THIS week, 28 countries vote to elect representatives to the European Parliament for the next five years. The UK only came to the ballot box kicking and screaming, having voted three years ago to leave the European Union.
By the time you read this, the results may well be in. It is a safe bet that a wave of anger will have propelled populist, anti-establishment parties to gains across swathes of the continent.
Advertisement
That is a problem for the planet. Some of these parties hold views on climate change that make Donald Trump look like a well-informed moderate. France鈥檚 National Rally, for example, supports solar and wind energy fabriqu茅 en France as a way of reducing foreign energy imports, but denounces the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change as a 鈥渃ommunist project鈥�. The Alternative for Germany (AfD) party says governments suppress the truth that carbon dioxide is a fertiliser, not a pollutant. Nigel Farage, leader of the Brexit party currently riding high in UK polls, has repeatedly questioned the basis of climate science.
This matters. The measures needed to combat climate change affect competition in a single market, therefore much of what European countries are doing 鈥� creating the world鈥檚 biggest carbon trading scheme, setting binding targets for energy efficiency 鈥� is coordinated at EU level. To meet Paris climate-change agreement targets, the European Commission has ambitious plans: carbon neutrality by 2050 and measures taking up to 40 per cent of the new EU budget. All these need the European Parliament鈥檚 approval, so a populist wave could significantly dilute Europe鈥檚 efforts on climate change.
Populists have gained traction in recent years by appealing emotionally to people who feel that their leaders are disregarding threats to their identity and the stability of established communities from immigration, globalisation, economic injustice and changing social norms.
Climate scientists and protest movements such as Extinction Rebellion may still feel they are fighting the good fight against an elite reluctant to act on their concerns. But this is not how they are perceived by a large chunk of their fellow citizens. Scientists are a remote elite if ever there was one, with their suspicious allegiance to facts above group identities. Activists鈥� advocacy of higher environmental taxes and restrictions on consumption is viewed as harmful for ordinary people: witness France鈥檚 gilets jaunes protests, spawned by opposition to higher fuel taxes.
It doesn鈥檛 have to be this way. Climate change is a threat to stability for everyone. Arguments for action need to be recalibrated to emphasise this, acknowledging the power not just of facts, but of emotions. That means talking not just about economic costs of climate inaction, but also about less tangible impacts on shared identity and heritage, such as the threat to much-loved landscapes. Crucially, we need to show how efforts to limit emissions can positively affect local communities.
There is no umbilical link between populism and anti-climate positions. Hungary鈥檚 ruling party Fidesz, for example, is one of three Euro-populist parties to accept climate science. Fanned by other winds, populism won鈥檛 burn out soon 鈥� but it shouldn鈥檛 consume climate action, too.
