is stored on-site in dry casks. In some cases, these temporary containers have outlived their design lives and leaked harmful radiation to their surrounding environment. One example is the Hanford Nuclear Waste Site in Washington state, where an estimated 3.5 gallons of radioactive waste were said to be leaking from the storage tanks per day, contaminating the soil and the Columbia River. 

Currently, Finland is creating the world’s first nuclear waste tomb meant to contain nuclear waste secured underground for 100,000 years. This, however, brings up a new concern regarding how to best communicate the dangers of these permanent disposal sites long after humanity goes extinct.

PROS – Samantha Chapman

While nuclear energy isn’t perfect, it is currently the best compromise between adequate energy to power modern energy needs and a low-carbon source that meets climate goals and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. 

It’s hard to be picky when there are so few options in a time of crisis. There are cleaner energy sources like wind and solar power, which are renewable and produce minimal to zero waste. However, as the technology stands, these sources are unreliable — solar energy can only be generated during the day, and even then only when the weather permits. Moreover, wind energy can only be generated when it’s windy, and the technology is not yet advanced enough to properly store any excess energy created at these times. 

As a result, this energy cannot be relied upon as any community’s main source of energy. It’s a useful supplement, but still necessitates another reliable energy source. 

On the other end of the spectrum, sources like coal or oil are extremely reliable and can be used on demand. However, they are a lot more harmful to the environment than nuclear energy. They pollute the air and oceans, and release greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, which are  major contributors to climate change. Meanwhile, nuclear energy is a carbon-free energy source and generates almost one third of the world’s carbon-free electricity. So at this crucial point in time, nuclear energy is the compromise we need. 

With the current rate of carbon emissions and rapidly mounting global temperature, we cannot afford to be selective with solutions. 

Nuclear energy is by no means perfect, but it is important to think about how any risks or by-products can be limited instead of dismissing the possibility as a whole. Nuclear reactors can be dangerous, but with proper management and safety culture, any associated risks can be significantly reduced. 

No alternative is going to be accident-proof — everything comes with its share of risks and potential problems. It’s a matter of managing the risks specific to nuclear energy. For instance, the disaster at Fukushima is considered a man-made incident which was triggered by natural hazards, one that could and should have been avoided. There was inadequate regulatory oversight in Japan and a sloppy safety culture at the plant. 

A similar plant, Onagawa, was also hit by the same earthquake and suffered from flooding; yet, it shut down effectively and avoided disaster. The difference between the two were the managing teams, meaning one that emphasized tight safety regulations and one that did not. Relative to the number of nuclear reactors operative in the past and currently operative, the number of disasters is extremely low. Just three major disasters (Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island) have occurred. This shows both how few and far between disasters are, and how essential safety culture at the plants is to their stability. 

The production and management of nuclear waste is a major consideration of nuclear energy, as it should be. It is important to have a comprehensive knowledge of any system, and waste by-products are an important aspect of nuclear energy. 

However, nuclear energy produces minimal amounts of waste relative to other energy sources, which is to say it is extremely energy-dense. For the equivalent of the energy extracted from a single one-inch pellet of Uranium, 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 120 gallons of oil or one ton of coal would have to be burned, Thus, producing the same amount of energy generates less comparative waste. 

It cannot be overlooked that this waste is toxic, and while it is not harmful in the same way as carbon emissions, it has issues of its own. However, it is better to recognize the problems that come with nuclear energy and ask how we can develop technology to neutralize them, rather than using them as reasons to abandon it entirely. 

For instance, new reactor designs have recently been developed that can operate on used fuel, which would cut down on waste. Whereas the issue with fossil fuels is unavoidable (as it will always involve releasing carbon into the atmosphere), the problems with nuclear energy can be solved with further development of technology. 

An example of a country that has embraced nuclear energy is France. Over 70 percent of the country’s energy comes from nuclear power and 17 percent comes from recycled nuclear fuel. As a result, France has relatively low carbon emissions at about 4.46 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per capita in 2019 compared to Germany’s 7.91, Russia’s 11.8 and the United States’ 14.67. After nuclear, France’s energy comes from hydro and wind power, with natural gas, coal and oil collectively only making up less than 9 percent of their energy. 

The proliferation of nuclear energy in France came about in 1974 after the first oil shock, when France decided to expand its nuclear power capacity. This decision stemmed from the fact that the country is advanced in engineering, but has limited natural resources. It is also the world’s largest net exporter of electricity due to the very low cost of energy generation in nuclear power plants, which brings in over $3 billion a year, an argument for the financial and economical aspect of nuclear energy. 

Because of the country’s reliance on nuclear energy, France is also a leader in nuclear technology and reactors. Since 1985, France has reduced its nuclear waste production by two thirds. Its waste is processed, sealed in specially designed containers and placed in temporary storage in a plant, where it is to be moved in 2035 to an underground secure storage facility for long-term residence. 

Conclusion

Nuclear energy is truly a topic of major contention in the sustainable energy debate. On the one hand, it produces zero carbon emissions and is the most reliable source of clean energy — but on the other, it produces radioactive waste that will surpass human existence. 

But all hope is not lost as scientists continue to work to find new, cleaner and more efficient energy sources that meet our energy without bringing harm to the environment. 

Heading into COP27, the European Union was supposed to bring updated plans for carbon reduction since last year’s COP26. Now, in the middle of the energy crisis, some European countries are being forced to renege on past promises or change direction. 

For example, Germany, intended to close the last of its coal-fired power plants by the end of 2022 in order to keep on track for its 2030 coal phase-out goal. However, as Germany used to receive 55% of its natural gas from Russia, the war left it with a significant gap to fill. So, Germany has postponed the closure of or reactivated at least 20 of coal power plants to support their energy demands. Italy, Hungary, Greece and the Netherlands all also announced plans to postpone the closure of some power plants or re-open others. A proposed compromise for this decision suggests investing the earnings of these power plants toward constructing more sustainable energy sources, such as wind turbines and solar panels, but there are concerns that the German government isn’t doing enough to ensure this actually happens. Environmentalists in Germany reportedly understand the necessity of ensuring that there’s enough energy for the winter but assert that the extra carbon burned must be somehow offset elsewhere in the country.

