The first polls are in. The upcoming European Parliament elections could deliver up to 25 percent of seats to Euroskeptic right-wing populist forces like Italy’s League party, France’s National Rally (formerly the National Front) and Germany’s Alternative fur Deutschland.
With such parties already members of governing coalitions in seven EU member states, influencing national and European policy agendas, the risk to climate-change policy is evident.
According to a new report, seven of 21 right-wing populist parties in Europe explicitly question climate science, while 11 take either no stand or an inconsistent approach.
During the last two legislative terms, the majority of right-wing populist parties voted against every EU climate and sustainable-energy policy proposal.
Meanwhile, the consequences of inaction — already growing in severity in many parts of the world — are beginning to bite in Europe.
Last summer’s extreme droughts contributed to forest fires in Greece, Portugal and Sweden, and crop failures in the Baltics, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Scandinavia and Scotland.
Fish suffocated in the Rhine River.
The economic losses, particularly in agricultural production and domestic maritime transportation, amounted to billions of euros.
These are mere previews of what is to come if aggressive action is not taken urgently.
Yet, rather than addressing the climate challenge, right-wing populist parties are seeking to win support by stoking existing frustrations with the “ruling elites.”
This is exemplified by the UK’s 2016 vote to leave the EU and, more recently, the violent Yellow Vest protests in France.
However, the populists’ narratives often reflect a misdiagnosis — willful or otherwise — of Europe’s condition.
Yes, inequality has risen sharply, but that is not a result of excessively left-wing policies.
The real problem is divisive economic thinking that treats competition as the defining characteristic of human relations.
The populist habit of demonizing all progressive policies, including those meant to advance sustainability, will only do more harm, but so will disregarding all of the populists’ criticisms of climate policy.
Despite their manipulative framing, these criticisms often reflect legitimate concerns.
One cannot dispute, for example, that the climate debate so far has been largely technocratic, often neglecting social realities, but by reinforcing the impression that climate action is a ploy to benefit the elite, populist rhetoric has exacerbated distrust of governments, multilateralism and even science, thereby eroding the very foundation of effective action.
Mainstream political parties — and proponents of climate action more generally — must do a better job of understanding why populists’ criticism resonates with so many.
In particular, they must acknowledge that, without proper management, efforts to advance globalization and tackle climate change can carry high — and unfairly distributed — costs.
That is precisely the message that the Yellow Vest protests, which were triggered by a fuel-tax hike that was not embedded in a broader social-reform or redistributive strategy, were supposed to send.
In order to rebuild trust, policymakers should discuss trade-offs and acknowledge uncertainties more transparently.
To some extent, this message is already being heeded. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the proposed Green New Deal in the US and the “just transition” movement all aim to ensure that climate strategies are not just effective, but also fair and embedded in holistic policy frameworks.
However, more should be done. For example, Europe-wide energy cooperation should stress diversification and grid integration to benefit peripheral regions and poorer segments of society, as well as the reduction of energy imports.
Even as we take into account legitimate criticisms, however, we must push back against the destructive effects of populist narratives, which are often characterized by fearmongering and opportunism.
This will require proponents of climate action to promote alternative narratives that foster enthusiasm for genuine political and social change.
They must persuade voters that climate action will become a means of raising living standards, advancing social justice, ensuring a healthy environment, modernizing the economy and increasing competitiveness.
Right-wing populist parties might well gain ground in next month’s European Parliament elections, but that does not mean that climate action must fall by the wayside.
The key to success will be for those who recognize the vital importance of climate action to advance robust, credible strategies centered on social and economic fairness.
If placed at the core of a new European political narrative, a just climate transition could help Europe to escape the populist trap.
Stella Schaller is a project manager in the field of climate diplomacy at adelphi, a Berlin-based think tank. Alexander Carius is founder and managing director of adelphi.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS