At a time when global warming stokes ever more extreme weather, the global rise of climate-denialist right-wing populism not only impedes effective responses, but also raises the specter of a dystopian fascist future.
Political polarization has converted climate action into a left-right issue. Even formerly traditional Conservatives, such as those in Canada and the United Kingdom, have shifted from an earlier openness to confronting the climate crisis to a harder denialism.
If this polarization impedes decarbonization, the long-term political implications may be grim. An out-of-control climate threatens to transform right-wing populism into outright fascism. Geoengineering is unlikely to be useful as more than a stopgap measure. But foresight can be a powerful motivator in avoiding the worst-case outcome.
The question is: can progressive forces, including liberals in the US sense, muster the unity and will to decisively decarbonize in what must – to succeed – be a just transition?
No Illusions about our Climate Situation
On a issue inundated with disinformation and misinformation, one needs to begin by restating the bare facts of our situation. If we don’t agree on the facts, no concerted action is possible.
A recent study of variations in the Earth’s climate during the past 485 million years suggests the urgency of drastic action to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions . Average surface temperatures have varied greatly over that period, with rapid shifts occurring periodically. A major shift 250 million years ago, for example, led to the extinction of about 90% of all species. However, at no point has the climate changed as quickly as it is in our day.
Humans emerged some 300,000 years ago during the coldest 40-million-year period in the Earth’s history. We, along with many other species, can only survive within a narrow temperature band.
Evidence suggests a positive correlation between a rising concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and rising average surface temperatures. A concentration of 350 parts of carbon dioxide per million is regarded by scientists as a safe level. Today, that concentration is at least 420 parts per million, a rise of 50% since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
Human activity accounts for most of the increase in heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. Globally, according to the International Energy Agency, the burning of fossil fuels account for more than three-quarters of these emissions. In Canada, about 74% of GHG emissions derive from fossil fuels.
The conclusion is obvious: to halt global warming, which threatens our survival, we need to reduce and eliminate GHG emissions. The quickest and surest way to do so is to limit and then quickly reduce the production and use of fossil fuels globally. The trend, however, is just the opposite: GHG emissions are growing, year by year.
Governments therefore need to act decisively to displace fossil fuels. But such decisive action is not happening. As The Guardian recently observed: “A surge in new oil and gas exploration in 2024 threatens to unleash nearly 12 bn tonnes of planet-heating emissions, with the world’s wealthiest countries – such and the Us and the UK – leading a stampede of fossil fuel expansion in spite of their climate commitments….” We are going backwards.
The latest Scientists Warning chillingly concludes: “We are on the brink of an irreversible climate disaster. This is a global emergency beyond any doubt. Much of the very fabric of life on Earth is imperiled.”
Political/Cultural Obstacles
The main political impediment to decarbonization is sometimes identified as the economic, political and cultural power of fossil-fuel corporations. Yes, they have used this power, especially in fossil-fuel producing countries, to buttress climate denial of various sorts, and, where denial fails, to dilute and delay climate mitigation policies. Their corporate aim, regardless of climate costs, is to sell all the oil and gas (and even, in some case, coal) in their expanding reserves. They exercise power through extensive lobbying and campaign contributions, campaigns to mould public opinion, and financing of sympathetic foundations and think-tanks.
But the political problem is broader than the opposition of oil companies. Decarbonization, in whatever form it takes, aims to displace the centuries-old carbon economy in favour of an economy based on knowledge and renewable and green energy. The carbon economy is organized around fossil-fuel production and fossil-fuel intensive manufacturing, such as motor vehicles, steel, petrochemicals, cement, and the machines and equipment needed to operate this economy. Then there are the banks, hedge funds, mutual funds and individual investors with major stakes in the oil companies or in the industries dependent on fossil fuels. Those interests associated with the carbon economy struggle to retain the basis of their wealth, income and status, including the relatively highly paid workers. The latter may have heard about a “just” transition that protects displaced workers, but the reality is that green energy does not generate the same highly paid jobs as the threatened carbon economy.
In short, a large segment of business and a substantial number of workers do not want to go green any more. In the United States, for example, big financial firms are deserting the climate action coalition. Under attack from the Republican Party for allegedly placing environmental concerns above profit, firms have flop-flopped on the major issue of the day. Even mainstream political parties are going quiet on the climate front.
