Climate Policy in the Age of Populist Climate Change Denial

Rabkor 22 August 2024

You can rely on rigorous scientific analysis of climate change and propose many commonsense measures to address the problem, but unless you have a strong coalition behind your program and an effective political strategy, you will fail.

Many of us thought that in the fight against the climate crisis, reason would prevail: if we established that the climate was changing, that human activity was the main cause of the change, and that we had the programmes and technologies to solve the problem, then governments would take action. An agitated public would sooner or later demand decisive action. But now we see the naivety of such expectations. Despite all the evidence, influential figures on the far right, which now includes some traditional conservative parties, have adopted a position of aggressive climate change denial. The political mobilisation of the left and the centre therefore offers the best chance of solving the climate and environmental problems.

For a coalition to be effective in demanding action to address the climate crisis, it must include centrists. The left is too weak and too divided to win this battle on its own. It must also appeal to those liberals who can be persuaded of the ineffectiveness of “green growth” policies and the need for something more radical – namely, “radical reformism.” “Green growth,” the dominant neoliberal approach to climate policy, will not solve the problem; but there is another approach, which does not necessarily involve abandoning property rights and preserving markets: a radically reformist Green New Deal ( GND ) , which rejects both technocratic neoliberalism and utopianism. This slogan may particularly appeal to those under 50, burdened by debt, uncertain prospects, and unaffordable housing costs – on top of climate change. We need “radical” liberals and “moderately liberal” radicals to carry out radical reforms!

The difficult political situation makes such a program the only winning option for liberal democracies.

The problem is political and cultural
The political problem is not just the economic, political, and cultural influence of fossil fuel companies and their allies. They have certainly used that influence to bolster climate change denial arguments of all kinds, especially in fossil fuel producing countries, and where those arguments fail, to undermine and delay climate action. Their common goal is to sell every molecule of their growing hydrocarbon reserves, regardless of the “assumed” climate costs. They are aided in this by a host of other corporations that are dependent in one way or another on the extractive industries: ancillary industries, subcontractors, banks, hedge funds, mutual funds, and individual investors with large stakes in extractive industries, steelmakers, and cement producers. In addition, workers in the extractive industries are struggling to keep their high-paying jobs, and many of them do not believe in a “just” energy transition that will allow them to keep their jobs and pensions. And finally, there is big business that will cooperate with the extractive companies if the transition to a new climate policy turns out to threaten private property and the market economy .

Moreover, the dominant culture of possessive individualism means that many of those who would benefit from a Green New Deal oppose any restrictions on consumer choice. Despite all the discussion of the threat of climate change and the attention drawn to the human causes of the impending catastrophe, people resist changing their unsustainable lifestyles. Many educated and affluent people, who are perfectly capable of understanding climate science, prefer not to know about the climate emergency. They are unwilling to consider giving up their right to travel and live as they please. Neoliberal institutions have fostered an ingrained individualism based on the idea that government has no right to dictate how people consume or save. These beliefs are reinforced by advertising, popular culture, think tanks, and public opinion campaigns funded by corporations in both fossil fuel and other industries. Right-wing parties exploit and amplify these sentiments.

Right-wing deniers of economic change
The debate over climate change has become one aspect of the political polarization that is afflicting rich – and many not so rich – societies today. Polarization means that the changes needed to achieve carbon neutrality are becoming increasingly difficult to achieve. The far right has made climate denial a key plank of its platform. An in-depth study of six European countries, the United States, and Brazil sheds light on the dynamics of this growing movement.

Conservative populists call climate change a hoax, supposedly invented by leftist elites to justify “socialist” policies: new climate taxes, expanded government intervention and public ownership, the abolition of freedoms, bans on SUVs and other consumer goods, and the welcoming of waves of climate refugees. Such populist claims, couched in wild conspiracy theories, resonate with people who feel left behind and refuse to consider changing their lifestyles. The resentment, anger, and mistrust of those left behind are growing with inequality, globalization and the offshoring of decent jobs, income instability, the diminished status of whites and men in multicultural, gender-neutral societies, and talk of climate justice and open borders. The right offers those who refuse to change assurances that their privileged lifestyles do not need to be sacrificed. Many of the wealthy beneficiaries of neoliberalism join this coalition not because they are neo-fascists, but because it is the last and surest way to maintain the power and privileges of extractive capitalism. The result is an unstable coalition that is becoming increasingly assertive and reactionary as the economic and climate crises worsen.

As the political centre has shifted to the right, even traditional conservative parties (such as those in Britain and Canada) have begun to embrace climate change denial. At the very least, they have rejected, for opportunistic reasons, such moderate measures to combat the climate crisis as carbon taxes.

As the world warms, so do the forms of climate denial. Since it is no longer possible to say outright that nothing is happening, the narrative shifts: yes, the climate is changing, and humans have indeed contributed to it, but the underlying problem is overpopulation , especially in the global south. So we need to strengthen our borders to keep out the unworthy migrants who are supposedly causing all this. Conspiracy theories are becoming increasingly wild, and the looming climate catastrophe is raising, rather than lowering, the political tensions. People are having a hard time “selling” policies designed to reverse climate change.

The Left, the Center, and Climate Change Mitigation
There is no doubt that effective climate policy, if it is possible, is the task of what remains of the political centre and left. Conservatives and the far right reject or oppose the so-called climate activist agenda. While some sectors of the population will defend their combustion-engine SUVs to the bitter end, for many, the Green New Deal has the potential to appeal. We are all extremely vulnerable to climate change and must work together. We can win by making a just transition to a zero-emissions economy within the capitalist system – by taking measures that also contribute to a more egalitarian, safe and democratic society.