Poland also received a significant amount of natural gas, about 45% of its supply, from Russia before the war and was similarly cut off following Russia’s attack. As a result, Poland announced plans to slow their coal phase-out but maintained that the phase-out would be complete at the originally scheduled time of 2049. They said that in this time of crisis, they don’t want to be forced to rely on expensive imported coal and would rather increase their domestic production. Poland is the only EU country that uses coal as its primary source of electricity, so before it can convert to other sources, it will require a supply of coal from somewhere, whether that be from its mines or from imports. 

Eventually, Poland hopes to diversify their energy sources. The country recently announced its cooperation with U.S. and South Korean companies to construct nuclear power plants. However, Poland stated that no coal mines would close until the first of these plants opened, which won’t be until 2033 at the earliest.

Alternatively, Romania has been pushing to increase its solar and wind energy generation to gain independence from Russian energy sources. A new solar project is set to be the biggest solar photovoltaic plant in Europe, with 1.6 million new solar panels supplying power to more than 370,000 households. The plant, which will also include energy storage capabilities, should be online by 2025. The same company, Rezolv Energy, is also looking to build a wind farm. If Romania generates enough renewable energy, it could even share its supply with other European countries. This would be a major feat, but Romania, in particular, is well poised to fulfill it as the nation has a high solar energy potential with 210 sunny days out of the year.

The effects of the energy crisis are not contained to Europe. With big European economies suddenly searching for energy, prices have soared globally at the expense of developing countries. Their supply of natural gas has drastically decreased, as it is now exported to Europe. Natural gas suppliers are disregarding their previous contracts in favor of the prices offered by European countries, prices that allow them to pay the penalties for breaking their contracts and still make a profit. Thus, Europe’s energy crisis has become an energy crisis for developing countries with smaller economies, such as Pakistan, Bangladesh and Thailand. 

Accordingly, Russia has approached Pakistan, India and other countries that have faced an energy deficiency and offered their supply of natural gas. Leaders are trapped in a similar situation to Europe’s: boycotting Russia and supporting the environment or meeting the immediate energy needs of their citizens? 

To avoid pushing developing nations into Russia’s arms, European countries need to work together with gas suppliers and economically smaller countries to establish a more fair distribution of wealth and supplies. They could do so by supplying funds for developing countries to funnel towards procuring other energy sources or put funding towards becoming competitive in the market for natural gas. Alternatively, regulations could also be put in place to control the price of natural gas or limit the profit made by suppliers in order to make the supplies more accessible to smaller economies and force the suppliers to honor their long-term contracts. There is no easy solution, as there is a severe global shortage of supply, but there are measures that can be put in place to minimize the damage to people and the environment. 

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has had many far-reaching and devastating consequences, including Russia’s manipulation of its energy sources as a weapon, resulting in an energy crisis worldwide. This shortage may cause potential loss of life or livelihood in the coming winter and has also impacted the climate and climate goals heading into COP27. The hope is that despite these setbacks, European countries at COP27 will outline specific measures to ensure they still ultimately adhere to their initial climate goals. The conference will also ideally serve as an opportunity for negotiation of either financial compensation for developing countries or market legislation to ensure emerging nations aren’t forced to rely on Russian gas in order to survive the winter.

As the region prepares for the upcoming COP27 conference in Egypt this November, they have a long list of initiatives and demands, including investments in sustainable development, disaster prevention and relief and transition to clean energy. Many regional leaders have grown frustrated with previous international climate deliberations and have resolved to take a more aggressive stance on climate negotiations, one that mirrors their concerns about environmental collapse.

“The time to see ourselves as climate victims is over. Although we are, the time to take the helm of the ship has begun,” said Max Puig, executive vice president of the country’s National Council for Climate Change and Clean Development Mechanism (CNCCMDL). Puig’s was one of many rallying cries at this year’s Latin American and Caribbean Climate Week (LACCW), held in July in Santo Domingo, the capital of the Dominican Republic. Climate Week hosted approximately 1,700 government representatives, international organizations, private sector stakeholders and civil society experts. The week-long summit featured more than 160 sessions regarding “climate risks and the transition to carbon neutrality economies, among other climate issues.”

LACCW allowed regional leaders to discuss their national climate policies and develop strategies for the upcoming COP27 negotiations. Cities in Chile, Colombia and across Latin America have begun transitioning from public buses to electric vehicles. The agricultural sector has begun adopting regenerative agricultural practices to combat soil degradation, depletion and drought, a problem particularly afflicting Chilean farms that have suffered from a drought for more than a decade. The region is also developing plans for offshore wind farms and solar panels to create the infrastructure of sustainable energy production required to reduce carbon emissions.

Indeed, many Latin American countries have already adopted more aggressive climate policies within their national borders, but they lack the resources to undertake the large scale of climate crises. 

Like many developing countries, the primary roadblock to sustainable energy transition is insufficient financial resources. Achieving their carbon reduction goals set in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement would require redirecting as much as 19%, or $1.3 trillion USD, of public and private spending in Latin America toward climate solutions, a figure that remains both politically and economically infeasible in developing countries. “Yes, we need to incentivise the transition to low-emission, highly resilient development, but this should not be done at the expense of existing businesses or national development,” said Ovais Sarmad, the UN Climate Change deputy executive secretary. 

Consequently, Latin America and the Caribbean hope to secure greater adaptation and mitigation investment from developed countries, especially for constructing sustainable energy infrastructure, transitioning away from fossil fuel transportation and modernizing agricultural systems to be more energy efficient and environmentally conservative. The agricultural sector, in particular, presents multiple opportunities for carbon reduction with developed countries’ investments and technological assistance. 

