We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
COP28 climate talks complicated by UAE oil deals
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
Will the UAE’s pursuit of oil deals during COP28 undermine the summit's climate goals?
Well, it certainly doesn't make it any easier. I mean, this is the time when the world comes together and tries to reduce the level of carbon in the atmosphere, and the fact that it's being hosted by one of the world's largest oil producers and by the chairman, the CEO of one of the world's largest oil companies, who also is driving his country's sustainability goals. Well, I mean, I guess you can say he's hedged. You can definitely say that but you can also say it's challenging and problematic. Look, there was a chance that COP was going to fall apart completely and you were just going to have fragmented bilateral deals. The Chinese, for example, get much more influence giving out money directly in return for things with countries than being a part of a multilateral group. Having said that, US and China recently have come together on climate in advance, specifically of COP28, and there is more movement on methane emissions from the two largest emitters in the world. There's more movement on carbon capture and storage than we've seen before. Look, I'm glad the meetings happened. It is happening. It's going to be more successful than it not showing up. But there are big challenges and you're going to hear those frustrations loudly from the developing world who are taking climate on the chin.
How will Taiwan's upcoming election affect US-China relationship?
It's coming up January 13th and it look like there was a deal being put together between the two opposition candidates. That deal is now falling apart, which means it is more likely that the vice president and his representative in Washington who is going to run on the ticket with him for the DPP, the Nationalist Party, the pro autonomy as the Chinese government in Beijing says the pro-independence party, is likely to win. That means more tensions over Taiwan, with China and Taiwan and with the Americans and China. So definitely next year that's going to be a more significant risk, something for us all to watch.
Will Elon Musk provide Starlink to Gaza?
Sure he will, as long as the Israeli government says it's okay. The interesting point here is that do you want decisions over where technology is and is not provided that will change the security balance on the ground between countries decided by one man. That is what happened with Russia and Ukraine, largely to Ukraine's favor, though not consistently and not always. That is what's happening in Israel and Gaza to Israel's favor. And that is what would happen between mainland China and Taiwan in mainland China’s favor, because that's where Elon has all of his economic bets, not in favor of Taiwan. And by the way, if you're the US government or a NATO member or Japan, what that means is that you really need to be developing your own technologies or having those technologies in companies that are national champions like Lockheed was in the days in the 20th century, first company ever referred to as “too big to fail” because of the dangers to American national security if something happened to it. This is a very important issue what I call a techno-polar moment and one that is becoming much more significant over time.
Elon Musk's Starlink cutoff controversy
I think it's a fascinating question. And it gets to a point of what I call a technopolar world, not unipolar, not bipolar, not multipolar, technopolar. In other words, for all of our lives, we've talked about a world where nation states, where governments are the principal actors with sovereignty over outcomes that matter critically for national security. Now, here you have the Russians invading Ukraine. One of the biggest challenges to the geopolitical order since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. And yet, a core decision about whether or not Ukraine will be able to defend itself is being made not by the United States or NATO providing the military support, but by a technology company. Now, the Ukrainian government is being quite critical of some of the decisions that Elon Musk has made in restricting the use for Starlink, for the Ukrainians.
I don't think that's fair criticism by itself. I think we need to recognize that Starlink's availability to the Ukrainians was absolutely essential in helping the government and the military leaders actually communicate with their soldiers on the front lines. And if it wasn't for Starlink, and if it wasn't for the role of many other technology companies, largely in the United States, not at all clear to me that Zelensky would still be in power today. Certainly the Ukrainians would have lost a lot more territory and they'd be in much worse position than they are. So I think that the Ukrainians still owe Elon a significant debt. But I also raise a much bigger question, which is, should an individual CEO, should an individual centibillionaire be making these decisions about outcomes of life and death for 44 million Ukrainians?
And they're the answer is much more concerning. Because, of course, Elon and all of these technology companies, they're not treaty signatories with NATO. They don't have any obligation to do anything other than Netflix and chill. And yet they're absolutely indispensable for national security in these countries as increasingly national security becomes a matter of not just what happens with bombs and rockets, but also what happens in the digital world, what happens in cyberspace, what happens in communications, in the collection of intelligence. As Elon and others become principal actors in a military industrial technological complex, accountability for those decisions is very deeply concerning if it's only in the hands of those individuals. Now, I think it's a little easier with SpaceX, because SpaceX is, after all, a company that is overwhelmingly funded by the US government, by the Pentagon and by NASA. And so ultimately, either legally through regulation or informally through pressure on the basis of providing those contracts, there is certainly a level of influence that the US government would be able to have over a SpaceX to ensure that Starlink is made available fully to the Ukrainians as US. and NATO's allies see fit.
Just as the American government would take vigorous exception if SpaceX and Starlink were suddenly having their technologies made available to American adversaries. Having said that, keep in mind that there is no other viable technology that is presently available. So, if it's not Starlink, it's nothing for the Ukrainians. And what about a country like Taiwan? Very concerned increasingly that we see the status quo on Taiwan eroding from the United States, as Biden says that he would defend Taiwan and as the Americans put export controls on TSMC, the semiconductor company, and from the Chinese side, as the Chinese keep sending over drones and aircraft to invade Taiwanese airspace. Well, if there were cyber attacks from mainland China into Taiwan, would Starlink be made available in Taiwan the way it has been in Ukraine, even though imperfectly in Ukraine? And the answer to that, I suspect, would be absolutely not, because it would prevent Elon Musk from doing effective business in mainland China, including Tesla. Would the Chinese use that leverage against Elon in a way that the American government had not been against SpaceX?
Absolutely they would. And so what does that mean? Does it mean that that just means Taiwan doesn't get that ability to defend itself? Or does the US government have to somehow, through force majeure, nationalize the technology and take it away from SpaceX or force SpaceX to provide Starlink to Taiwan? Or does the US government have to build its own alternative, where it has direct ownership of such a company and technology. Look, the fact is this is a very, very messy piece of geopolitical power where increasingly technology companies are acting as sovereigns. And until and unless those questions are answered, we are increasingly living in a technopolar world.
That's it for me. And I'll talk to you all real soon.
The satellite revolution in Low Earth Orbit
Listen: In the last twenty-five years, the number of active satellites orbiting the Earth has increased from about 500 to 8,000. “In the first quarter of this year, we deployed nearly 1,000”, says space industry analyst Carissa Bryce Christensen. She adds, “Instead of a smaller number of very large satellites mostly far away, we are seeing many, many small satellites very close in.”
The latest episode of Next Giant Leap, a podcast produced in partnership between GZERO and the Canadian space company MDA, explores the exponential increase in satellites that are being launched into Low Earth orbit (LEO). This is the zone of space between about 100 and 1200 miles above the Earth.
By the end of the decade, MDA’s Chief Executive Officer Mike Greenley predicts there will be tens of thousands of LEO satellites. Many of them will be the component parts of vast satellite constellations, such as the Starlink network, offering broadband internet. Others will be providing the services which the modern world has come to depend upon: GPS navigation, defense and security reconnaissance, weather forecasting, and remote environmental monitoring. For example, Earth Observation satellites are now the most important source of information on the pace and impacts of climate change.
Our satellite eyes in low Earth orbit have become extremely sensitive, according to Professor Martin Sweeting, founder of the UK company Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd. Some of them are now able to resolve objects less than one foot in size from hundreds of miles above. Artificial intelligence is now being harnessed to process and interpret the vast amounts of data gathered by the new generation of satellites.

