Donations
Veridica.md
Populist rhetoric defending “economic interests” and the real economic costs undermine the fight against climate change, fueling climate revisionism.
“Economic interests”, an excuse for endorsing climate revisionism
Until a few years ago, the perception that climate change is a reality of the modern world and that man is the main agent of that change seemed to have gained ground irreversibly, particularly in Europe and America, but also in Asia. That very perception is now called into question, partly turned into a reason for ideological disputes. Climate revisionism covers a large array of arguments, from those pertaining to climate change denial, fostered through what could become a genuine disinformation pandemic, to those invoking the economic cost of measures designed to combat climate change, trying to minimize the risks generate by these changes and the need for swift action.
One of the areas that have registered such regression is American politics, in particular its Conservative wing. At the latest debate linked to the designation of the Republican candidate for the US presidential election, only one of the contenders enrolled in the race recognized man is responsible for these changes.
The one who pioneered the “revisionist” wing of cultural climatology is the former US president, Donald Trump. Capitalizing on his great public leverage, the Republican leader has repeatedly challenged scientific reports on climate change. Donald Trump’s arguments suffered few changes over the years, focusing primarily on the economy. Even at the latest Republican debate that touched upon this topic, Trump referred to “left-wing lunatics” whose environment policies “will destroy the car industry and the whole country”.
This type of rhetoric introduced by Donald Trump a few years ago gained clout in the Republican Party. American conservative politicians saw no contradiction in terms between the (often sacred) duty of the “guardians of Earth” and the need for new environment milestones. “We need to be the good shepherds of our planet. But that doesn’t mean I have to give up my Diesel car and switch to a car running on Chinese batteries”, the head of the Republican Party in Michigan said last month.
The economic argument moved overseas without much delay. Germany revised its legislation that would have led to a swift and large-scale implementation of house heating based on “green” energy. In the UK, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak promoted a relaxation of anti-pollution targets, including the five-year extension of the period of time when fossil fuel vehicles can be sold on domestic markets. The protests in France, which criticized the government’s plans to introduce additional taxes on polluting vehicles, are easy to remember to this day due to their scope and duration.
What is hard to estimate, however, is whether these actions can build into a genuine climate revisionism, all the more so if we factor in the following aspects. First, the overarching trend of recent years towards carbon neutrality remains robust. Targets at EU level are maintained and remain ambitious. China – the world’s number one polluter, invests massive amounts of capital in solar and wind energy. Brazil, whose president misestimated the impact of logging in the Amazon, was ousted from office. So was one Australian Prime Minister who had an apparently exaggerated propensity for the coal industry. Even in the United States, the Biden administration has reviewed many of the decisions taken by the previous administration in the field of environment protection. And second, not all politicians has been caught up in the fever of “revisionism”. The United States themselves set the tone in this respect as well.
Populists capitalize on revisionism and undermine the fight against climate change.
According to a YouGov survey commissioned by The Economist, 87% of Joe Biden’s voters believe that man is responsible for climate change. On the other hand, only 21% of Donald Trump’s voters believe the same. The difference is “staggering”, the British publication comments. But it’s not an isolated phenomenon. In Australia, Canada, Germany and the Netherlands, the aforementioned Pew survey shows, the difference in percentages is considerable, ranging between 22% and 44%. In liberal democracies, this gap creates opportunity and maneuverability for a certain class of politicians, best characterized by the term “populist”.
In this case as well, Donald Trump’s speeches represent a telling case in point. The former US president has often expressed skepticism over expert studies, which he refuted as politically and financially motivated. Distrust in the authorities, whether genuine or feigned, is a basic populist attitude. So is rejecting global institutions and foreign entities in general, in conjunction with a propensity for isolationism. In the case of the United States, it takes on a special dimension in connection with China – which would derive economic benefits from the West’s environment policies. In addition, political scientists have long established that populists promote the idea that elites want to subjugate common people. For the sake of our discussion, the elites try to alter “our traditional way of life” in order to take advantage and get rich from the green transition. For this reason, Donald Trump’s message is one that describes electric vehicles as a threat to the sacred American tradition. “Where the hell am I going to get a charger to keep this thing going? Now, panic. They get panicked. If you want to buy an electric car, that’s absolutely fine. I’m all for it. There’s no such thing as a fair transition to the end of your way of life!”, Donald Trump spoke at a workers’ strike in Michigan.