While influential sections of the business class will resist a full-fledged Green New Deal, others will be allies, provided property rights and markets are preserved (even if they are regulated differently). The GND will be supported by the growing number of entrepreneurs who have invested in renewable energy. Mutual fund managers and banks that have divested from natural resource extraction will be supportive. Some high-tech industries, many scientists, and some charities will be on our side. It is important to prevent a coordinated response by businesses and professionals against rapid decarbonization.

The key to combating climate change is therefore to unite the left and centre-left parties and defeat the populist right-wing parties and governments. Can the centre and left unite under the banner of radical reformism? The events of recent years are not particularly encouraging. Civil society consists of many social movements and parties, all with their own programme and agenda – social, economic or environmental. To be successful, a coalition must unite climate activists, liberals, human rights defenders, renewable energy unions, social democrats, socialists, indigenous rights activists and identity-based justice groups. Broadly defined, “progressives” already constitute a majority in almost all Western countries, but their influence is diminished by internecine squabbling.

How to avoid the worst case scenario?
What if we fail to unite and mobilize to meet the crisis properly? What if we fail to roughly halve emissions by 2030? If we then face rapid global warming, one of two things will happen.

The first would use geoengineering to partially reduce global temperatures. Yes, many climate scientists consider geoengineering to be “dangerous nonsense.” It’s understandable why. Investment in geoengineering would relieve pressure on governments and corporations to quickly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It’s also difficult to say who would decide whether to use geoengineering. This is an important question because it could change weather patterns on a global scale. Will countries agree to undertake such a fateful step together? Or will one of the major powers undertake it alone or with the support of its allies? In the latter case, there is a risk of military conflict. If one country or bloc of countries tries to use geoengineering to change the climate, and that attempt actually or theoretically causes weather patterns that are harmful to a major power that is not part of the bloc, it could lead to armed conflict. But despite the risks, accelerating global warming will push major powers to use geoengineering, regardless of whether an international agreement can be reached on the issue.

The two most effective geoengineering methods are stratospheric aerosol injection and marine cloud brightening. Both methods aim to cool the atmosphere despite high levels of carbon dioxide. The former does this by injecting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, which reflects sunlight, while the latter does so by brightening clouds and thus increasing their reflectivity. Cloud brightening is expected to allow convection to transport scattered seawater droplets into low-lying clouds. However, even if these methods are effective, they will take a long time and require enormous resources to operate on a scale that would reduce global temperatures.

Even so, geoengineering is not a panacea for global warming. It is a half-measure. Carbon emissions will continue to rise, exacerbating the greenhouse effect. At best, geoengineering will buy us more precious time to reduce emissions and develop means to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. And this limitation brings us back to where we started: the need to mobilize behind a democratic agenda of decarbonization and a just energy transition.

If neither the technological nor the radical reformist program can be implemented, then you don’t need to be a professor of political science to understand how the crisis will unfold – the second scenario.

Extreme climate conditions and their profound human consequences will bring to the fore two opposing agendas of violent action. The first is fascism, which thrives in times of crisis. Given the threats to private property posed by popular movements and the left-centrist alliance of the Green New Deal, the last resort of resource capital and the wealthy may be to ally with reactionary political forces. As in the 1930s, they will see this as the only way to restore order and secure their power and property. For those on the right who still deny climate change, the unfolding tragedy may seem like an unprecedented opportunity: to appeal to ethnonational interests by declaring refugees, immigrants, and their supposedly “elite” protectors as enemies at the gates.

Fortress Europe, Fortress America and Fortress Australia are the antithesis of a Green New Deal and a just transition to a new climate policy. For fascists, the problem is the migrants on their doorstep, not global warming. Fascism means rolling back liberal freedoms, closing borders, blaming “newcomers”, suppressing dissent and regulating national economies while strengthening property rights and ethnic and class hierarchies. This means abandoning the global South to its fate and reversing the processes of globalization along nationalist lines. This will lead to militarism, driven by the desire of major powers to seize dwindling supplies of fresh water, minerals and other resources.

Fascism has no coherent answer to the challenges of either the climate crisis or the socioeconomic crisis it is exacerbating. Instead, it offers conspiracy theories, the glorification of “the people,” and the suppression of displaced people and other social groups. As the climate crisis deepens, the number of climate refugees will grow and the beating of tribal drums will grow louder . This is happening right now, before our eyes.

Another program of violent action will be shaped by the climate movement. Until now, it has adhered to a strategy of fundamentally non-violent protest. Civil disobedience as a form of non-violent protest has been and is being practiced, sometimes successfully, by groups such as Greenpeace and Extinction Rebellion and by indigenous rights activists, and has been expressed primarily in the blocking of pipelines, new mining operations, and clear-cutting of primeval forests. But if democratic protest fails to lead to a just and sustainable future, then the sabotage of the production and technical base of hydrocarbon extraction and supply, and even the destruction of industrial civilization as such, will come to the fore. If environmental catastrophes push civilization to the very edge of the abyss, underground eco-activist groups practicing violent actions will probably be perceived by many as a justified last resort.

We must be prepared. The climate/ecological crisis could worsen both the political and socio-economic crises. Our task is to prevent the worst, the second scenario just described. Radical reformism remains our brightest hope.
https://rabkor.ru/columns/analysis/2024/08/15/climate-politics-in-an-era-of-populist-climate-change-denial/

Back

Richard Sandbrook is Vice President of Science for Peace Canada and Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Toronto, and the author or editor of 14 books.


Links Search