Reactionary populism is now the biggest obstacle to tackling climate change. With outright climate denial no longer an option, populist politicians have increasingly positioned themselves as climate doubters and delayers, and this new approach is proving to be quite insidious.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that global greenhouse-gas emissions must peak within three years to keep the Paris agreement’s 1.5°C target in reach; by slowing effective action, the tactics of today’s populists are becoming an existential threat.
This trend is reversible, but it is tenacious. Following former US president Donald Trump’s dismantling of the US’ climate commitments, the administration of US President Joe Biden has managed to pass landmark climate legislation, despite notable headwinds.
However, opportunities for populist climate spoilers remain. A recent study in Nature shows that, even though supporters of climate policies vastly outnumber their opponents nationwide, most Americans believe the opposite to be true. Given this “false social reality,” the climate legislation promises to be a wedge issue in next month’s midterm elections.
Perhaps even more significant is Brazil, where reactionary populism threatens to become normalized under Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. It is no coincidence that Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist, sees Brazil’s election as an inflection point for the international system: in his words, the “second most important election in the world.”
There are multiple reasons why climate action is an especially appealing target for aspiring and incumbent authoritarians, but none has anything to do with the climate itself. The first reason is the perceived cost. Even though decarbonizing and building more resilience into the economy will ultimately be much cheaper than covering the costs of a runaway climate crisis, such outlays will forever be exposed to political opportunists’ bad-faith attacks.
Moreover, populists will smear policies geared toward international accords like the 2015 Paris climate agreement as an abdication of sovereignty. It is no surprise to see Brexit architect Nigel Farage now agitating for a referendum on the UK’s stated commitment to achieve net-zero emissions. A simplistic notion of national sovereignty has also underpinned Bolsonaro’s refusal to discuss the Amazon in international fora, even though its role as a carbon sink is vital for the rest of the world.
Bolsonaro’s failure to fight criminal activity in the Amazon has allowed for the wanton destruction of Brazil’s forests, rivers, and people (including indigenous groups, environmental activists and journalists).
Out of either cynicism or naivety, populists refuse to acknowledge that stronger national borders cannot solve our biggest problems. That is as true for climate change and biodiversity loss as it is for this year’s energy and food crises, COVID-19 and mounting debt distress.
As a result, climate action and reactionary populism could remain tangled for decades to come, amid climate disruptions, sharpening inequalities and a social contract fraying everywhere.
According to a recent study of 25 countries over more than a decade, right-wing populist parties have had a consistently negative impact on climate ambition, making international targets even harder to reach.
As the host of the foundational 1992 Earth Summit, Brazil previously had a reputation as a leading consensus-builder in multilateral negotiations; yet in the space of just a few years, it has come to be associated with diplomatic volatility and environmental destruction.
If we are going to manage the increasingly disruptive effects of climate change, collective intelligence must prevail over populist division and disinformation.
Some countries are already showing the way. In Australia, for example, voters ousted a conservative government that had become one of the most obstinate climate laggards in the G20. And in Slovenia, a populist prime minister was denied a second consecutive term when his party was defeated by the environmentalist Freedom Movement party.
Could the same message gain traction in Brazil? Recent polling shows that 81 percent of Brazilians want presidential candidates to protect the Amazon and 65 percent consider such protections to be important for economic development. More than 90 percent know that climate change is happening and more than 75 percent attribute it to human activity.
Meanwhile, Bolsonaro has remained hostile toward climate ambition, painting all environmental concerns as the sinister creation of shadowy international interests. The irony, of course, is that today’s “anti-globalist” populists rely on their own well-funded transnational network of propagandists, donors and fellow-travelers.
As a recent New York Times investigation shows, Hungarian energy companies that have profited from the sale of Russian oil have channeled massive funds to politically aligned charities, where the funds then make their way to conservative broadcasters and opinion leaders in the US.
An international system subverted by populist priorities would be catastrophic for open societies and effective climate policies. Those of us who believe in science, the wisdom of local communities, and the power of diplomacy must get wise to the threat.
If populism is normalized, it will derail effective climate action just when it is needed most. The window for preventing catastrophic consequences is closing. Climate policies have become populists’ most inviting target; the rest of us must become populists’ most formidable adversaries.
Izabella Teixeira, a former environment minister of Brazil, is cochair of the International Resource Panel. Ana Toni is executive director of Instituto Clima e Sociedade. Laurence Tubiana, a former French ambassador to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, is CEO of the European Climate Foundation and a professor at Sciences Po, Paris.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
As China’s economy was meant to drive global economic growth this year, its dramatic slowdown is sounding alarm bells across the world, with economists and experts criticizing Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for his unwillingness or inability to respond to the nation’s myriad mounting crises. The Wall Street Journal reported that investors have been calling on Beijing to take bolder steps to boost output — especially by promoting consumer spending — but Xi has deep-rooted philosophical objections to Western-style consumption-driven growth, seeing it as wasteful and at odds with his goal of making China a world-leading industrial and technological powerhouse, and
For Xi Jinping (習近平) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the military conquest of Taiwan is an absolute requirement for the CCP’s much more fantastic ambition: control over our solar system. Controlling Taiwan will allow the CCP to dominate the First Island Chain and to better neutralize the Philippines, decreasing the threat to the most important People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Strategic Support Force (SSF) space base, the Wenchang Satellite Launch Center on Hainan Island. Satellite and manned space launches from the Jiuquan and Xichang Satellite Launch Centers regularly pass close to Taiwan, which is also a very serious threat to the PLA,
During a news conference in Vietnam on Sept. 10, a reporter asked US President Joe Biden about the possibility of China invading Taiwan. Biden replied that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is too busy handling major domestic economic problems to launch an invasion of Taiwan. On Wednesday last week, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office published a document outlining 21 measures to make the Chinese-controlled Fujian Province into a demonstration zone for relations with Taiwan. The planned measures would expand favorable treatment for Taiwanese people and companies, and seek to attract people from Taiwan to buy property and seek employment in Fujian.
More than 100 Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) vessels and aircraft were detected making incursions into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone (ADIZ) on Sunday and Monday, the Ministry of National Defense reported on Monday. The ministry responded to the incursions by calling on China to “immediately stop such destructive unilateral actions,” saying that Beijing’s actions could “easily lead to a sharp escalation in tensions and worsen regional security.” Su Tzu-yun (蘇紫雲), a research fellow at the Institute for National Defense and Security Research, said that the unusually high number of incursions over such a short time was likely Beijing’s response to efforts