This political climate has an impact on popular culture. Many individuals who might benefit from a just transition oppose any constraints on consumer choice. Despite all the discussion of the climate threat, and despite the focus on the anthropogenic causes of the impending disaster, many people resist modifying their unsustainable life-styles. Many educated and well-off people, though they are well equipped to understand climate science, have chosen not to know about the climate emergency. They are unwilling to contemplate surrendering the right to travel and live as they please. An ingrained individualism has been nurtured by neoliberal institutions, centrally the view that government has no right to tell people how they should consume or accumulate. This viewpoint is reinforced by advertising, thinktanks, political parties, and public opinion campaigns financed by fossil-fuel and other corporations.
It is therefore not a shock to discover that “common sense” in, for example, the United States ranks ecological/climate issues of low priority. A recent New York Times/Siena poll of “likely” voters in the November 2024 US election discovered that 66% of respondents supported expanding the production of fossil fuels. Among working-class voters, 72% backed an increase. An Ipsos poll of Americans found that very few felt any qualms about high per-capita consumption, blaming the government and corporations for ecological problems. Finally, a Pew poll in 2024 found that Americans ranked climate change as 18th among their current concerns. And environmental concerns recently ranked 15th amongst the expressed priorities of US voters.
Attuning these attitudes to the reality of a deteriorating environment will take a lot of work.
Populist Denialism
But right-wing populism makes that task exceedingly difficult.
Conservative and centre right parties, following World War 2, tended to be pragmatic. Though committed to small states, free markets, and individual opportunity, they learned to live with welfare states and high taxes in pursuit of widespread prosperity. But much has changed since the rise of nativist populism since the world economic crisis of 2008. Variously designated “far right” or “hard right”, right-wing populist parties have eroded or captured traditional conservative parties and governments throughout the world. Even such influential conservative parties as the Republicans in the US, and the Canadian and UK Conservative Parties have succumbed to populism. They have, at the least, opportunistically opposed modest climate policies, such as carbon taxes.
Right-wing populism and its cousin, fascism, have never vanished; they have persisted on the fringes, brought to the fore by widespread insecurity and crisis. The narrative that the “nation” (defined in ethnic, racial or religious terms) has been betrayed and brought low by conniving elite forces, and needs to be restored, is a very old theme. The far right everywhere in the developed world harps on the alleged liberal betrayal of the nation in the form of mass immigration. Nativist themes gain relevance in times of rapid cultural, social and economic change. Immigration, in particular,
Today, right-wing populists are in power in Hungary, Italy, Argentina, India, Turkey, and perhaps Russia. Populist parties are on the brink of power in the United States, France, Austria, Denmark and Canada. They are on the rise in Germany, Netherlands and Sweden. In Brazil, the far right remains a major contender (Jair Bolsonaro). They are a major political force.
Unfortunately, climate change has become entangled in the ongoing political polarization that afflicts rich, and many less-rich, societies. Polarization means it becomes increasingly difficult to institute the changes needed to phase out fossil fuels. The Far Right has adopted climate denialism as a key element of its program. Trump as President was denialist-in-chief. His administration removed all information about climate change from government websites, reversed much environmental legislation, withdrew from the Paris Agreement, and erased climate as a topic from national and international agendas. A detailed study of six European countries, the United States and Brazil unveils the dynamics of this ecological evasion.
Right-wing populists have cast climate change as unproven or even as a hoax. The idea of a crisis is allegedly perpetrated by leftist elites to justify the institution of “socialist” measures: to impose new climate taxes, expand state intervention and public ownership, cancel freedoms, prohibit the ownership of SUVs and other consumer goods, and welcome waves of displaced climate migrants. This populist message, sometimes couched in bizarre conspiracy theories, resonates with those who feel left behind or who refuse to contemplate changing their life-styles. For those left behind, resentment, anger and mistrust grow along with inequality, globalization and the exodus of good jobs, the precarity of livelihoods, a loss of status for whites and males in multicultural, gender-neutral societies, and talk of climate justice and open borders. For those who refuse to change, the right offers reassurance that they do not need to forego their privileged lives. Many wealthy beneficiaries of neoliberalism join this coalition, not because they are neo-fascists, but because it is the last, best option to preserve the power and privilege of fossil capitalism. The result is a volatile coalition that, the more pressing the economic and climate crisis, the more resolute and reactionary it becomes.
As the world heats up, climate denialism shifts form. As outright denial becomes untenable, the narrative shifts: yes, climate change is real, and yes, humans play a part, but the main problem is overpopulation, especially in the global South. Thus, we must fortify our borders to keep out the unworthy migrants who have allegedly caused the problem. Conspiracy theories become more bizarre. The danger is that the imminent danger of climate collapse does not squelch but inflames the political division. Reversing climate change is a hard sell.
