All climate scientists say that no political party (apart from Greens who won’t get into power anytime soon) are too weak, even the Lib Dems. And in the US, Democrats don’t go far enough. Donald Trump (who has no science background whatsoever) believes that climate change is a hoax (he’s even claimed once that China invented it to make more sales).
Republicans overall don’t see it as an issue (strange considering this right-wing ‘for the family’ party don’t seem to be aware that if we get catastrophic events like floods and wildfires even worse, they will lose their families as we will all die). Although Republican voters do support some clean energy, this appears only if also supporting local oil/gas drilling too, to build the economy.
Public Opinion and Political Influence
Public opinion affects political decisions more than you might realise. Politicians keep a close eye on voter attitudes when crafting policies or campaigning for office.
Polls regularly reveal shifting public views on climate change. Studies show younger generations are more likely to consider it a priority. For example, surveys from groups like Pew Research Centre report a significant rise in public concern over extreme weather and rising sea levels. However, opinions are often divided along party lines, especially in countries like the US, where political polarisation is high.
Concern over climate change influences how people vote. In recent elections, more voters have prioritised candidates with green agendas. In countries like Germany, environmental parties have gained traction due to growing awareness. On the flip side, populist parties often target sceptics by downplaying climate issues. These patterns show climate policies are becoming a greater factor in election outcomes.
Global Perspectives on Climate Change
Political views on climate change aren’t just a domestic issue. They vary greatly depending on the country and its priorities.
The EU is often seen as a global leader in climate action. Its Green Deal aims to make Europe carbon-neutral by 2050. Policies include taxing polluters, transitioning to renewable energy, and funding sustainable projects. Most European nations strongly support these plans, reflecting their shared commitment to fighting climate change.
In the US, climate policy has shifted with each administration. President Biden re-joined the Paris Agreement and rolled out ambitious green energy plans. However, climate change remains a polarising issue in the US, with Republicans often opposing new environmental rules. This divide creates challenges in passing long-term policies.
Developing nations face a unique dilemma. Many want to grow their economies but struggle to do so sustainably. For them, climate action often competes with immediate needs like poverty reduction and infrastructure development. Countries like India and Brazil are working to balance these goals. They seek international support, such as funding and technology, to build greener economies.
Young people are driving change. Movements like Fridays for Future, started by Greta Thunberg, show the strength of youth activism. Younger voters want bold action on climate, and their influence in elections is growing. As they take on leadership roles, their priorities could transform climate politics.
Climate Party is a new political party, with a commitment to net zero in 2030 (not 2050 like most parties want), while also restoring Britain’s nature and protecting our waterways from pollution.
It’s different from Greens in that it has ‘far-left’ other policies, and is more concerned with gaining centre-left and centre-right voters who care about the planet.
Leader Ed Gemmell is a lawyer and ex-army officer and entrepreneur who is also a Buckinghamshire councillor (the only one in England elected on purely climate policies).
What Are Political Policies on Climate Science?
Conservatives score low. Although they would ban incinerators and enact the Global Ocean Treaty, the party still wishes to grant new oil and gas licenses, and has few policies for home insulation, public transport, sewage pollution and nature protection.
Labour don’t fare much better (since being elected, they have ripped up planning laws). We do need more houses on brownfield land, but now they are going to let councils destroy countryside to build more homes. And instead of insulating homes, they are going to cut winter fuel allowances for people just above Pension Credit, which could literally mean some people freeze to death. The party also has no real concrete plans to cut plastic waste and over-fishing.
Lib Dems surprisingly may still allow oil and gas licenses, and its plans on protecting our oceans are very vague. It does however have policies for improving public transport and excellent plans to tackle sewage pollution in rivers and seas.
Greens (now 4 MPs) unsurprisingly have good environmental policies all round. But Greenpeace says it needs to be clearer on how it would help people on low incomes deal with higher bills and home insulation. One reason why they don’t many votes is the only policy seems to be ‘tax the rich’ (good in theory, but it’s not usually popular or creative enough to win votes for middle England).
Reform UK now has 5 MPs, focused nearly always on immigration. But what is its climate policies? It has surprisingly good policies for supporting local food and farmers to avoid supermarket dominance. But that is tempered by wanting to fast-track oil and gas licenses (at odds with the science on reducing climate change). And not really have many plans to protect nature and wildlife. Scarily, one of its plans is to build small nuclear reactors?
Animal Welfare Party has good environmental policies including an end to factory farming (one of the main emissions of fossil fuels) as well as a ban on fracking, net zero by 2030 (which would not push bills up if done sensibly), cancelling a third Heathrow runway and HS2 (not good for climate change), along with better public transport.
Reclaim Party (the one run by actor Laurence Fox) alarmingly writes in its manifesto there ‘is no climate emergency’ (there is, ask Dr John above, who is more qualified to speak on this issue that affects the world). Again it promotes nuclear power and fracking (as long as local people consent – which they would not on their own doorstep as fracking causes cancer and your tap water to sometimes go on fire).
Reasons Why the Kyoto Protocol Failed
You’ve likely heard of the Kyoto Climate Protocol, but what exactly is it? It’s true that the main way to stop climate change is to live simply ourselves, but when massive countries like China and the USA are causing more pollution than us, it’s important to put some legal actions into play.
The Kyoto Protocol set targets on carbon emissions for each developed country, but it ran into problems from the outset, when Congress in the USA did not want to have to play ball, so they could continue to support the automobile and airline industries. In the end, the USA did not really get involved. And since then other treaties have had little success.
Why is this? Because you can’t rely on any government to solve climate change, as always there are too many vested interests (same with the media). Ecological writer Satish Kumar quotes Einstein in that ‘you can’t solve a problem, using the same thinking that created it’. We have to go back to learning that we must work with nature.
Kumar writes that all governments look to ‘replacing nuclear and fossil fuel power’ with sun and wind power. But ultimately the real way to address climate change and reduce carbon emissions is by creating walkable communities with local food shops (no oil needed for transport nor oil to ferry goods from central distribution houses to supermarkets with big oil-powered fridges).
It’s about getting back to basics, forgetting about economic growth and living simple, sustainable lives. And we can only do that en-masse with a change of attitude on what’s important in life. Not by ferrying politicians all over the world in first-class aeroplanes to create ‘treaties’ that the biggest and most polluting countries never take any notice of anyway.
The Uninspiring Politics of Climate Change
Politicians often make sweeping declarations about their commitments to climate action during election campaigns. These pledges, capturing the dreams of a cleaner, greener future, are omnipresent in party manifestos. But what happens when the cheering stops, and it’s time to translate these words into tangible action?
Climate Radicals is a unique book, that bravely asks whether some environmental politicians are actually harming the cause of preventing climate change, due to disappointing policies, despite good intentions.
In Germany, voters consider the planet a major issue and has some of the most powerful Greens in government, so the country should be a world leader in combating climate change, but this has not been the case. So what has happened?
This large European country is full of eco-activists who demand the immediate phase out of coal mines and there are often school strikes and other demonstrations. But change comes from ‘boring policy acts’, not demonstrations.
Despite the US obviously having huge environmental political issues, Joe Biden’s climate change act actually has done more to reduce climate change than the Green-led German politicians. Why is this?
Why does radical protest not lead to policy change? How can real policy change happen, without movement on the streets? Adam Tooze (history professor, Columbia University)
This close-up study of German climate politics, reveals an obsession with performance over policy. Kirkus Reviews
Cameron Abadi is a deputy editor at Foreign Policy, and has worked as a freelance correspondent in Germany and Iran. He lives in Germany.