Implementing the necessary changes will require three distinct channels of negotiation at the upcoming COP27: “capacity building, technology transfer” and, most importantly, funding.

“Funding must be increased. Developed countries, which pledged to provide USD 100 billion a year in assistance starting in 2020, must fulfill their promise, as was highlighted at COP26 in Glasgow,” said Walter Oyhantçabal, an expert on international climate negotiations. Delegates from Mexico, Chile and Colombia are expected to continue leading the charge in COP27 deliberations, pressuring developed countries to increase their investments and follow through on their promises.

“It must be clear to our peoples and to the world that we are serious and that, even in the most difficult circumstances, we are not going to stop. We will overcome the difficulties. This is the message that Latin America and the Caribbean are taking to COP27 in Egypt,” said Puig in conclusion. 

As both a vulnerable region and a site of immense potential in the battle against climate change, Latin America will play a critical role in negotiations at this year’s COP27 summit.

As the conference host, Egypt has positioned itself as a leader in climate initiatives in Africa. Egypt offers a unique perspective as a host, as Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi affirmed that Egypt will use its role as a host to advocate for the interests of Africa and other developing nations. This includes securing funds for developing countries, which are disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change, despite contributing relatively little to climate change. 

Climate action in Egypt has included both mitigation and adaptation efforts, including increasing its wind energy capacity fivefold and building desalination plants and flood-prevention infrastructure to counteract increasing water stress. Nonetheless, the motive behind Egypt’s action has received scrutiny. Greenpeace has been accused by human rights defenders of “greenwashing” the Egyptian government’s image, in a diversionary tactic to distract from Egypt’s poor human rights record. Not only does Egypt, under the government of Egyptian president Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, hold over 60,000 political prisoners, but the government has reportedly silenced independent environmental activists. 

In July 2022, a coalition of activists and environmentalists wrote an open letter questioning the ability of Egypt to successfully host COP27 because of Egypt’s subpar human rights record. The letter emphasized that without full human rights to freedom of assembly, association, and expression, rights which are currently being repressed in Egypt, COP27 would not be able to ensure that conference participants could speak and assemble freely. John Sauven, former executive director of Greenpeace UK, was among the signatories of the letter. However, Greenpeace UK declined to sign. Grassroots activists have exclaimed disappointment in Greenpeace’s reluctance to support the letter, as Egyptian human rights defender Sanaa Seif points out that “a lot of us are worried about putting African and Egyptian activists in danger, [and]the big Western organizations have much more room and leverage to speak out and make human rights a priority at COP.”

Further concerns regarding Egypt’s role in the conference are that Egypt’s heavy reliance on fossil fuels and natural gasses which accounted for about 90% of its power generation capacity in 2019, might undermine its leadership of the conference. Egypt is still seeking to increase the country’s natural gas and oil production, arguing that lower-income countries should be able to depend on and develop using fossil fuels until they can afford a shift to clean energy sources. 

The COP27 president Sameh Shoukry previously called gas a “transitional source of energy”, which was echoed by the European Commission in February. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has said that to even have a chance of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, “there should be no new gas fields.” Hints of Egypt’s agenda are clear on the COP27 website, in language discussing a “shift towards a low-carbon economy” rather than a zero-carbon economy. 

Egypt has already committed to a new gas delivery deal with Israel and the European Union, and experts claim Egypt will only consider setting a net-zero target if it gets more financial assistance. The position, which is shared by other African exporters, indicates that climate finance will take priority in the COP27 agenda. 

In fact, Ambassador Mohamed Nasr, the country’s chief climate negotiator, has affirmed his commitment to accountability in climate finance and equitable distribution of aid, citing that in 2009, developed countries promised to provide $100 billion a year in climate finance by 2020 — yet still have fallen short. Developing nations are also advocating for payments for “loss and damage,” for current pressing impacts. This possibility was excluded from the Bonn climate talks in June, due to backlash from wealthier nations fearing an endless compensation timeline. The EU has agreed, however, that discussions of such payments should take place at COP27. 

Despite rising geopolitical tensions, energy and food shortages, the continued impacts of climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic, Ambassador Nasr remains hopeful that COP27 will create an opportunity to recognize “mutual interest in tackling this climate crisis together” and set “multilateral action back on track.”

These words, from Canadian philosopher and futurist Marshall McLuhan, emphasize both the necessity of a collectivist attitude and the necessity of coordinated action toward climate change. As the world rapidly approaches the disaster barrier that is 1.5 degrees celsius, it is imperative that the United States takes steps to reach critical climate targets such as net-zero global carbon emissions by 2050. 

Though these may seem like lofty goals, they are now considered essential by many climate experts, if we are to avoid major climate catastrophes that will cost millions of lives, destroy ecosystems and environments and affect trillions of dollars in global revenue. 

Given the extent to which oil and natural gas lobbyists are entrenched and hold influence in American politics, implementing large-scale renewable energy may be difficult to accomplish within the next 10 years. Alternatively, other avenues must be considered to reduce our carbon footprint. A course of action that has been seemingly overlooked is legislation to reduce methane emissions by decreasing the number of cows consumed — essentially, legislation to tackle the meat industry. If deemed politically feasible and in the interest of the administration, President Joe Biden currently faces several alternatives and options for reducing emissions from livestock in order to meet emissions targets.  

Agricultural emissions in the United States account for approximately 10% of all GHG emissions. The largest culprit within the agricultural industry is cattle which — through digestive methane production, transportation, packaging and distribution — directly contributes approximately 30% of all agricultural emissions. The most concerning of these emissions is methane (CH4) — which has a global warming potency 86 times higher than that of carbon dioxide (CO2). 

Cattle contributes to methane emissions primarily in 2 ways. The first is through a process known as enteric fermentation, which is a natural digestive process in which food is decomposed and fermented, creating a by-product of methane. The second primary contributor is cow manure, which often releases methane as it decomposes under anaerobic conditions in piles or open-pit lagoons. 

