“The danger of global warning is as yet unseen, but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations.”
This quote was not spoken by Greta Thunberg, or Al-Gore, or anyone popularly associated with the environmental movement for that matter. This warning comes from Margret Thatcher, a conservative and neoliberal icon, who championed Reaganomics, but also happens to have pioneered the world’s first carbon emissions target. The environmental movement, though known today as deeply entrenched in leftist political ideology, was not so long ago the interest of conservatives the world over, from Thatcher to Nixon. Given the dire and undeniable progress of climate change, the right will eventually have no choice but to address it once more. Green conservatism has already taken root in Europe, and may become increasingly relevant in America as the Republican party charts it’s Post-Trump course.
The Republican Hail-Mary?
The past 30 years of center-right climate denial have eclipsed the close historical relationship between environmentalism and conservatism. Traditional conservative ideology generally emphasizes pro-environmental positions including preservation of the countryside, stewardship, and maintenance of traditional ways of life. These ideals are evidenced in some of our nation’s notable conservative presidents. Abraham Lincoln established Yosemite as the first national park in 1864. Teddy Roosevelt, our “conservationist president,” established five new national parks, 150 new national forests and in total protected over 230 million acres of public land. Richard Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and George H.W. Bush managed acid rain. It was only in the 1990s that the Republican party’s large scale skepticism, then denial, of climate science began. However the tide may be turning yet again.
In November 2020, disgraced former president Donald Trump lost his re-election bid, a rarity for an incumbent president. This bitter defeat represented a national rejection of the Republican Party’s current platform, evidenced by the unprecedented rate at which voters have changed their registration away from the Republican party, particularly in important and growing demographics. The Republican party has historically tended to do poorly with racial minorities, women, and the young. For example, of non-white voters that identified as Republican in 2018, only 62% remain Republican, whereas 21% flipped Democratic. In contrast, of the non-white voters that identified as Democrats in 2018, 78% remained and only 10% flipped Republican. Similarly, in 2014, college educated white women preferred a generic Democratic candidate for congress over a generic Republican candidate by 2 points. By 2018, this same demographic preferred a Democrat over a Republican by a striking 22 points. In order to retain relevance, the Republicans must maintain and expand their voter base.
Green politics would be a strategic place to start. The Republican anti-environmental position is ineffectual with younger generations, who care much more about climate change than their predecessors. 52% of millennial Republicans feel the federal government is not doing enough to address climate change, whereas only 31% of boomers hold this viewpoint. Additionally, environmental protection could be appealing to the Republican party’s Christian voter base, who see stewardship of the planet as providential. A Republican pivot on climate could even potentially pull in new and single issue voters, while still staying consistent with the party’s existing populist narrative.
Climate change could easily become a populist issue if it comes to be perceived as an anti-establishment issue. Instead of thinking of environmentalism as a product of globalists, the scientific establishment and multi-lateral bureaucrats, maintaining the environment could be framed as protecting the rights and property of everyday American hunters, fishers, and farmers against these elites. Republicans could call to attention the growing “climate apartheid” in which elites have the resources to protect themselves against climate change while the middle classes remain vulnerable. Take Hurricane Sandy for example. Low-income New Yorkers were helpless without power and healthcare while the Goldman Sachs headquarters was “protected by tens of thousands of its own sandbags and power from its generator.” Similar situations have happened all over the country, so this technique could applied on the local level as well.
Assuming climate change is eventually adopted as a right-wing issue, Republican politicians are still likely to differentiate their approach from the typical climate change mitigation strategies presented on the left. Republicans are likely to address climate change with a focus on “green capitalism.” “Green capitalism” is generally shorthand for an incentives based model rather than a regulations based model. This approach has been underutilized considering voter’s latent support for renewable energy, with 78% of millennial Republicans believing that the United States should prioritize renewables over fossil fuels. Additionally, many of these emerging green jobs and industries are moving into red states, enhancing the potential benefit for Republicans. Texas for instance, is one of the states with the largest renewable energy growth, with the wind and sun necessary to power such systems.
A complete pivot on climate has not yet occurred within the Republican party, but there are signs that this shift is beginning. Starting in 2020, House minority leader Kevin McCarthy proposed three measures to slow warming. Recently, Republican senators Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney, and Lindsey Graham all joined the bipartisan Senate Climate Solutions Caucus. Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate Majority leader during the Trump administration, stated on climate change: “I concur that it is happening and it is a problem. The argument is about how to best address it.” We can imagine how green conservatism may continue to develop in the states, by looking to Europe, where such an ideology has already taken hold.
Our European Future
Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, the youngest Chancellor in Austrian history, and a hardline conservative, formed the one of the world’s first “green-black” coalitions on the national scale. A “green- black” coalition is a parliamentary power sharing agreement between a conservative, or “black” party, and an environmental, or “green,” party. While Austria represents the premier example of a green-black government, such an arrangement also exists in Ireland, and various regional governments of Germany. It is additionally expected that in Germany’s upcoming 2021 election, in which Angela Merkel has promised to step down, a green-black coalition will form.
