Is it the Economy or a Political Ideology – the Climate Syndrome
To paraphrase the immortal saying of James Carville, “It’s the economy, Stupid,” an advisor to then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton, we examined with comparative tools the implementation of countries’ climate policy commitments a decade after the signing of the Paris Agreement (2015) – through close-up lenses – whether it is a political-economic ideology and to what extent democracy plays a central role in the implementation of dedicated climate policies at the state level, through the Euro-Med prism.
The question that outlines the research framework initiated recently by Tahadhari Center (Brussels), headed by me and Mark Causon, ‘Is there a difference in the implementation of climate policy according to the state regime – right-wing, center-left or left-wing – in the countries of the Northern and Southern Mediterranean’. In practice, the goal in examining the issue is to see whether climate policy is linked to the values of democracy, equality, and climate justice, in the Euro-Med region.
In brief, the bottom-line is YES. There are distinct differences in how climate policy is implemented and the geographic-economic divide between the Northern and Southern Mediterranean. These differences directly influence how climate policies intersect with democracy, equality, and intergenerational climate justice. The research analyzed data of diverse sources including of UN reports, EU Climate Action, national reporting to NDCs (UNFCCC).
Is it the Economy?
The North-South Divide: Structural and Economic Reality: The most fundamental difference in the Mediterranean is not purely ideological, but structural, dividing developed economies from developing one. Northern Mediterranean (Europe): Operates under the European Green Deal. These countries focus on strict emission reduction targets, carbon pricing, and market-driven renewable integration. Southern Mediterranean (North Africa & Middle East): focuses primarily on climate adaptation, as combating severe water scarcity, droughts, and rising sea levels, rather than mitigation. These nations strongly demand climate justice in the form of financial aid and technology transfer from the historically polluting North.
Is it the Political Ideology?
The Link to Democracy and Climate Justice is significant. When examining the climate state of affairs in relation to the values of democracy and equality, the picture that has emerged is that the implementation of Paris Agreement commitments reflects the underlying political values of the governing regimes: Democratic & Liberal States (Mostly North): Feature high transparency in reporting Paris Agreement goals but often suffer from political polarization that stalls rapid legislative action. Authoritarian or Hybrid Regimes (More common in the South): an execute massive renewable energy mega-projects (like giant solar farms) rapidly without domestic red tape or public pushback. However, this top-down implementation often lacks public participation, risks infringing on local land rights, and fails to promote genuine, grass-roots climate justice or social equality.
Climate Landscape per Country
We moved then in analyzing specific Mediterranean countries. This overview analyzes the 2026 climate policy landscape across the Euro-Med region, focusing on how different ideological regimes translate their Paris Agreement commitments into action through the lenses of democracy, equality, and intergenerational justice. It can be seen that a decade later, the state commitment to the Paris Agreement takes on a completely different form depending on the political priorities of each country. The gap between Spain’s social approach and the technological/sovereign approach of Israel or Hungary illustrates that “climate justice” is a concept subject to broad political interpretation.
The full research, to be published soon, includes 11 countries according to regime and geographical categories (Germany, Hungary, Poland, Spain, France, Greece, Malta, Israel, Jordan and Morocco). It can already be said that mapping out these complex connections between politics, geography, and the environment is significant. All countries strongly support and refine the trends identified earlier. By looking at Malta, Israel, France, and Greece in 2026, we see a clear pattern of how geographic location and political ideology dictate the local seasoning of climate policy. Furthermore, the year 2026 is a critical milestone for these nations as they submit updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). In 2026, the implementation of climate policies of Malta, Israel, France, and Greece illustrates how the ideological leanings of their respective regimes shape their commitments to the Paris Agreement. While all four are influenced by their Mediterranean proximity, their strategies range from social-centric “Just Transitions” to technology-driven security models, as the case of Israel. To be continued.