Combatting methane emissions is a nuanced issue, and agricultural organizations and scientists alike have been doing their best to tackle the challenge for the past 30 years. Many have sought to reduce emissions through intentional alterations of a cow’s rumen, the stomach chamber in which microbes ferment feed hence producing methane. Others have focused on selective breeding for cows with less methane-producing microbes, as well as experimenting with different feeds that promote better digestion. Nevertheless, emissions from agriculture have actually increased despite efforts in many developed countries to actively reduce methane production in cows.

There are several critical reasons why, even with an average reduction of methane emissions per cow, global methane emissions from cattle have still increased by 10% within the last 30 years. First is the phenomenon known as “meatification” in regions like Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Demand for meat has skyrocketed as purchasing power has increased within these regions, and, as a result, global meat production has nearly doubled since 1990. 

Second, measures adopted have been inefficient at reducing overall methane and GHG emissions. While they have made some difference in reducing emissions per cow, raising cows is still a massively inefficient process. In order to raise a cow for slaughter, you must raise it for two to three years as well as provide it with an exceptional amount of land, water, and food. Moreover, cows produce about up to 21 tons of manure per year, and ineffective manure management can lead to greater methane emissions. On top of that, many of these measures have been adopted inconsistently throughout the globe, given that wealthier nations are more equipped to fund the research and supplies needed to successfully implement these measures. 

Yet, research still continues in these areas despite the limited effectiveness of the measures being developed. Why? The larger answer lies in the fact that improvements and advancements in these areas allow the animal agriculture industry to expand. 

But these scientific advancements cannot fix an industry that is inherently destructive – not only to the planet, but to the health of citizens as well. If the United States is serious about combating the negative externalities created by animal agriculture — including methane emissions from cattle — a new agricultural landscape must be constructed rather than focusing improvements to the current one.

There are several paths the Biden administration can pursue if it wishes to significantly reduce the cattle industry’s methane emissions. The first alternative is cut from the old cloth, but worth exploring nonetheless. It involves feeding cows a specific type of seaweed. A 2018 study from the University of California, Davis suggests that feeding cows seaweed could reduce methane emissions from beef cattle by as much as 82%. Unfortunately, implementing this on a massive scale is near impossible because there is simply not enough of that type of seaweed to sustain a cow’s diet, and there are several logistical challenges with providing seaweed supplements to cows grazing on an open range. 

A second policy Biden mught consider is focusing on supporting the growth of businesses that produce plant-based protein substitutes. Plant-based meat alternatives have historically been frowned  upon, but their popularity has absolutely exploded in the past few years with the success of companies like Beyond Meat. Two out of five Americans have tried plant-based meat, with that figure stretching to over 50% for those 25 and younger. Moreover, plant-based substitutes are expected to achieve a whopping 85 billion dollars in sales in 2030, an 1,847% increase from 2018. This growth has only accelerated throughout the pandemic, as the unsafe COVID-19 conditions endured by many meat processing workers have increased calls for more meat-free alternatives.

Another promising innovation the Biden administration could support is lab-grown meat. Currently, lab-grown meat is still in its infancy in the United States, with plans to serve cultured meat still several years away. However, in the United Kingdom the process is a little further along. There are currently 15 startups focusing on lab-grown meat and they have plans to expand to mass production in the coming years. CE Delft expects that by 2030, lab-grown beef could be just as inexpensive as agricultural beef. Even better news, if lab-grown factories were funded by renewable energy it would reduce total beef emissions by 93%. Lab-grown beef may be the best potential alternative because not only does it allow us to reduce our methane emissions and assuage ethical concerns about animal farming, but it also allows consumers to keep the taste and nutrients of meat readily available in their diet.  

But one notable hurdle the United States faces with both plant-based proteins and lab-grown beef is the political strength of the U.S. agribusiness industry. According to research from New York University, major meat and dairy producers have spent millions on lobbying efforts and campaigns aimed at discrediting links between climate change and animal agriculture. Over the last two decades, ‘Big Ag’ has spent $750 million on supporting national political candidates who hold similar policy stances, with Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and Joni Ernst among their top recipients. 

Unsurprisingly, these major conglomerates have been able to get away with highly carbon-intensive methods of agriculture, as well as produce food at a very cheap rate due to large agricultural subsidies. The Barack Obama administration tried to check the advances of Big Ag, promising millions of rural farmers that they would fight back against the most powerful players in the industry, only to stop when the major agricultural conglomerates banded together with their congressional allies. 

Nevertheless, the emergence of climate change as a central political issue will facilitate Biden’s ability to check the power of Big Ag. As more and more American citizens express their concern about climate change, Congress will have to listen to its constituents or risk losing popular support. Additionally, with Democratic control over the House, and the Senate nearly equally split, climate policies will face less hurdles than they did under former President Donald Trump. Biden should take advantage of these circumstances to steadfastly push climate action.

And as such, I believe the Biden administration should consider adopting the following measures to mitigate the effect of the meat industry on climate change.

1. Increase investment in seaweed farming products;
2. Increase subsidies to plant-based protein companies in order to promote industry growth and reduce prices; 
3. Decrease or eliminate subsidies to animal agriculture, which keep the price of beef and other animal products artificially low; 
4. Have the EPA classify methane as a criteria pollutant under the Clean Air Act (CAA);
5. Fund research, infrastructure, and production capacities for lab-grown beef;

The climate crisis grows more grim every day. If substantial action is not taken by the Biden administration to fundamentally reduce American beef consumption and minimize animal agriculture in general, the United States will struggle to reach its emission targets, thereby hampering the global climate fight and bringing the world closer to environmental catastrophe. 

The dam’s primary purpose is to generate electricity for the 70% of Ethiopia’s rural population who lack it. The dam is also meant to enrich the country through the sale of excess electricity. The giant infrastructure undertaking also serves as a rallying point for Ethiopians who see it as a way for their country to move out of poverty. 

