Daily Times

It would be a little amiss and slightly convenient to associate populism with the struggles to prevent climate change tout court. The narratives, they have taken hold, might not be mutually exclusive academically, but are poles apart in public opinion. They might share radical undertones aimed at presenting traditional political thought and practice as malfeasance and chicanery but they diverge at one very important stage of the evolution of the socio-political phenomenon in general. This is not to say that movements to protect the Earth’s atmosphere and those against mainstream political governance have not persisted for decades but they certainly gained popular traction at the turn of the century.

They do tend to diverge, however, in terms of public appearance and the roles that the respective flag bearers of each movement have and are playing in sustaining their ambitions. This is slightly ironic if seen juxtaposed with Greta Thunberg’s speech at the UN Climate Summit. The irony that will only serve as content for late-night comedy shows, who will eventually profit off Greta Thunberg’s rise to fame for progressives and notoriety for conservatives.

Such a narrative might not be completely beside the point because despite Greta’s remonstrations echoed across climate strikes, which saw an overwhelming four million take to the streets to support her words. There is a lot more to any plausible political action that can follow. Until adequate political action is taken, taking into consideration the worsening natural state of our planet, climate change will remain in political theory guide books as secondary to notions of realpolitik.

The debate on climate change will, perpetually and unnecessarily, linger round contours, which will benefit nothing but television ratings.

Extinction Rebellion, a relatively younger movement aimed radically to counter climate change deems the issue as one being “Beyond Politics.”

The term is used about more unconventional methods of governance, including citizen assemblies to be constituted for expedited action on climate change policies.

The rhetoric used, however, is one that will not surprisingly be countered, not for its substance or the nature of change it aspires to but the radical presentation of its ideas.

Donald Trump’s twitter response to Great Thunberg’s speech read in as indifferent a tone that can be characterised of him as, “She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see!”

Such is the vicious cycle in play, incorrigibly emblematic of parliamentary democracies.

However, governmental populism and climate change intersect, and do so quite animatedly, especially in response to the very issues they seek to remedy.

Given the urgent nature of the issue, which has been pronounced from international legislative institutions to street protests, the urgency has only been met by ambiguity.

The discomfort of those who want climate change to be at the very top of political agendas ought to be noted. Their campaigns are met, in rhetoric by the president of the largest economy, who has not paid heed to calls for policies on climate change to be implemented, and the president of a country hosting the world’s largest rainforest, who has done little but point fingers, not frame policies to combat change. In all fairness and much to the chagrin of many, Jair Bolsonaro did not keep his stance on climate change any secret during his ascendancy to the top.

Countering that narrative, the movement to protect the Earth’s climate has a voice not afraid to personalise the issue; a key tenet for populist success. It has legislative support in a growing number of countries and increasing awareness among the civil societies of a lot more. People, from a large number of countries, showing up for calls to protest on September 20 and September 27, have shown just that. It does lag on two important fronts.

Greta Thunberg has managed to unite civil societies from across the developed and developing worlds for the struggle against climate change. Nevertheless, the differing nature of socio-political realities and governing models of the various states, those civil societies belong to, require more synchronisation in their efforts.

For instance, scores of people gathered in major urban centres in Pakistan to raise their voices for climate preservation in tandem with fellow ideologues. However, for Pakistan to campaign for climate preservation on similar principles, begs a serious change in the dynamics of manufacturing and production. The revision of which might impede the austerity drive and the government’s current focus on exports. Prime Minister Imran Khan referred to climate change as one of the most daunting challenges facing Pakistan in his address to the UN General Assembly, but any conviction on part of the government is yet to reflect its awareness of climate change among the majority. An article published as part of the Agenda on the World Economic Forum website talks of individual responsibility to tackle climate change. As important as community-based endeavours are to addressing the issue in addition to taking account of corporations, a homogenised resolution to the climate change is, perhaps, more difficult than the latter. For that to be achieved, countries, such as Pakistan, will need to make people aware of climate change at the very basic levels: through education institutions.

Another principle at the heart of the debate on climate change is that of the continuity of any political action taken to combat climate change. The US’s withdrawal from the Paris agreement and the dubious role of its Environmental Protection Agency, which is running its political battles under the guise of climate protection, all the while creating a Potemkin village is a testament to the populist undertones of climate change. Populist movements, oppositional or governmental, tend not to last longer than their leaders.

