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
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
Within Taiwan’s education system exists a long-standing and deep-rooted culture of falsification. In the past month, a large number of “ghost signatures” — signatures using the names of deceased people — appeared on recall petitions submitted by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) against Democratic Progressive Party legislators Rosalia Wu (吳思瑤) and Wu Pei-yi (吳沛憶). An investigation revealed a high degree of overlap between the deceased signatories and the KMT’s membership roster. It also showed that documents had been forged. However, that culture of cheating and fabrication did not just appear out of thin air — it is linked to the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS