(Opinion piece)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At first, environmentalism and right-wing extremism seem worlds apart. Most environmentalists such as us GCE students would consider ourselves as democratic, humanists, and progressive thinkers, invested in addressing climate change, global challenges and working for a sustainable future for all. Meanwhile, right-wing movements downplay or outright deny environmental problems. They typically follow a predictable path: Denial <\/em>(the problem doesn\u2019t exist), Trivialization <\/em>(the problem isn\u2019t that bad), and, in more extreme cases, Inevitability <\/em>(the removal of limits on means\/ \u201cEntgrenzung der Mittel\u201d). It is this latter path – what could be called \u2018unhinged environmentalism\u2019 or eco-fascism\u2014that we must be aware of.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Fortunately, most right-wing political parties (like Germany’s AfD, France\u2019s RN and Poland\u2019s PiS) still deny or trivialize climate change and environmental degradation. While being a hindrance to the sustainability movement, it prevents more radical ideas from infiltrating mainstream debates. We must keep our eyes and ears open for the growing influence of such ideas, particularly online. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important to note that the far-right is a paradoxical one. The views presented here reflect extreme cases. Nonetheless, it\u2019s crucial for environmentalists to understand these arguments to counteract their misuse of terminology, ethics, and democratic values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Environmentalism is not a new topic for far-right movements. Nationalist, anti-immigration, and environmental themes have long been used to promote their agendas. One prominent argument is a Neo-Malthusian perspective, which frames sustainability problems because of resource scarcity and too many people using the resource. Rather than reflecting critically on resource overuse or advocating for shared commons practices, this view leads to exclusion and the securitization of current resource ownership and power structures. Many environmental scientists are familiar with Garrett Hardin\u2019s “Tragedy of the Commons,” which highlights how resources can become overused when people fail to coordinate sustainable practices. What many might not know is that Hardin\u2019s work has been co-opted by right-wing arguments. In one of his lesser-known works \u201cLifeboat Ethics\u201d Hardin argued that wealthier nations cannot afford immigration because, in his analogy, if the lifeboat sinks, everyone is worse off. Such thinking, coming from an \u2018environmentalist,\u2019 is a far cry from what we might expect in the context of social responsibility. Similarly calls for \u201csecuring our lithium supply\u201d by sending troops to mines in the global south are just the tip of the iceberg of nationalists \u201csustainability\u201d ideas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Terrorist attacks in Christchurch (2019) and El Paso (2019) provide horrifying examples of how environmental rhetoric can be weaponized. The manifestos of the attackers heavily referenced environmental issues like soil degradation and overpopulation, suggesting that in their logic environmental problems justify extreme measures against certain populations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Beyond resource scarcity, right-wing extremists have also abused ecological concepts to reinforce their ideologies. The misuse of Darwinian theories in social settings to justify claims of racial superiority is well known, but can also be found in other ecological terminology. For instance, invasive species are used to create hierarchies between people. The \u201cblood and soil\u201d rhetoric of Nazism, which emphasized the connection between people and the environment they grew up in, has resurfaced in modern far-right discourse. Recently, members of France\u2019s Rassemblement National argued that migrants “don\u2019t fit the climate” of the nation or that their presence would destroy the environment, claiming that \u201cmigrants do not value our nature as we do.\u201d This intertwining of nature protection with identity politics reflects a troubling shift in environmental discourse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Historically, nature protection policies such as \u201cprotected areas\u201d have been used as exclusionary tactics in places with marginalized populations, such as Yellowstone National Park or National Parks in India. The concept of “supremacy of Earth over people” was and is used to justify policies that excluded indigenous and local communities from protected lands. Such ideologies, built on the belief that the land should be “preserved” for the “right” people \u2026 we all know where we heard that before.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As the climate crisis intensifies, we see the discourses shift. With increasingly frequent and severe climate events, and the rise of climate-driven migration (\u201cdisaster displacement\u201d), calls for extreme measures will likely gain support. As denialism becomes harder to sustain, we will see more voices advocating for drastic and unhinged solutions in the name of sustainability and survival. This could range from calls to halt migration entirely to demands for control over lithium resources in the Global South to ensure that the Global North maintains its power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this context, extreme measures once considered unthinkable could become more acceptable. The rise of such rhetoric is concerning because it moves previously extremist ideas into the mainstream of debate. A paraphrased Hannah Arendt, \u201cEvery time we put something in the right corner, the rest moves more to the center.\u201d The normalization of extreme ideas, even in the name of environmentalism, holds a significant threat to democratic values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So<\/p>\n\n\n\n What Now?<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, what can we do in response? There are no simple solutions. As environmentalists, scientists, and human beings, we must continue to speak out against the abuse of environmental rhetoric. We must work towards sustainability in ways that honor human rights and inclusivity. We should also advocate for a more transformative approach to sustainability science\u2014one that emphasizes not just urgency of the problems but fairness, equity, and justice in the solutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Much has been written about the potential dangers of alarmist narratives in climate science. We must speak out against politics that separates us <\/em>from them<\/em>. But as we move forward as scientists, activists and citizens, it\u2019s clear that we must find a way to build solution-oriented narratives that prioritize human rights, democratic values, and a vision of sustainability that serves everyone – not just the few.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n This blog post is inspired by conversations, research on the \u201cV\u00f6lkische Szene\u201d from L\u00fcneburg University, and various pieces of literature<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Opinion piece) At first, environmentalism and right-wing extremism seem worlds apart. Most environmentalists such as us GCE students would consider ourselves as democratic, humanists, and progressive thinkers, invested in addressing climate change, global challenges and working for a sustainable future for all. Meanwhile, right-wing movements downplay or outright deny environmental problems. They typically follow a […]<\/p>\nRight Ecologism<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Discourse shifts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n