The last decade has seen a dramatic increase in the presence of populist and authoritarian political actors in the European Union. This trend has also had a major impact on topics that were once the domain of the academic community. and environmental movements – nature conservation and climate change. What used to be a scholarly debate about biodiversity and emissions has, in the hands of populists, turned into a fierce political battlefield where facts mix with emotions and identity politics.

What is environmental populism?

Populism is defined in political science as an ideology that sees society as divided into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups: „good people“ and „corrupt elites.“ Environmental populism takes this concept and applies it to environmental protection. In this discourse, topics such as protecting forests or combating emissions become tools for depicting the gap between ordinary citizens and distant elites.

This phenomenon manifests itself in two ways: either populist politicians use environmental issues to mobilize their voters, or pro-environmental movements themselves use the populist discourse of the struggle of „the people against the elites.“ While right-wing populism is often associated with climate skepticism, left-wing populism (e.g., the Fridays for Future movement) uses antagonism towards economic elites to advance radical climate goals.

The main pillars of the populist narrative

The populist radical right in Europe most often frames environmental policies through four key threats:

• Economic damage: The argument that nature conservation destroys industry, agriculture, and takes people's jobs.
• Green patriotism: Referring to national identity through symbols of forests and mountains, while rejecting transnational climate commitments.
• Threat to national sovereignty: Portraying environmental regulations as dictated by Brussels or international institutions.
• Dissatisfaction with scientific discourse: Questioning scientific consensus and institutions like the IPCC in favor of "common sense.".

Battlefield in practice: Examples from the EU

Spain and attacks on meteorologists In Spain, there has been an alarming increase in hate speech and attacks on social media against meteorologists and climatologists. One study found that almost 18% of the hate messages on social media contained personal attacks and disparagement of experts who share credible scientific information. This „chilling effect“ can discourage scientists from communicating with the public, ultimately limiting citizens’ access to quality information about the climate crisis.

Germany and the "common sense" AfD The German AfD party often uses folk wisdom in its rhetoric and questions mainstream climate science, undermining trust in democratic institutions and scientific authorities, while portraying climate action as hysterical and conspiratorial.

Slovakia and the reform of national parks Slovakia presents a fascinating case study of environmental populism in the context of the 2021 national park reform. The debate in parliament revealed a strong anti-elitist discourse directed against scientific institutions and NGOs. Activists and experts were labeled as „eco-terrorists“ or a „professional environmental mafia“ allegedly acting in foreign interests and seeking to destroy the Slovak countryside.

The people were defined in this case exclusively as the rural population, whose traditional way of life was threatened by the "Bratislava" or "Brussels" reforms. The rhetoric of some politicians included apocalyptic visions of rural depopulation and loss of food self-sufficiency, which were intended to arouse fear and aversion to nature conservation in people.

Psychology and denial tactics

Populists often use the so-called "eco-conservation" in their campaign against nature conservation. „a "playbook" of lies, which they have adopted from the tobacco industry in the 1950s. Their goal is not necessarily to disprove the science, but to sow doubt and bring about political action to stop the action.

Scientific framework FLICC identifies five main techniques of science denial:

1. Fake Experts: Presenting unqualified individuals as authorities on climate.
2. Logical Fallacies: Using flawed arguments, such as claiming that if it gets cold in the winter, global warming doesn't exist.
3. Impossible Expectations: Requiring unrealistically high standards of certainty before taking action.
4. Selective data selection (Cherry Picking): Selecting only those data that confirm a skeptical stance and ignoring the overall scientific consensus.
5. Conspiracy Theories: The claim about secret plans of elites to dominate the world through the climate agenda.

It also plays a key role motivated thinking. People tend to believe information that is consistent with their identity and ideology, and reject facts that threaten them. For many rural residents, a no-intervention regime in forests can be perceived as an attack on their identity as farmers, which populists exploit masterfully.

Socio-economic dimension: „Those who have been forgotten“

Environmental populism draws strength from economic marginalization and insecurity. Many of the populist voters work in energy-intensive industries or agriculture, where the green transition brings insecurity. Populists position themselves as the sole defenders of these „losers of globalization,“ portraying climate policies as yet another instrument of elite discrimination.

In the Slovak parliament, this narrative was repeatedly heard: „You are going to drive people out of the countryside! You just think of them as losers and idiots!“ Such polarization creates a barrier to any meaningful discussion about climate change adaptation, because every expert solution is immediately labeled as a political attack on the common man.

How to counter environmental populism?

Combating climate disinformation is complex and requires a concerted effort from governments, institutions and individuals. Key strategies should include:

• Increasing scientific literacy: Better education about scientific methods can make the public less vulnerable to political propaganda.
• Transparent communication: Scientists and journalists must explain the facts clearly and avoid a "false balance" where the media gives equal space to scientific facts and unverified myths.
• Focus on the benefits: Communication about climate action should focus on concrete benefits for people, such as better health or energy security, instead of spreading fear.
• Community engagement: A real discussion with people in rural areas and finding fair solutions for employees in vulnerable sectors can take the wind out of the populists' sails.

Environmental populism in the EU is not just about denying scientific facts, it is a deep political conflict for power, identity and a vision of the future. When nature conservation becomes a political battleground, the first casualty is truth and the second is our environment. To overcome this crisis in 2025 and beyond, it is essential to return to science-based policies that do not forget social justice and respect for the people directly affected by these changes. Only in this way can we secure a sustainable future for future generations without irreversibly dividing society. JRi&CO2AI