In Germany, climate protesters are demanding diesel bans in city centres. Activists in Phoenix, Arizona are calling for climate emergency measures amid extreme heat events. But in cities across the world, writes Mahir Yazar, populists are rising up to challenge these progressive climate movements
Political parties from the far right to the radical left use populism as an ideology and a political strategy. Ideology-based populism exploits value-based rhetoric to shift climate change discussions from rational scientific debate to ethno-nationalist myth. A key element of this ideology is the reinterpretation of climate policy measures to fit core populist narratives.
Populists associate climate protection measures with threats unrelated to climate change. Indeed, they spread rhetoric suggesting that climate change poses no danger. Instead, populists argue, the real threats are immigrants from specific ethno-racial groups, and progressive EU social policies, such as same-sex marriage. In Germany, the rise of far-right Alternative für Deutschland, and its strong support in eastern cities in the 2023 local elections, offer ample evidence of this trend.
Populists claim that it is not climate change, but immigration and progressive social policies, which pose the gravest threat to people's wellbeing
Populists often adopt a discursive approach to political issues. Backlash thus emerges not only from the far right and radical left, but also from movements that sit somewhere between these two poles. Examples include the gilets jaunes in France, the Farmer-Citizen Movement (BBB) in the Netherlands, and in Norway, the People’s Action – No to More Road Tolls (FNB) party.
So, populist ideology targets specific ethno-racial or gender groups, and denies the reality of climate change. But populism as a political strategy generates rhetoric against specific climate protection measures.
Such populist claims manifest in urban contexts as critiques of green or sustainable cities. These discrete populist movements highlight the contrast between sustainable city-centre lifestyles and suburban populations reliant on cars. Norwegian party FNB's slogan is ‘a city for all of us’. The party emphasises its dedication to social inclusion, while advocating for the abolition of road tolls. But under this veneer of social inclusivity, FNB in fact favours affluent households and suburban motorists.
In the UK, the Net Zero Scrutiny Group (NZSG) is composed of backbench Conservative Members of Parliament. The Group opposes several government net-zero policies, including ULEZ urban Ultra-Low Emission Zones. NZSG claims banning diesel cars and introducing energy efficiency regulations harms the most vulnerable and worsens the cost-of-living crisis. It argues that current city infrastructure benefits primarily elites, especially those in city centres.
Populist uprisings across the US share the view that urban planners are elites who do not act in the interests of ordinary people
Populist backlash can emerge even in liberal contexts. Residents in the Democratic-leaning cities of Branford, California and Cambridge, Massachusetts, for example, have protested against mixed urban development and light-rail projects. Many have joined populist grassroots movements, citing concerns over environmental initiatives eroding private property rights. Studies show that the various populist uprisings across the US share the view that planners are elites who do not act in the people's interests.
Historically, urban protest movements have safeguarded liberal values. But recent urban populist uprisings against local climate protection measures are doing quite the opposite. Climate activism advocates for the recognition of vulnerable groups, and seeks procedural justice in local climate action decision-making. Yet populists have targeted such activists, demanding what they see as recognition and justice.
Activists demanding climate emergency measures in Arizona face opposition from a radicalised Republican faction that has left Latino and African-American community organisations out of the political decision-making process. This threatens local democracy and hinders the enactment of policies to protect the climate, levy climate-positive taxes, control gun laws, and improve access to abortion.
Urban climate justice activists have also incited backlash responses – from street protests to the spread of misinformation – led and fostered by local populist movements.
Single-issue populist movements use misinformation, fake experts, conspiracy theories and climate denialism to influence public perceptions
Populist parties across the political spectrum have exploited media campaigns and anti-clean energy protests to influence climate policy and energy transition processes. For example, Green Oceans, a Rhode Island-based anti-offshore wind citizens group, obstructs offshore wind investment and development using misinformation, fake experts, conspiracy theories and climate denialism.
So, urban measures to protect the climate often result in populist ideology backlash, either from populist actors who deny climate change and oppose measures to combat it, or within single-issue local party structures.
Climate protection measures such as sustainable urban planning, city-centre diesel bans, and light-rail investment can all end up bolstering support for populist movements. These movements may be disjointed, targeting very specific urban climate issues, but they can still generate new contingents of political support.
The media – conventional and social – help backlash movements influence well-established parties across the political spectrum. This influence can raise awareness of local backlash at national level, and succeed in creating populist voters. Evidence suggests we are extremely likely to see such influence in the very near future.