Carissa Bryce Christensen. Credit: BryceTech
Carissa Bryce Christensen
Founder and Chief Executive Officer, BryceTech
Carissa Bryce Christensen is the Chief Executive Officer and founder of BryceTech companies in the US and the UK. She previously co-founded defense company The Tauri Group and quantum computing software company QxBranch. Ms. Christensen is an internationally recognized expert on the satellite and space industry, known for rigorous analysis and innovative, data-driven strategy. She co-chairs the World Economic Forum Global Future Council on Space, and chairs the US board of the UN-affiliated Space Generation Advisory Council.

Mike Greenley. Credit: MDA
Mike Greenley
Chief Executive Officer, MDA
Mike Greenley has been the Chief Executive Officer of MDA since 2018. Founded in 1969, MDA is an international space mission partner and a robotics, satellite systems and geointelligence pioneer. Mr. Greenley oversees more than 2,700 employees across Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom. Mr. Greenley has over 25 years of experience in the defence and security business. Mr. Greenley is the Vice-Chair of Space Canada and recently served as the Vice-Chair of the Government of Canada’s Economic Strategy Table for Advanced Manufacturing.

Professor Sir Martin Sweeting
Professor Sir Martin Sweeting
Founder and Executive Chairman, Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd
Professor Sir Martin Sweeting pioneered rapid-response, low-cost and highly capable small satellites, utilizing modern consumer electronics devices to change the economics of space. He is widely regarded internationally as the ‘father’ of small satellites which have changed the nature of the space industry. He is distinguished professor of space engineering at the UK’s University of Surrey. In 1985, he founded the university spin-off company, Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd which has designed, built, launched and operated in orbit nano, micro and mini-satellites for communications & Earth observation, as well as navigation payloads for the European Galileo constellation. Sir Martin is Fellow of the UK Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering.

Kevin Fong. Credit: Anthony Cullen
Dr. Kevin Fong (host)
Professor, Department of Science, Technology, Education and Public Policy (STEaPP) at University College London
Kevin Fong is a senior emergency care physician and anesthesiologist in the UK’s National Health Service. He is also an expert in space medicine and has worked as a researcher in NASA’s human spaceflight program in Houston. He is also a broadcaster who has hosted many radio and television shows, and podcasts on space flight and exploration. They include the BBC hit podcast ‘13 Minutes to the Moon’.
- The Graphic Truth: Space junk — enter the trashosphere ›
- Next Giant Leap: New frontiers and the business of ... - GZERO Media ›
- Mission to the Moon, with Artemis II astronaut Jeremy Hansen ›
- Amazon satellites and Project Kuiper: next steps in Big Tech space race ›
- The future of space: congested and contested - GZERO Media ›