What is it about right-wing populism and climate change?

Reignited by Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement (PCA), questions are arising about why right-wing populism is so incompatible with climate governance, and what it means for the future of climate change. Whilst Trump may have been the first to withdraw from the PCA, he is not alone in expressing an extreme abstention of ‘climate change.’

Right-wing populism (RWP) generally plays on concerns outside of ‘tradition’ and ‘normality’, enabling an inherent rejection of modern, traditionally left-wing political ideas. Such a divisive political and social stance has perpetuated traditional left-right debates to a point where discussion is incoherent and unfeasible, situating politics in ‘us Vs. them’ propositions. A rejection of migration, gender issues, social liberation and progression, elitism etc… are all foundational concepts underlying their policy approaches.

It is, however, the dismissal of climate change and destructive environmental issues that pose the greatest threat to the Holocene. Whilst the ideas presented above all cover an ontological schism and social issues, traditional scientific work on climate change places the “phenomenon” at the forefront of epistemological work and the individual mind.

As presented, Trump was not the first to reject the ‘theory’ of climate change. Despite climate change being somewhat of a contemporary issue, climate scepticism soon followed early scientific work. Such politicisation of climate change and the further rejection of it can be traced to the emergence of RWP in Europe since the early 2010s; primarily ignited to combat technocratic solutions to severe economic and political issues that faced the ‘ordinary’ citizen. Placing climate change in the political sphere ignites divisions between ‘the people’ and ‘corrupt elites’, whereby a deep-seated mistrust in elite technocracy from the masses promotes a rejection of climate change. However, data shows that climate change is not a phenomenon and is not an issue that can be debated. It is very much real. So why, then, does RWP continue to oppose scientific facts that situate climate change as the biggest challenge to human life.

It can primarily be put down to the promotion of state self-reliance, portrayed through the mistrust of global elite institutions to respond to challenges such as the global financial crisis. This is evidently portrayed by Trumpism. First withdrawing from the PCA in 2017, he cited the multilateral agreement as a ‘bad deal’ in that it unfairly burdened American business. This so-called ‘bad deal’ burgeoned populist concerns over national security and traditional employment sectors. Despite these issues lacking significant evidence, many citizens in the US and other western states began to feel ‘left behind’ by modernisation and globalisation, proposing climate change as a phenomenon led by liberal democracies to raise taxes and eradicate the will of the people. RWP played on the older, less educated demographic by arousing fears regarding employment rates and rising energy costs, portraying global environmental regulations as destructive for national prosperity and the livelihood of individuals. Environmental scepticism appeals to working-class grievances who see modernisation as a greater threat than climate change.

Due to widespread economic downturn in the face of the global financial crisis, disaggregation between RWP and climate governance spread outside of western liberal democracies. Brazil’s election of Bolsonaro portrayed those fears regarding global technocracy and such rejection of modernism had taken hold of the Global South. His political actions concerning deforestation of the Amazon led to wide international criticism, something which Bolsonaro framed as an attack on Brazil’s right for using their natural resources for economic development. Whilst this may not propose an underlying rejection of climate change as a scientific phenomenon, it does show that RWP regimes are state-centred and unwilling to cooperate with global solutions that are required to address the issue.

Such growing and widespread acceptance of RWP in the face of failing technocratic solutions to many global issues means that climate targets are becoming ever harder to hit. Climate scepticism not only undermines scientific consensus but emboldens other nations to delay or dilute their commitments. The distinctiveness between right-wing populist rhetorics and scientific reality is widening. Whilst environmental advocates warn that delaying improvements in climate governance risks catastrophic consequences, RWP continues to challenge the premise and policies of climate action, framing then as ideological battles rather than pressing global issues. Without global cooperation, a reversal of climate change is unreachable.

However, as expressed, the impact of Trump’s withdrawal from the PCA cannot be understated. As one of the world’s largest emitters and the largest economy, the US plays a pivotal role in climate governance. With US abstention, a signal has been sent out to other states that climate commitments can be renegotiated or abandoned. Although populists in Europe are yet to express extreme politicised disintegration from such policies, their increased vote share in recent elections does not bode well for the future of climate governance. This directive is not just seen in individual countries, but in the European Parliament. The enhancement of RWP in western governments has the ability to constitute substantial negative externalities globally; arguably situating scientific advancements in reverse due to adverse political effects.

Adverse effects have also shifted political discourse in environments where RWP may not be the main ideology. Centrist and left-wing parties have had to moderate their climate positions to avoid alienating voters. This has led to weaker climate policies, even in countries that ostensibly support climate action. Weak public and governmental support for ambitious policies creates a feedback loop where governments feel less pressure to enact meaningful progress on climate governance. As RWP becomes a more prominent challenge to liberal democracy and international governance, significant climate policies are not being implemented. Trump’s re-withdrawal from the PCA signifies that RWP continues to be inherently opposed to climate governance. If this precedent is followed by other states, the arena of climate governance is seriously under pressure to enact meaningful change.

The political advancement of RWP has introduced a powerful roadblock to climate governance. By prioritising nationalism, short-term economic interests, and cultural resistance over scientific consensus and global cooperation, these movements have slowed the momentum needed to address climate change effectively. However, their rise also highlights the importance of making climate policies inclusive, equitable, and economically viable for all. Addressing the economic and cultural grievances that fuel RWP could help mitigate its impact on climate governance. Without such efforts, the world risks falling further behind in the race to combat the most pressing crisis of our time.