Avoiding the Worst-Case Scenario
What happens if environmental, peace and social-justice movements cannot mobilize popular support to impel an adequate response to the climate crisis, that is, if we fail to cut emissions roughly in half by 2030? There are adequate proposals to achieve this goal, such as the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty (FFNPT), within the national context of a Green New Deal. The FFNPT aims to phase out coal, oil and gas swiftly via an international treaty. A growing number of countries, municipalities, nongovernmental organizations and citizens have endorsed the GGNPT. A Green New DeaI has been widely discussed as a democratic strategy to build a better life for most people while drastically cutting emissions. There are lots of good ideas for a just transition.
But if these proposals fail and we are faced with runaway global warming, one of two other scenarios will prevail.
The first is that geoengineering techniques are tried, and they succeed in partially reducing global temperatures. Granted, many climate scientists dismiss geoengineering as “dangerous nonsense”. It is obvious why climate experts hold this view. Investments in geoengineering would reduce the pressure on governments and corporation to rapidly cut GHG emissions. There is also the knotty question of who would authorize geoengineering. It is an important question because the experiment might shift weather patterns on a global scale. Would nations agree to cooperate on such a momentous venture? Or would one major power act alone, or with only the support of its allies? If the latter, war is a major risk. If one country or bloc undertakes to geoengineer the climate, and that attempt precipitates, or is thought to precipitate, calamitous weather effects for a non-cooperating great power, the outcome might be armed conflict.
Yet, despite the risks, accelerating global warming will motivate major powers to resort to geoengineering, with or without global cooperation.
The two most promising geoengineering techniques are stratospheric aerosol injection and marine cloud brightening. Both aim to cool the atmosphere despite the high concentration of carbon dioxide. The former does so by injecting sunlight-reflecting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere; the second, by brightening clouds, and thus their sunlight-reflecting capacity. Cloud brightening relies on convection to carry sprayed droplets of seawater up to low-lying clouds. However, even if these techniques were found to be effective, considerable time and immense resources would be needed to reach the scale capable of lowering global temperatures.
Even then, geoengineering is not a cure for global warming. It is only a stop-gap measure. Carbon emissions would continue to grow, magnifying the greenhouse effect. Geoengineering would, at best, provide more precious time to cut emissions and develop the means to draw carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. And this limitation brings us back squarely to where we began: the necessity of mobilizing a coalition to support a democratic program for decarbonization and a just transition.
If neither a technological nor a radical-reformist fix happens, you don’t need to be a political scientist to foresee how the crisis will unfold – the worst-case scenario.
Extreme weather events and their dire human consequences will bring to the fore two poles of violent action. The first is fascism, which thrives in crises. With threats to property posed by mass movements and by the left-of-centre alliance behind a Green New Deal, the last resort of fossil capital and the wealthy may be to ally with reactionary political forces. They will see this act (as in the 1930s) as the only way to re-establish order and safeguard their power and property. Hitherto climate-deniers on the right may see in the unfolding tragedy an unparalleled opportunity: to appeal to the ethno-nation, casting migrants, immigrants and their alleged “elite” proponents as the enemy at the gate.
Fortress America, Fortress Europe and Fortress Australia are the antithesis of the Green New Deal and just transition. For the fascists, the problem is the migrants at the gate, not global warming. Fascism means abolishing liberal freedoms, closing borders, blaming “aliens”, repressing dissent and regulating national economies while reinforcing existing property rights and ethnic and class hierarchies. It involves abandoning the global South to its fate and reversing globalization in accordance with nationalist priorities. It will breed militarism, as the great powers manoeuvre to capture diminishing stocks of fresh water, fossil fuels and other resources.
Fascism has no viable answer to the climate crisis, or the socioeconomic crisis the latter precipitates. It has recourse instead to conspiracy theories, glorification of the “people” and repression of migrants and others. The worse the climate crisis, the higher the number of climate migrants, the stronger the drum-beat of nativism. This scenario is already playing out.
The other pole of violence will emerge from the climate movement. This movement, so far, has been scrupulously nonviolent in its tactics. Civil disobedience, a form of nonviolent action, has been practiced, sometimes effectively, by Greenpeace, Extinction Rebellion, and indigenous groups, especially in blocking pipelines, new mining ventures, and deforestation of virgin forests. But the failure of democratic protest to bring about a just and sustainable future will bring sabotage of the carbon infrastructure, and indeed destruction of industrial civilization itself, to the fore. Clandestine environmental groups practising violence will be seen by some activists as a legitimate final resort, if ecological disasters push civilizations closer to the brink of collapse.
*****
The outlook is dire but not inevitable. Yes, the climate/ecological crisis may precipitate a political as well as socio-ecological crisis. However, those who understand the trends still have time to unite to prevent the dystopian scenario from ever happening.
by 