On the other hand, Egypt and Sudan, as downstream countries, are worried that the GERD will permanently decrease the amount of water that reaches them. Egypt, which is dependent on the Nile for agriculture, hydropower and 94% of the country’s total water supply, is particularly threatened and has opposed the GERD since its conception in 2011. Ethiopia claims that the dam will help its people without harming Sudan or Egypt, while Egypt says that the GERD will short the country on the resources it needs. 

With both sides making such bold statements about the benefits and consequences  of the dam, it is difficult to determine which statements are true and what environmental impact the GERD will end up having.

This situation with the GERD is reminiscent of the controversy surrounding the Aswan High Dam, another dam on the Nile that was completed in 1970 and is located in Egypt. Similar to Ethiopia’s desire to use the electricity and profits generated by the GERD to advance as a country, the Aswan High Dam was a point of pride amongst the Egyptian people and a key factor in Egypt nationalizing the Suez Canal and taking back control of it and their country from European nations (the revenue from the canal was needed to fund the dam).

Before the construction of the Aswan High Dam, there were numerous concerns that it would end up doing more harm than good to the surrounding environment. Critics worried that the dam would lead to sedimentation in the reservoir, erosion of the coast and the land at the base of the dam, an increase in the spread of diseases and decreased soil fertility in the area.

The Aswan High Dam has been in use for over 50 years now, and according to several experts including Cecilia Tortajada, editor-in-chief of the International Journal of Water Resources Development and senior research fellow at the Institute of Water Policy, and Asit Biswas, member of the World Commission on Water and co-founder of the International Water Resources Association and the World Water Council, the benefits have thus far proven to outweigh its negative effects. The dam’s primary mission is to stabilize the flood-drought cycle of the Nile in Egypt, and from this point of view it has been an unequivocal success. Since the dam was completed, the Nile’s annual flood has not harmed human lives or agricultural land, and enough water has been stored to see Egypt through all subsequent drought years. Another positive side effect of the Aswan High Dam is that the regulation of the Nile’s flow has allowed for year-round irrigation, leading to two or three harvests per year instead of just one. Additionally, the electricity it generated was the main source of power for Egypt until recently, and a key propellant behind the country’s rapid industrialization.

The impact of the Aswan High Dam has not been entirely rosy though; it has led to an increase in the salinity of both the water and the nearby soil used for agriculture, a severe reduction in the silt that has traditionally fertilized the soil, the collapse of some river banks, and infestations of various aquatic weeds. However, the widely accepted consensus is that these side effects can be managed and are far eclipsed by the positives of the dam.

There is no way to be sure what effects the GERD will have, but estimates have been made based on the fallout from the High Aswan Dam and simulations of various scenarios, including failure of the dam and drought and flood seasons. According to Abdelkader Ahmed, a professor of environmental engineering at at Aswan University, the initial filling of the reservoir will flood existing plants in the area (which is heavily occupied by tropical shrubs), killing them off en masse and leading to a large release of carbon dioxide emissions (between one and eight million tons) as they decompose. It will also affect the spawning and migration of several fish species that may become disoriented by the changing temperatures and currents. However, since the GERD is located by Ethiopia’s border, it will likely not cause major changes to the country’s water supply or agricultural land.

Sudan is in a unique in-between position because the GERD stands to benefit the country but also puts it in harm’s way. The GERD will stabilize the flow of the Nile in Sudan and allow for agricultural production year-round (similar to the effect the High Aswan Dam had on Egypt). However, Sudan is also the country most at risk if the dam should fail. Models created by faculty at American University of Sharjah and United Arab Emirates University found that because the GERD is located in an area of Ethiopia prone to earthquakes and surrounded by steep mountains with high rates of erosion and landslides, geological activity is the most likely reason why it would fail. Regardless of the reason, if the GERD collapses, Sudan will face catastrophic damage including the flooding of almost 10,000 mi² of agricultural land and roads and the transformation of Khartoum, the country’s capital, into a lake.

The forecasted impact for Egypt is not as favorable as the other two countries. A study conducted by researchers at Zagazig University in Egypt and the Technical University of Kosice in Slovakia found that the GERD will reduce the level of both groundwater and surface water in Egypt, which would be detrimental to the agricultural output since most crops grown in the country require large amounts of water. However, if farmers switch to growing crops that use less water, the lower groundwater levels combined with less watering of the plants will increase the salinity of the soil to a level that will damage soil productivity, putting Egyptian farmers in a no-win situation. The dam also inhibits the flow of nutrient-rich sediment that has traditionally replenished downstream agricultural land, further handicapping production capabilities. This could become a serious problem if agricultural output decreases as Egypt’s population growth continues to outpace the ability of the country’s resources to to support it.

The decreased groundwater and surface water levels are concerning on their own since Egypt is already facing increasing levels of water scarcity and has one of the lowest per capita shares of water in the world. According to the United Nations, Egypt is under the water poverty threshold, and will face an “absolute water crisis” by 2025. The country is also concerned about whether Ethiopia will permit the necessary amount of water to be released from the GERD’s reservoir during drought years. Though many talks have taken place between Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan over the GERD, no agreements have been made about protocol during droughts. For Egypt, whose water supplies are already being stretched very thin, how Ethiopia chooses to react to the next drought could be an inflection point for the country.

It is clear that though the GERD will bring many benefits for Ethiopia and Sudan, Egypt will not share in the good fortune. Regardless, the dam has already been built and the reservoir is filled partway. At this junction it is crucial for the leaders of all three countries to come together to determine how to maximize the GERD’s utility for Ethiopia and Sudan within the constraints of maintaining Egypt’s access to necessary resources. 

This 14-year long plan was announced in 2016 by Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and aims to reduce Saudi Arabia’s dependency on the oil industry. This plan includes several infrastructure, education and renewable energy projects, but by far the most ambitious project within this 2030 vision is the city of Neom. 

The city of Neom is the prince’s crown jewel and he expects that it will put the country on the international stage and not only manage to be the face of sustainable development, city building and living, but also a major hub for travel, tourism and transportation. 

