Fighting fire with fire: A pro-climate populist manifesto
With climate scepticism resurgent, evidence and reason may not be enough to maintain momentum in the drive toward net-zero.
Photo by Aziz Acharki on Unsplash
Last week I posted a blog suggesting that we’ve won the battle to convince the public that climate change is both real and in need of urgent solutions. It's been won largely by using solid, relentless, scientific and empirical evidence. My contention, however, was that the same kind of evidence wouldn’t be enough to win adequate public support for the kind of climate solutions the world needs. For that, I argued, we need economics.
I stand by that. But, well, Trump. As a recent speech by U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright made clear, U.S. climate and energy policy is now firmly based on the falsehood that climate change isn’t a big deal.
The United States, while not dictating energy policy to the rest of the world, has the loudest voice, and there’s a risk that those in Washington denying climate change will impact global public opinion, at least temporarily. That could limit political appetite for action everywhere.
It’s possible that in this less-than-brave new world, using facts and reason—whether scientific or economic—to make the case for continued climate action may not be sufficient. Fire may need to be fought with fire, populism with populism. If so, it’s time to think about what a pro-climate populist approach might look like.
There are at least four angles a pro-climate populist approach might take:
elite hypocrisy;
conspiracy and grievance;
nationalist protectionism; and
short-term financial self-interest.
The first two are well-established among climate activists and there are many ways they can be updated and refreshed for the prevailing political climate. The second two are less obvious but offer fertile ground to mobilise popular support for meaningful change.
Let’s start with “elite hypocrisy.” One of populism’s core elements is its emphasis on championing the common folk and defending them from the hypocritical elite. Anti-climate populists have had lots to work with here, exemplified by the slogan of France’s Gilets Jaunes: “The elites worry about the end of the world. We worry about the end of the month.” They say the Devil has the best tunes; populists usually have the best sound bites.
But there’s also scope for an alternative, pro-climate critique of the elites, based on the fact that the wealthiest 1% of the population produces as much planet-heating pollution as two-thirds of humanity[i]. Climate activists have done a reasonable job of pointing this out so far. But the approach still has plenty of potential to be further turbocharged by tapping the public’s seemingly insatiable desire to feel aggrieved. A pro-climate populist, for example, wouldn’t be content just linking the recent wildfires in Los Angeles with climate change. They’d go further: trumpeting the poetic justice being meted out to the city’s wealthiest residents as their homes are destroyed by the forces unleashed by conditions that they play a disproportionate role in creating. Not the most sympathetic take on the disaster, but more memorable and therefore perhaps more effective.
They knew, they lied, make them pay
PR company Edelman’s most recent research[ii] on the drivers and recipients of public trust uncovers unprecedented levels of mass grievance against governments, elites and the rich. This suggests a second possible approach for pro-climate populism, conspiracy: identify specific villains responsible for climate change.
Anyone searching for conspiracy or villains needn’t look very far, as fossil fuel interests once again find favour at the highest levels of the U.S. government. Whereas in recent years, Big Oil has been on the back foot, Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” mantra sees the sector back in the ascendancy. Pro-climate populists have a new opportunity to puncture the nuanced propositions put forward by fossil fuel apologists and champions like ExxonMobil CEO’s Darren Woods with a simple slogan (thanks here to Outrage + Optimism): “They knew. They lied. Make them pay.”
(I argued in a previous post that climate change is such a systemic problem it’s inappropriate to load all the blame on fossil fuel companies. But, for the purposes of this thought experiment, I’m a populist. Anything goes.)
So far, so conventional. But there are two, even more powerful themes, pro-climate populists could harness:
Trump’s relentless focus on expanding tariffs has reinforced economic nationalism’s place as a powerful plank in the populist platform. Trump, Wright, and others argue that the climate lobby’s opposition to fossil fuels has made the U.S. less competitive. But a counterargument can be made that leading the charge on carbon emissions is one of America’s competitive strengths.
Rather than (or perhaps in addition to) imposing new tariffs on all manner of trading partners, pro-climate populists could call for Trump to impose a climate pollution tariff on imports from any country with higher emissions relative to GDP. That would result in U.S. tariffs against virtually every trading partner but the European Union and the United Kingdom.
Such tariffs would resemble the E.U.’s own Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism and have the added benefit of being within World Trade Organisation guidelines. Although as populists touting economic nationalism, we’d likely avoid mentioning any precedents that suggest foreign influence or recognise international authority.
The last plank of our pro-climate populist manifesto is perhaps the most radical, and potentially the most popular: aggressively taxing carbon consumption and distributing the proceeds to citizens on a per-capita basis. I’ve written about this approach at length here, but to summarise:
Dividend payments, such as those proposed by the big business-backed Climate Leadership Council, would pay each U.S. household as much as $2,000 a year[iii]. Importantly from a populist’s point of view, these tax rebates would go directly into the pockets of each taxpayer, and not to special interests--which is where subsidies go. Even better, they’d be progressive: since payments are flat, they represent more to less-affluent households than wealthier ones, and more to those with a lower carbon footprint than to higher-consuming, higher-emitting households. And best of all, by putting money into people’s pockets, carbon dividends are likely to generate wider public support for pro-climate policies.
Each of these approaches has pros and cons. But taken together, they have the potential to establish a strong counter-narrative to that of the anti-climate populists in the U.S. and elsewhere. Readers will likely have additional ideas - and I’d love to hear them.
But I also have two big issues. First, taking such a populist approach risks the same kind of over-simplified extremism and intellectual dishonesty that has made activists like Just Stop Oil so unpopular among mainstream voters.
And as a card-carrying member of the educated, liberal elite, I am profoundly uncomfortable with “going low” with a populist approach, when the values I learned growing up and hope I have imparted to my own children say, “go high.”
Could elements of this approach be effective? Do the ends justify the means? My gut says “possibly,” and “no.” But I’m conflicted: Can we afford to adhere to such scruples in this fight? I thought I knew. Now I’m not so sure. What do you think?
[i] https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-emit-much-planet-heating-pollution-two-thirds-humanity
[ii] https://www.edelman.com/news-awards/2025-edelman-trust-barometer-reveals-high-level-grievance