‘Climate action is too costly’: how the far right and big business are weaponising social instability to block progress

Claim to be verified: "Climate policies are too costly," is a reiterated mantra in the context of political discourse in Europe aimed at framing the ecological transition as burdensome and undesirable. They carry an even greater burden for society than the consequences of inaction, with associated claims of “elitism” and a strict focus on the short-term downsides. 

Context: Researchers have found that policy statements emphasising the disadvantages of climate action and its societal burden may resonate with low-income members and marginalised communities. However, this framing may also aim to delay action on climate change and cast doubt on the feasibility of mitigation. Amid increased concerns about economic and physical insecurity narratives pushing for the deregulation of polluting industries have played into the idea that climate policies will be too costly. For instance, populists are increasingly exploiting resistance to policies perceived as 'elitist' in certain rural areas where people feel they bear the brunt of climate policies.

---

Europeans are “losing faith” in governments to carry through an energy transition that is “fair and effective”, a recent study has found. Across Europe, citizens continue to support climate action but many are feeling increased concerns about economic and physical insecurity, exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic first and the Russian invasion of Ukraine later, all amid a growing surge in right wing and populist power.

In particular, research by independent economic think tank Bruegel found that in France, Italy, Germany, Sweden and Poland, instances of climate denial and skepticism are higher among supporters of the far-right parties, despite the differences in their role in the five countries. 

Few far-right parties openly deny climate change, though some, like the AfD in Germany, still reject the science outright. More commonly, these parties oppose climate policies by invoking economic risks or industry interests.

In May this year, Giorgia Meloni of the far-right Brothers of Italy party and the country’s prime minister declared, “I have often said that in a desert there is nothing green.” “We must fight the desertification of European industry,” she added.

The French Rassemblement National (RN), Marine Le Pen’s far-right party, has argued environmental protection penalizes economic growth, and has called the European Green Deal a tool of “punitive ecology.” 

Anti-climate messaging: weaponising insecurity and social protection

Anti-climate propaganda is often not about climate change or climate policies per se. 

“It’s a useful tool in order to polarise against a scientific elite that is considered liberal, and rally opposition to policies that are seen as anti-market,” explains Alexander Ruser, professor at the Department of Sociology and Social Work at the University of Agder in Norway, and one of the authors of the recent book The Global Rise of Autocracy. 

“This ties in with the fact that rejection of scientific authorities is on the rise. People are suspicious about the motives of politicians,” he added. 

Studies confirm that, by adopting an “adversarial stance”, radical right-wing parties have increasingly politicised climate change as a so-called “wedge issue,” questioning the mainstream party consensus and fueling voter concerns over green policies.

Policy statements that emphasise the downsides of climate action and place emphasis on its burden for society may resonate for low-income citizens and marginalised communities, researchers have found. This framing may also have the aim to delay action on climate, and raise doubts on whether mitigation is possible in the first place.

---

---

Ruser echoed this, and said that a lack of social justice foundations within climate policy planning and implementation will disproportionately affect people who cannot afford the green transition, making these people the “targets” of political groups.

However, when political representatives talk about climate crisis responses that also address other issues of concern to voters, such as the cost of living, they are likely to gain support, experts say. 

These findings also align with studies showing how the public in Europe, and globally, continues to strongly support climate action, but this deteriorates in the face of the cost-of-living crisis or when policies are perceived as unjust.

“When [climate] policies are not designed with social justice as part of the plan they’re very easy to weaponize against climate action in the broader sense,” said John Hyland, communications officer at Greenpeace Europe. 

While climate action is still a priority for a majority of voters in Europe, populists try to exploit skepticism towards specific measures, another analysis by Clean Energy Wire (CLEW) has found. 

For example, populists are increasingly “capitalising” on resistance to policies that are seen as “elitist” in some rural areas, and where people feel they are the ones who bear the brunt of climate policies, said Daphne Halikiopoulou, Chair of Comparative Politics at the University of York, in an interview with CLEW. 

According to a study published in May, farmers in “high-GDP” countries face increasing pressure for higher costs due to environmental regulations which, in turn, may adversely affect trust and support for climate action. This increasing pressure on farmers, the researchers say, has been an important factor in the context of the farm protests in the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and Germany. 

“When the farmers’ protests were starting in France, and spread around Europe, is when we started seeing the split in narrative going against climate and environmental protection,” Hyland said. 

Politics and industry narratives align: “simplification” and “competitiveness” 

Over the past few years, politicians at the European level have also “mimicked” industry arguments. 

In a 2024 report, research group InfluenceMap found a trend of conservative policymakers mirroring industry narratives on European policy regulating polluting emissions from the agricultural sector.

“Ursula von der Leyen’s European People’s Party (EPP) adopted similar language and positions pushed by industry on issues like the Ukraine war, food security, and on anti-regulation, as well as specific policies like the farm to fork strategy and the sustainable food systems framework,” said Venetia Roxbourgh, program manager on the issues of corporate engagement on climate change policy at InfluenceMap. 

For example, the EPP stated in a May 2023 press release: “We support a green transition for the farming sector. But many of the legislative proposals put forward by the Commission are poorly targeted and will do more harm to our food production than good to our environment. Also, as the proposals pile up, the combined effect creates an asphyxiating bureaucratic burden.”

---

“When [climate] policies are not designed with social justice as part of the plan they’re very easy to weaponize against climate action in the broader sense” – John Hyland, Greenpeace

---

These narratives play into the messaging that climate policies will be a burden, and also align with the current EU trend for “simplification.” 

