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
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
RSS