Subscriber OnlyOpinionClimate change

Any drift towards the right could be disastrous for Europe’s climate agenda

It’s not just the ‘far right’ who weaponise climate policies for politically opportunistic reasons

Farmers and union representatives from the agricultural sector protesting against the Nature Restoration Law in Strasbourg last year. Photograph: EPA
Farmers and union representatives from the agricultural sector protesting against the Nature Restoration Law in Strasbourg last year. Photograph: EPA
Sadhbh O’ Neill
Tue May 07 2024 - 06:00

To anyone paying attention to the ability of far right messaging to subtly influence mainstream politics, last week’s claims by Greenpeace’s investigative unit Unearthed that Tory activists were behind a network of Facebook groups opposing the introduction of ultra-low emission zones (ULEZ) should come as no surprise. The investigation found that Conservative Party activists and representatives were in many cases the administrators of Facebook groups which, along with rejecting the proposed air-quality measures, had become a forum for racist and abusive posts. The Conservative Party said it would review its “processes and policies” regarding Facebook groups in light of the findings and said the party “unequivocally condemns all discriminatory language, and never encourages nor condones vandalism or criminal activity”.

While most far-right political actors focus on nativism or anti-immigration themes, they also weave anti-science and climate-change denial and scepticism into their narratives. Social media platforms are largely ineffectual in moderating harmful activity and misinformation, and these themes are then frequently normalised and picked up by mainstream political actors. The ULEZ Tory revelations illustrate one important lesson: you don’t even have to be “far right” to weaponise climate policies for politically opportunistic reasons.

Climate-change scepticism ranges from outright denial to “evidence scepticism”, where specific elements are contested and cherry-picked, and “process scepticism” which challenges the scientific, bureaucratic and political processes behind mainstream climate science. These strands of scepticism can be found frequently in the statements and principles of the emerging right wing and populist political parties contesting the local and European elections next month. It surfaces, for example, in campaigns against active travel infrastructure and BusConnects, and in relation to agriculture and its contribution to climate change, water pollution and biodiversity loss.

A range of voices from Independent rural TDs, new populist political parties and far-right actors insist they are defending farmers from regulatory burdens and the Climate Act, which they blame for farmers’ low incomes – instead of the power of producers or the failure of the Government to ensure that food prices reflect both the cost of production and the cost of environmental protection.

READ MORE

Scouring the websites of the Irish National Party, the Irish Freedom Party, the Farmers’ Alliance and Independent Ireland alongside the mainstream parties and existing MEPs, I found many examples of climate-sceptical rhetoric

Last year, Roscommon TD Michael Fitzmaurice warned that rewetting agricultural soils would amount to the “ethnic cleansing” of the west of Ireland. Such inflammatory rhetoric is neither harmless nor funny. It stirs up hostility and resentment towards climate policies.

Scouring the websites of the Irish National Party, the Irish Freedom Party, the Farmers’ Alliance and Independent Ireland alongside the mainstream parties and existing MEPs, I found many examples of climate-sceptical rhetoric. Independent Ireland for example, wants to support farmers and fishermen “by protecting them from EU regulations and unattainable targets” and seeks to reduce the “climate burden” on the Irish taxpayer. The Farmers’ Alliance blames high energy costs on the shift away from commercial peat harvesting to renewables. These positions are all expressions of climate scepticism, though the groups do not deny the existence of human-caused climate change.

[ Former presidential candidate Peter Casey to contest European Parliament elections ]

The positions of smaller parties on the fringes of mainstream politics might not matter except that parties and MEPs across Europe are coming under pressure to bow to anti-climate sentiment.

In a future parliament that has more far-right and right-leaning MEPs after the June elections, it will be increasingly difficult for the centre to hold

Even left-leaning MEPs such as Chris MacManus of Sinn Féin and independent MEP Luke “Ming” Flanagan voted against the Nature Restoration Law (NRL) on the grounds, they said, that there was no plan in place to compensate farmers – despite the fact that the NRL would be entirely voluntary for farmers and landowners. Following the blocking of the NRL by a group of member states and a dramatic U-turn by Hungary in particular, the future of this critical regulation remains uncertain. In the meantime, mounting pressure has led the Commission to loosen green farming requirements under the Common Agricultural Policy.

[ We have a golden opportunity to help get our rivers back - we should take it ]

In a future parliament that has more far-right and right-leaning MEPs after the June elections, it will be increasingly difficult for the centre to hold. Any drift towards populism and far-right ideologies will have repercussions for Europe’s climate agenda. So when candidates come knocking at your door for votes, don’t ask them whether they accept that climate change is happening, ask them whether they will commit to faster climate action and the restoration of nature, and doing all that is required to ensure that the necessary transition is fair for all.

Sadhbh O’Neill is an independent climate policy researcher