The city is planned to be developed in the Tabuk province, which is located in the northwest part of the country. The area borders the Red Sea to the south, Jordan to the north and the Gulf of Aqaba to the west, across from which is Egypt’s Sinai peninsula. 

Construction has already begun after Neom’s announcement at the Future Investment Initiative conference in Riyadh on October 24, 2017. Neom Bay, which includes some resorts and luxury apartments, has already begun construction. Additionally, Neom Bay Airport was inaugurated in 2019 and will serve as a temporary hub until the main airport is finished. 

The project has been estimated to cost around $500 billion dollars and set to open the first stage by 2025 with the main attraction being The Line, a city shaped in a straight line that will run 170km from the coast towards the inland desert and would take up $200 billion from the budget. The city is planned to be a fully sustainable project that would rely 100% on renewable energies to run. The project would also, according to the Saudi government, create 380,000 jobs and increase its GDP by $48 billion. 

“Why should we sacrifice nature for the sake of development?” Prince Mohammed said in the televised announcement of The Line in January. “We need to transform the concept of a conventional city into that of a futuristic one.”

According to the Saudi government, The Line would consist of three different levels. On the ground floor there would be an uninterrupted pedestrian walkway with parks. The second level would have the services, stores and other commercial spaces. And the third level would be what is being called The Spine. 

In the same announcement made by bin Salman, he mentioned that the city is being built with a future population of one million people in mind. He further stated that all of these people would be just five minutes away from any good or service they would need for their day to day lives. 

The Neom project and more recently The Line have been heavily promoted online and are widely seeking additional foreign investment to help develop the city. Several YouTube advertisements and videos as well as viral explanatory videos have been key to the growing awareness of the project abroad. 

This ambitious project, however, has also raised some questions and concerns surrounding the true intentions behind its construction, as well as the ethical aspects that surround the city building as well as the country as a whole. 

One major controversy surrounding Neom is the current and future displacement of the Al-Huwaitat tribe. With around 20,000 people facing eviction and many Al-Huwaitat advocates being killed in the past years, the project has faced international backlash from several NGOs across the world. On April 13, 2020, Abdul Rahim al-Huwaiti, one of the main advocates from the tribe, was killed by Saudi security forces in what they allege was self defence as Al-Huwaiti had fired first. Al-Huwaiti was a major critic of the Neom project, and many suspect that this could have been the reason for his death. 

“They have begun the process of removing people, beginning with surveying homes with the intent of removing people and deporting them from their land,” said Al-Huwaiti on a video recorded on the day of his death referring to the Saudi forces reaching his hometown. “They arrested anyone who said they’re against deportation, they don’t want to leave, they want to remain [in]their homes, that they don’t want money.”

Despite highlighting on the promotional website that the city will be built on “virgin land,” the testimonies from local tribes say otherwise. This is one of the major controversies that the Neom project faces, but with the recent announcement of The Line it seems like the Saudi government will continue the city’s development. 

This project is also very important for Saudi Arabia, not only due to its potential revenue in tourism and investment, but it will also allow for Saudi Arabia to assume strategic control of trade and transit within the region and beyond. 

The area where Neom will be developed is adjacent to the Strait of Tiran, where the Saudi administered islands of Tiran and Sanafir lie just off Egypt’s beach resort city Sharm El Sheikh on the Sinai peninsula. Alongside the plan to build the city, there is a plan to build a bridge connecting both countries by land. 

This bridge would completely change the way the region works as transporting goods through land from Egypt to Saudi Arabia would become possible, completely bypassing the current need to go through Israel. The bridge would also give Saudi Arabia control over the Strait as well, which could potentially increase the country’s influence over Asian exports to Israel. 

This would also help Saudi Arabia become one of the main hubs for travel and transportation, although the development would face fierce competition from neighbouring Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, two countries which have established themselves as powerhouses in the aviation industry with their major airlines Qatar Airways and Emirates respectively. 

The government wants to incentivise investors by establishing Neom as a free trade zone with its own tax and legal system, the latter supposedly being structured around more open and progressive ideals. This contrasts the strict Sharia law that prevails within the rest of the country which has been criticized for numerous human rights violations. This is something similar to what the UAE has already done with Dubai since 2006, where the Emirati government established an international court system to better appeal to the international investors. 

The project as a whole is Prince bin Salman’s attempt at creating a place that can serve as a major source of revenue and international influence for the Saudi government, and which can put the country on the international stage to not only help diversify the economy, but to also extend the reach of the Saudi influence within the global community. 

The positive, progressive and innovative prospects that the city is set to have, however, must be looked at through a critical lens, as the Crown Prince has proved that he may disregard locals or other people that stand in the way of his projects, even when they are within their right to protest the development. 

It remains to be seen if the Saudi government is up to the task of constructing this massive and ambitious project, and if they will be able to deliver on all of their sustainability promises while bettering their efforts to secure an ethical development. 

In 2018, Mexico elected President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, a left-wing populist member of the National Regeneration Movement (MORENA). Although he had long been a divisive figure in Mexican politics, López Obrador entered office with an astounding 53% of the popular vote and a promise to prioritize Mexico’s sovereignty. After multiple failed presidential elections, AMLO (the popular abbreviation for López Obrador) finally achieved the highest office in Mexico on the rising tide of Mexican nationalism, which had dominated Mexican politics for a majority of its relations with the U.S. and had only subsided in the late 80s.

Americans observed Mexico’s return to nationalist tendencies with anxiety, heralding AMLO as “Mexico’s answer to Donald Trump” and anticipating exacerbated tension between the United States and its southern neighbor. However, AMLO and Donald Trump maintained a surprisingly functional, occasionally even congenial, working relationship.

In many ways, Trump and López Obrador were diametrically opposed, but one crucial shared opinion allowed the two leaders to collaborate. Trump was uniquely uninterested in intervening in Mexico’s domestic politics, and AMLO appreciated the absence of American oversight and intervention.

