Eco-Nationalism: How Right-Wing Groups Will Hijack Climate Change Politics

Posted on 30. Nov, 2009 by Ross in Government Policy

Most environmentalists see right-wing politicians like Nick Griffin as their main opponents in protecting the world from potentially devastating climate change. Defending companies and households in the Ostrich Block from potentially crippling carbon taxes is the right’s primary goal, whilst nationalists often declare that the whole case for global warming is just a Marxist plot to smash nations and impose one-world government.

Indeed, a successful Copenhagen conference will see much greater levels of global co-operation, with the sharing of key environmental technologies and finances both to mitigate carbon emissions and adapted to the consequences of climate change.

When the right stop fighting the science behind climate change and start accepting the general population’s consensus about mankind’s culpability for a warming world, the arguments over how to reduce emissions and deal with the results of climate change may end up playing into the hands of enviro-facists and eco-nationalists, who will be able to use them to put a green sheen on their traditional policies.

Eco-Nationalism v Migration

Right-wing politics’ 21st century raison d’etre is often the fight against immigration. Lack of jobs, lack of living space, lack of money, lack of resources: these are many of the key themes used to justify the exclusion of other people from a country. Climate change-related policies add extra fuel to that fire: by placing limitations on carbon emissions, yet more resources become scarcer for countries.

Rather than becoming more efficient with the use of key resources such as energy and fuel, eco-nationalist groups will claim that there is simply not enough to go around. This claim will be exacerbated by the energy shortages expected to wrack many developed nations as they struggle to replace old fossil fuel power stations with nuclear or renewable energy sources before decommissioning deadlines and emission reduction targets. Being left in the dark is a far more compelling argument than watching people argue about climate change on the television.

Eco-Nationalism v Foreign Populations

Population growth is likely to get a free ride at the Copenhagen conference, but few dispute the capabilities of more people on the planet to pollute even more (it’s the only deadly sin which doesn’t fight climate change, after all!). This is one area of international climate change diplomacy that has massive worth to eco-nationalists in countries with low or negative population growth.

Insisting that other countries take action to curb growing populations is likely to reduce the demand in that country for emigration, as well as limiting the economic potential of states with tiny average wages to exploit workforces to produce cut-price goods. Right-wing groups fear the emergence of new superpowers such as China and India by realising the full potential of their giant populations: insisting on population growth limits for other potential powers such as Brazil and Indonesia would be seen as a potential mechanism of protecting another nation’s long-term interests. Anything that’s bad for one country is good for the rest!

Copenhagen: A Win-Win Situation For The Eco-Nationalists

These arguments will add extra weight to eco-nationalists’ campaigns should Copenhagen be successful, with the likelihood of garnering support from previously resistant demographics such as the young who already left reeling after the political fall-out from the world economic collapse.

Does this mean that the right want to see Copenhagen succeed?

Of course not, although it would probably help their political ambitions should it succeed - add to the above the power of arguments against surrendered technologies for free to other countries and the alliance of governments with previously unsavoury regimes with poor human rights records just for the sake of preventing warmer weather.

Copenhagen’s collapse would see an increase in global mistrust and insularity, with nations able to blame others for the failure of international efforts to fight climate change. Such insularity has the habit of promoting nationalist agendas, playing on the stereotypes of untrustworthy outsiders.

Nationalists in developed countries have the most to win. A collapse in diplomacy at Copenhagen would help developed nations retain their low-carbon technologies, preventing a massive increase in international competition.

Developed nations are also more likely to be able to afford to properly adapt to whatever new climate scenario is born from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, whilst poorer nations will find coping with increased droughts, storms and sea levels.

With growing numbers of climate refugees, demands for tighter immigration controls will become even louder than before. When the issue of immigration escalates up the political agenda, the voices of those who oppose it on the right of the political spectrum increase in volume too.

All the while that fascists and nationalists decry the validity of climate change science their opponents can continue to marginalise them as incoherent and blinkered deniers, limiting the appeal of their arguments. When the right changes tack and starts formulating policies based on the need to act against climate change, however, expected the political landscape to undergo a sizeable shift across the world.

Any other ideas how right-wing nationalists could make political mileage by accepting climate change? Write your thoughts in the comments below!

Image by Ross Tucknott @ Flickr