While some populists are on the retreat, including Mr. Trump (although the election can turn the situation around), others have stepped up their game, which is the case of European lawmakers. Swedish populists don’t just oppose electric vehicles, they also call for cheaper fuel. And since populist parties account for a fifth of Parliament seats, the Swedish government played into their hands and reduced taxes on fossil fuel several times in the last year. In Germany, the Greens are part of the ruling coalition and their plan to introduce heating pumps in German housing came under fire from the right-wing AfD, the Alternative for Germany. Ruling coalition partners took a step back as soon as they noticed Germany wouldn’t have enough plumbers to implement the green heating plan within the stipulated deadline.
A surprising discourse in this respect recently came from the British Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak. Last month, the British official criticized the lack of public debate on setting nationwide deadlines for curbing carbon dioxide pollution, failing or forgetting to mention that his party has been in power since 2010. Rishi Sunak referred to “frightening amounts of money” (as quoted by The Economist) associated with the purchase and installation of heating pumps. And, to top it all, the Prime Minister also played the nationalist card, asking rhetorically “How come Brits are asked to sacrifice more than others when their contribution to polluting emissions stands below 1% of the global sum total?” Well, the answer is simple, The Economist responded, it’s because Brits account for under 1% of global population.
In Romania, the level of financial and civic education does not allow for a more nuanced perception of fiscal policies in the field of climate change. The green tax is well camouflaged behind a sophisticated energy bill. But when they do mount a response, the populists usually adopt the anti-European rhetoric. The idea of introducing a tax on household heaters, for instance, was met with an older populist reflex, namely to accuse Brussels of having a hidden agenda for the Romanian people. Of all the ex-communist countries, Romania perhaps is not the best exponent of populism, when compared to Poland or in particular Hungary.
Concerns for the fate of the planet wane when people are asked to contribute
A Pew survey conducted in a number of countries in Europe, Asia, America and Australia shows that a median of 75% of the populations of Italy, Japan, South-Korea, France and Spain view climate change as “a major threat”. When it comes to paying taxes that should help prevent climate change, the standing is reversed. According to the same study, only one in ten Japanese, two in ten French and two in ten Italians would agree to making a financial contribution to this effort. On the other hand, it’s worth noting that the great majority of inhabitants of less developed countries, such as India, Indonesia and Turkey, would be willing to pay higher taxes for environment protection.
The solicitude of people in developing nations to contribute to the global decarbonization effort has a biased interpretation. In some areas of southeastern Asia, farmers harvest rice crops at night, as during the day it is too hot. In most regions of India and Indonesia, people commonly believe that extreme weather phenomena are the main cause behind the diminishing agricultural production. For instance, 74% of Indians (compared to 50% in 2011), claim personal experience has taught them about climate change. Hence their expectation for a fix. However, it’s one thing to take part in a survey, and a completely different thing when the government asks if you’re willing to pay for a greener, yet more expensive type of energy. Until now, developing economies have had a different approach compared to Europe or the USA. Countries with average incomes have introduced major subsidies for fossil fuels, and their withdrawal could spell serious trouble for their national governments. In India, coal production increased by nearly 15% compared to last year. In Brazil, a country where logging dropped by nearly 50% after Jair Bolsonaro lost the presidential election, the new president, Lula da Silva, supports a 40% increase in the output of Petrobras, the state-owned oil company. In such cases, the difference between theory and practice in terms of contribution can be substantial.
Although it has not (yet) become the dominant theory, climate revisionism with populist overtones has clear targets. Highlighting and amplifying economic costs associated with green transitioning is one such objective. Then there’s the threat of losing comfort, the threat to “our way of life”: how could the Americans ever give up the Diesel-powered American-muscle cars that they love so much, a former (and possibly future) US president asked? And of course, we also have the conspiracy theory about corrupt elites that make a profit out of climate change. For the time being, revisionism remains in low key. However, with the clear-cut fiscal measures, it could gain popularity in developing countries as well. The way has been paved by conspiracy theories promoted during and after the COVID pandemic.
---copie-image.webp)