Donald Trump’s platform toward Mexico focused almost exclusively on issues of migration and renegotiating regional trade agreements. Trump’s approach to foreign policy, toward Mexico and many others, was unprecedentedly one-dimensional, relying on his personal business dealings rather than a multifaceted, coordinated agenda. Trump’s narrow focus allowed AMLO to pursue his own domestic agenda with less American influence.

In a recent call with newly elected President Joe Biden, AMLO said “I must mention that we do have a very good relationship with the now president of your country… Regardless of all other considerations, he respects [Mexico’s] sovereignty.”

Joe Biden’s approach to relations with Mexico is a far cry from his predecessor’s. Where Trump relied on his own personal relationships, Biden will rely on a fully appointed cabinet to manage a wide range of issues. One of the many ways in which Trump’s presidency marked a divergence from the status quo was his resistance to assemble a cabinet that could navigate the complexities of a relationship between two countries whose economies, cultures and politics are so inextricably interconnected. Biden intends to reconstruct this infrastructure of diplomacy that will allow him to tackle multiple campaign promises.

AMLO anticipates the increase in American oversight that will come with Biden’s more holistic foreign policy platform. He has already begun sending signals to the incoming American president that he will not tolerate the same amount of American influence as his predecessors. Not only was López Obrador among the last global leaders to congratulate Biden on his victory, but he has also exonerated a former Mexican defense secretary from prosecution for drug trafficking in America and granted asylum to Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks who has been evading U.S. extradition since releasing thousands of Hillary Clinton’s emails in 2016. Many Americans received these actions as slights to the incoming administration, but the sum of these minor affronts is a broader message: Mexico’s president intends to continue pursuing his robust domestic agenda with minimal American interference.

AMLO has championed the charge for Mexican energy independence, a goal which he has ardently pursued since he took office in 2018. An outspoken critic of his predecessor’s energy sector redesign that opened the industry to extensive privatization, López Obrador has repeatedly vowed to restore the dominance of Mexico’s state-owned electricity company.

Recent storms across Texas, a major source of Mexico’s natural gas, resulted in widespread blackouts across the northern half of Mexico. Pointing to these blackouts as evidence, AMLO argued for fortifying Mexico’s own domestic energy supply and in late February put forth a bill that would strengthen the state-owned energy program and limit the involvement of private companies in the energy industry. Ultimately, López Obrador aims to buttress Mexico’s economy from America’s political and economic influence through the centralization and nationalization of the energy industry.

AMLO’s fear that Biden’s election will spell out more roadblocks to his dream of energy independence is not unfounded. Hordes of legislators, environmental advocates and industry experts have criticized his proposed bill for violating carbon emission regulations and trade agreements. These infractions will likely attract opposition not just from his domestic opponents but also from the Biden administration.

Lourdes Melgar, a top energy official under former President Enrique Peña Nieto, said AMLO “has a nationalistic view of how to utilize resources.” Melgar and many other energy experts argue that this policy sacrifices environmental sustainability for an ideological power play. Although the bill is expected to become law within the coming days, Mexico will continue grappling to find a balance between nationalistic impulses, international cooperation, and environmental sustainability.

Unlike his predecessor, President Biden will not look the other way when it comes to violations of environmental agreements. Throughout his campaign and into the first month of his presidency, Biden has remained adamant about the need to uphold environmental protection agreements and expressed a willingness to reassert America’s role as a leader of international environmental cooperation.

According to Pamela Starr, director of the U.S.-Mexico Network at the University of Southern California, Biden should expect to ruffle some feathers when addressing Mexico’s disregard for carbon emission limits and other sustainability regulations. The new president may not necessarily care that Mexico is striving for energy independence, only considering the repercussions of the tactics employed to achieve self-sufficiency. Nevertheless, increased oversight could set off alarm bells for AMLO and others who remain skeptical of American involvement.

Starr points to Jeffrey Davidow’s metaphor for the complex relationship between the United States and Mexico, “the bear and the porcupine,” which captured the difficulties of navigating a relationship between two closely connected countries when one was overtly interventionist and the other hypersensitive to perceived intervention. This dance between American brashness and Mexican defensiveness defined their relationship until the election of Ernesto Cedillo in 1988.

AMLO has openly asserted his disapproval for his predecessors’ approach to dealing with the United States, accusing Mexico of kowtowing to American interests over the past few decades. His approach to diplomacy marks a return to the era of the porcupine, defined by Mexican nationalism and apprehension of U.S. involvement. In order to avoid returning to the role of “the bear,” the United States must carefully navigate the rising sentiment of Mexican nationalism, an endeavor further complicated by rising nationalism within its own borders. Competing threads of nationalism could cause friction not just within the realm of environmental policy, but also within negotiations of labor, trade, corruption and migration.

According to Starr, Biden’s policy toward Latin America rests on three pillars: corruption, climate change and democracy. Although the ongoing migration crisis will likely monopolize much of Biden’s first year in office, the early months of his presidency could define the timber of their relationship and define the trajectory of negotiations of the other items on his agenda in the subsequent years of his presidency.

Despite AMLO’s initial posturing, he has recently demonstrated his commitment to maintaining a productive relationship with the United States. The two leaders convened virtually to discuss issues of immigration, the pandemic and climate change, and both seemed intent on redirecting the nature of their nations’ exchange away from the blatant antagonism that defined the Trump administration. López Obrador, like many Mexicans, is relieved to work with an American president who does not openly degrade their country.

However, this relief at a return to amiability will not dissuade AMLO from fiercely protecting his plan for energy independence. The past four years have exacerbated a relationship that had been fraught with mistrust for decades. This history of unwelcome intervention and competing nationalist sentiments will guide the next four years of U.S.-Mexico relations.

