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
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
RSS