“They [the EU Commission] have been very clear, this is ‘simplification, this is not deregulation’, and I feel that every time they say this is not deregulation, it’s just more and more convincing that this is exactly what this is, and the more I am concerned,” said Silvia Pastorelli, EU petrochemicals campaigner at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL).  

Together with “simplification”, the other “big mantra” in European politics is “competitiveness”, said Kenneth Haar, researcher and campaigner in economic and social justice at Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), an advocacy group calling out the EU political agenda as “a campaign for deregulation” by the industry. 

The term “competitiveness” appears 42 times in the Commission’s report outlining Ursula von der Leyen’s political guidelines for the next five years. 

“[The current EU agenda] gives a sense of where the political priorities are compared to the previous [mandate], clearly climate is not driving the agenda anymore for many different reasons. Competitiveness is one of the main priorities at the moment,” said Elisa Giannelli, Programme Lead in Clean Economy and EU Politics at E3G. 

The EU’s strategy also mirrors the industry narrative that “climate policy risks competitiveness”, another report by InfluenceMap has revealed. 

Industry associations representing sectors such as chemicals, construction, and automotives at the EU level, as well as cross-sector industry associations advocating for business interests in specific EU countries including Italy, Germany, and France, have opposed policy by using arguments that emphasize the potential negative impact of climate policies on European “competitiveness,” as well as promoting ambiguous terminology in policies to “leave the door” open for fossil fuel expansion.

For example, Confindustria, MEDEF, and Airlines for Europe frequently emphasised the need to protect “competitiveness” when pushing for weaker EU carbon pricing and emission reduction policies, the InfluenceMap research has highlighted.

At a Confindustria conference in May, PM Giorgia Meloni  said: “It is crucial for the competitiveness of the entire European production system to have the courage to challenge and correct an ideological approach to energy transition that has caused enormous damage without producing the decried environmental benefits.”

“The right and far-right have been repeating the attack lines that regulations equal high costs, and therefore deregulation equals affordability,” said Pascoe Sabido, climate and lobbying researcher and campaigner at CEO. 

“In a cost-of-living crisis, when families and small businesses are struggling to pay their energy bills, this resonates, but it’s a complete misrepresentation of where the high costs come from and how in fact regulations can protect us from being exploited even further by big business,” he added.  

Based on IPCC findings, there is no evidence of an impact by climate policy on international competitiveness as of 2022. 

“The polluter gets paid” 

A European policy line pushing for “competitiveness”, as well as “simplification”, is the result of “existing exchanges between the Commission, the Council, and business lobby groups over the past two years,” CEO argues. 

Big business has been a key player in shaping recent EU initiatives, such as the recent Clean Industrial Deal (CID), released in February, which focuses on energy-intensive industries and aims, among other things, to lower energy prices, boost demand for low-carbon products and finance the clean transition.

The plan stems from the Antwerp Declaration, a call by 73 businesses across sectors including BASF, Bayer, Equinor and Shell one year before the CID was published.

“Industrialists met in Antwerp. They made a very clear call to the European Commission saying ‘you need to support the industry more’, […] and to a certain extent this is understandable, the green transition has lots of challenges […] on the other hand, this is very clearly an industry-led initiative,” Pastorelli argued.

According to CEO, the CID is “a manifesto written by polluters, for polluters”, and instead of the “polluter pays” principle, it “prioritises the ‘polluter gets paid’, leaving the public to foot the huge bill for the health and environmental consequences of chemical pollution.”

“Social protection is another element that is constantly a weakness for policy, broadly speaking. And we didn’t really see any game changer when it comes to addressing those structural challenges, […] it will hopefully come up in other proposals [by the EU] that we are expecting this year,” Giannelli of E3G said.

Climate advocates and researchers mostly concur that climate policies centered on social justice can help combat the increasing threat of politicians aiming to oppose climate action.

According to E3G, Europe’s transition is unfolding unevenly, with national governments often prioritizing short-term interests over a coordinated EU approach. Furthermore, far-right and vested interests use societal tensions and socio-economic issues “to undermine the green transition.”  

In Germany, for example, disaffection with politics has allowed populists to challenge and undermine mainstream views, including on climate change.

Narratives that play into the messaging that people will bear the brunt of climate policies actively fail to take into account that climate policy can and must align with socioeconomic protection.

Environmental policies need to consider the social and economic impacts on society in order to guarantee equity and protection of all parts of society through the transition to a greener and cleaner economy, a report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) underscored. Without these considerations, policies can leave vulnerable parts of the population behind. 

Climate policies that are equitable and redistributive can strengthen social inclusion by protecting the most vulnerable households, according to another analysis by the French Conseil national des politiques de lutte contre la pauvreté et l’exclusion sociale (CNLE). More research by E3G in Denmark and Poland shows that delivering homes that are both affordable and sustainable is feasible.        

“In regions that do not have the human capacity to often manage the energy and financial transition, efforts to a cleaner economy are already proving beneficial,” Giannelli said. “Climate can be part of the solution to address all the challenges.”  

This article was produced with the support of the European Media and Information Fund (EMIF). It may not necessarily reflect the positions of the EMIF and the Fund Partners, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and the European University Institute. The sole responsibility for any content supported by the European Media and Information Fund lies with the author(s) and it may not necessarily reflect the positions of the EMIF and the Fund Partners, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and the European University Institute.