Green-black coalitions such as these have been marketed to voters as “marriages of convenience,” unions based on necessity rather than genuine compatibility. To some extent, this explanation is justifiable. Such coalitions are the result of a move away from center-left and center-right parties in Europe, towards more extreme green parties on the left, and populist parties on the right. Political polarization has taken shape all over Europe, even at the European Union level. In 2019, the center right and center left parties lost their majority in the European Parliament for the first time in 40 years.
The “marriages of convenience” argument is bolstered by the painful sacrifices that have been required by green parties. In Austria, the parliament had to vote on whether or not to allow homeless child refugees after a crisis in Moira, Europe’s largest refugee camp. The ruling right wing party (with 37.5% of the seats) absolutely refused, and the green party (with 14% of the seats), was forced to vote against their platform, and also reject the refugees, in order to maintain the coalition. The green party, a very junior partner, lacks any political leverage. They must forgo broad left-wing goals, in favor of narrow environmental goals. To a certain degree, these sacrifices have paid off. Green-black coalitions have effectively enacted certain environmental policies. In Ireland the government promises to cut emissions by 7% per year. In Austria, they are working on ambitious plan to go completely carbon neutral by 2040.
Food for Thought— Eco-Fascism
However taken from a conservative viewpoint, one could make a claim that the greens did not make a “sacrifice” to deliver on their promises, but that curbing immigration actually works syncretically with their climate goals. Austrian Chancellor Kurz implied as much when he symbolically and rhetorically linked the issues of the environment and isolation, stating his government was: “protecting both the climate and the borders.”
In this, Kurz calls out an inconvenient truth for leftist environmentalists— that Green-black coalitions may intrinsically reflect a degree of compatibility between the policy goals of environmentalists and conservatives. These parties may not seemingly interact on the surface, but insidiously work together. For example, greens and blacks do often share a common belief in isolationism, albeit for different reasons. The greens are generally anti-imperialist whereas the blacks are anti-immigration. Justifications aside, this foundational similarity represents itself in harmonious policy goals. For example, Germany’s green party’s foreign policy is largely anti-interventionism and anti-China and Russia, much like Germany’s right wing. Moreover, Germany’s far-right AFD advocates for strengthening Germany’s social safety net, for example increasing paid parental leave, a typically left-wing pursuit. Overall, In terms of shared interests, both greens and blacks are generally in favor of “balanced budgets, the European ideal and a transatlantic orientation.”
These similarities are not coincidental, but meaningful. The degree of overlap invokes horseshoe political theory; that the extreme left and extreme right are more similar to each other than they are to the moderate wings of their respective parties. Certain controversial beliefs about diet, vaccines, and, pertinent here, the environment, are common on both the extreme left and right. The far-right “eco-fascists,” an ideology which promotes eugenics and isolationism to mitigate climate change, holds some traditionally left wing elements such as veganism, non-GMO and locally sourced foods, and anti-single-use plastic, while also touting anti-multiculturalism, white nationalism, anti-Semitism, and a reverence of Norse mythology.
This is not to state that all environmentalists harbor secret right wing tendencies, but instead that environmentalism is particularly vulnerable to fascist creep because of it’s historical, and in some communities lasting, connection to white supremacy.
The Nazi party is often cited as the origin of eco-fascism. Richard Walther Darré, a Nazi ideologue, theorized the ideal of “blood and soil,” in which a nation has mystical connection and stewardship over the land. This original Nazi idea continues to shape and influence far-right climate rhetoric today. Marine Le Pen, of France’s far-right National Rally, has stated “who is rooted in their home is an ecologist,” again evoking a nationalistic racialized connection between a people and their country. This dialogue is in no way benign. These ideas have been directly referenced by a number of terrorists over the years, including in the manifestos of the Christchurch shooter, the El Paso shooter, and the Unabomber. The Christchurch shooter wrote that he believed in “Ethnic autonomy for all peoples with a focus on the preservation of nature, and the natural order,” and that “there is no nationalism without environmentalism.” Patrick Crusius, the El Paso shooter, wrote in his manifesto that “If we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can be more sustainable.”
Final Thoughts
Given the rapid progress of climate change, Republicans will have to address the issue within the next decade, likely sooner. When that day comes, it will be a great opportunity for cooperation. Joint solutions will be necessary in order to reach climate goals. Yet, we must also be prepared against the xenophobic path set forth by Europe’s far-right.
The far-right has and will continue to cite immigration, particularly from the global south, as a climate issue, and exploit it as an excuse to refuse refugees. Refugees and large populations are not the reason for climate change. Big corporations and apathetic governments are.