Biden has already begun to dismantle Trump’s hardline anti-immigration policies, ending the “Remain in Mexico” program and working with Mexican officials to reinstate mechanisms for granting asylum to the thousands of migrants waiting at the US-Mexico border. Biden has already encountered numerous roadblocks: an SUV crash in California left 13 migrants dead and a bottleneck of migrants in encampments at the border. Recent reports predict thousands more migrants from Central America are marching toward this chokepoint, hopeful that the new administration will open more doors for their arrival.

Tensions of migration at the border continue to reverberate throughout the region. With the support of Mexican police and leadership, Guatemalan police confronted a caravan of Honduran migrants in late January in an effort to stem the flow of northbound Central Americans. As the entire region reels from the effects of widespread migration and the ongoing public health crisis, Biden will need to rely on coordination with Mexico to stabilize their shared border and eventually the region.

Constructing a productive relationship after four years of Trump’s nationalism and centuries of prior American interventionism will be no small feat, especially with a Mexican president with his own political agenda that runs counterproductive to American interests in certain sectors.

Mexico’s current administration. led by President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and his party MORENA, has not only been completely negligent of Mexico’s environment and sustainability potential, but it has also implemented several new regulations that threaten the environment and Mexico’s clean energy sector. 

Most recently, on March 3, an initiative to reform the Electric Industry Law was passed by the Mexican Congress. This reform practically monopolizes electricity production under the state owned Federal Electricity Commission (CFE), making it harder for foreign investment to reach the renewable energy sector. 

“[The new reform] threatens the compromises established under international treaties, both commercial agreements as well as protection of investments and the environment, for example the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Climate Agreement,” said Mexico’s Council for Business Coordination in a press release addressing the reform. 

By making it harder for private companies to invest in the energy sector, the country’s electricity production will fall into the control of the CFE which only produces around 15% of its electricity with renewable sources. 

This is not the first time Lopez Obrador’s government has threatened clean and renewable energies, as last year he blocked the development of clean energy infrastructure projects citing “issues regarding the pandemic.” In May 2020, the National Centre for Energy Control and Secretary of Energy [NAME], under the guidance of Lopez Obrador’s party, introduced a series of legislative acts that limited the amount of energy that private companies could produce and the number of permits they could acquire. 

This legislation also allowed the administration to stop all of the necessary tests for the new sustainable energy power plants to start production. Lopez Obrador cited “energy security concerns due to the pandemic” as justification for this legislation, even though studies could not find any link between renewables and their effects on national energy insecurity. 

These new regulations became so alarming for Mexico’s environmental commitment, that the UN and several other governments and international institutions shared their concerns with the Mexican government. 

The UN’s environmental organization, the UNEP, reported on its yearly renewable energy investment report that Mexico had a 1.800 billion dollar deficit from its initial investment commitment of 6.1 billion. 

“This shows that there is a lack of political will more than any problem related to Covid-19. Mexico should be equipped with renewable energy sources.” said Dr. Ulf Moslener, head of research for the UNEP Collaborating Centre for Climate and Sustainable Energy Finance, in a comment for the EFE.

All of this regulation and legislation are just some of the many logistical obstacles that Lopez Obrador has presented to the development of clean energy sources in the country. The main and most direct attack, however, comes in the shape of his beloved passion projects. These involve the construction and further development of massive infrastructure projects, which include a train that will cut through the Mayan jungle as well as an oil refinery.

The “Tren Maya” is a planned 1,460 km railway project to be built in the Mayan Riviera as well as Obrador’s dream tourism booster. This project however, brought a lot of environmental concerns from experts, activist groups and local indigenous populations. The building of the tracks would cut through an estimated 12,000 individual trees. This not only endangers 178 different types of flora, but also threatens the lives of several species. Among them the Jaguar, from which 1,800 of the 4,000 remaining in the country are found within that region and would have their natural habitat disturbed by the constant movement of people and goods throughout the jungle. 

To top it all off, Obrador had previously stated that the train would run, for the most part, on electricity, however, last year it was confirmed that it would run primarily on diesel fuel that would be imported from abroad. All of this would ultimately contribute to the pollution of the Mayan jungle. 

This never-ending dependency on oil perpetuated by Lopez Obrador’s government is exacerbated by another one of the president’s passion projects, the Dos Bocas oil refinery‒ a 9 billion dollar mega project that would be able to process 340,000 oil barrels a day. 

Starting an oil refinery in the 2020s is just one more nail in the coffin that is Lopez Obrador’s lack of commitment to the environment. This project not only demonstrates that polluting energy sources are prioritized over clean and renewable ones, but it also reveals  his administration’s hypocrisy within their environmental discourse. 

During Lopez Obrador’s campaign in 2018, he rushed to criticize a then-active airport project for being built on top of a “lake,” as it threatened the environment. However, once in office, all of these environmentalist facades have been thrown out the window with Lopez Obrador putting forward even more damaging projects and legislation. 

The core of this hypocrisy lies on the fact that, in the end, his campaign promises were never about the environment ‒ they were simply a ploy to gain popular support. He assured the public of his commitment to environmental protection throughout his campaign with promises such as  “of course we have to save the lake,” referring to an airport built on an already dried up lake bed where construction had already begun. Yet, while once in office, he justified being against eolic energy because wind turbines are “ruining the landscape.”

A country’s economic development can be achieved without severely compromising the environment, as long as appropriate mitigation strategies are implemented. However, in the case of Lopez Obrador’s passion projects, mitigation has not been a part of his primary focus; putting his own reputation, caprice and interests above all else. 

Obrador always prides himself as being against neoliberalism and the previous administration’s corruption and thirst for money, but as it stands today, it seems like he is no different. 

All of his projects are fueled not by a desire to make an impactful change, but to leave his own mark on Mexican history. The evidence of him favoring oil over renewables and his own environmentally damaging projects over those from the previous administration, highlights that this is not a battle between his administration and unsustainability, it is just a way for him to fulfill his whims in whatever way possible. 

This is not a new era for Mexico’s environmentalism, it is just another tantrum-prone and greed driven demagogue trying to leave his mark on the Mexican history books.