The struggle for climate protection does differ from its populist undertones in that regard for the realisation of the problem is more widespread and has diffused across political, economic, scientific and social spheres of governance. Greta Thunberg might be the contemporary voice for climate protection, but she will surely be followed by many. Continuity entails financing and funding on unprecedented levels channelled through more responsive legislative bodies. The likes of the Green New Deal, championed most fervently by Bernie Sanders running for the Democratic Presidential Primary, is a profound start. The proposed framework of the deal, still in its infancy, is indicative of financial troubles, which threaten to stymie progress. The engagement of the private sector or the sourcing of funds from an inflated public sector is a debate that runs along not only financial lines but brings into play ideological differences, which will, not surprisingly, hamper progress in developed countries, especially those that have populist influences as part of their governance.

The funding of sustainable projects is an issue, which cannot be discussed in the article given the dearth of space. It is one that the debate on climate protection revolves around. It does, in that regard, call for policies, which can be sustained in the longer run. This is where it diverges most notably from most populist inferences. Climate change will only intensify and so should the conviction of international institutions, governments and civil societies to fight a sustained battle against it.

It would be a little amiss and slightly convenient to associate populism with the struggles to prevent climate change tout court. The narratives, they have taken hold, might not be mutually exclusive academically, but are poles apart in public opinion. They might share radical undertones aimed at presenting traditional political thought and practice as malfeasance and chicanery but they diverge at one very important stage of the evolution of the socio-political phenomenon in general. This is not to say that movements to protect the Earth’s atmosphere and those against mainstream political governance have not persisted for decades but they certainly gained popular traction at the turn of the century.

They do tend to diverge, however, in terms of public appearance and the roles that the respective flag bearers of each movement have and are playing in sustaining their ambitions. This is slightly ironic if seen juxtaposed with Greta Thunberg’s speech at the UN Climate Summit. The irony that will only serve as content for late-night comedy shows, who will eventually profit off Greta Thunberg’s rise to fame for progressives and notoriety for conservatives.

Until adequate political action is taken, climate change will remain, in political theory guide books, secondary to notions of realpolitik

Such a narrative might not be completely beside the point because despite Greta’s remonstrations echoed across climate strikes, which saw an overwhelming four million take to the streets to support her words. There is a lot more to any plausible political action that can follow. Until adequate political action is taken, taking into consideration the worsening natural state of our planet, climate change will remain in political theory guide books as secondary to notions of realpolitik.

The debate on climate change will, perpetually and unnecessarily, linger round contours, which will benefit nothing but television ratings.

Extinction Rebellion, a relatively younger movement aimed radically to counter climate change deems the issue as one being “Beyond Politics.”

The term is used about more unconventional methods of governance, including citizen assemblies to be constituted for expedited action on climate change policies.

The rhetoric used, however, is one that will not surprisingly be countered, not for its substance or the nature of change it aspires to but the radical presentation of its ideas.

Donald Trump’s twitter response to Great Thunberg’s speech read in as indifferent a tone that can be characterised of him as, “She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see!”

Such is the vicious cycle in play, incorrigibly emblematic of parliamentary democracies.

However, governmental populism and climate change intersect, and do so quite animatedly, especially in response to the very issues they seek to remedy.

Given the urgent nature of the issue, which has been pronounced from international legislative institutions to street protests, the urgency has only been met by ambiguity.

The discomfort of those who want climate change to be at the very top of political agendas ought to be noted. Their campaigns are met, in rhetoric by the president of the largest economy, who has not paid heed to calls for policies on climate change to be implemented, and the president of a country hosting the world’s largest rainforest, who has done little but point fingers, not frame policies to combat change. In all fairness and much to the chagrin of many, Jair Bolsonaro did not keep his stance on climate change any secret during his ascendancy to the top.

Countering that narrative, the movement to protect the Earth’s climate has a voice not afraid to personalise the issue; a key tenet for populist success. It has legislative support in a growing number of countries and increasing awareness among the civil societies of a lot more. People, from a large number of countries, showing up for calls to protest on September 20 and September 27, have shown just that. It does lag on two important fronts.

Greta Thunberg has managed to unite civil societies from across the developed and developing worlds for the struggle against climate change. Nevertheless, the differing nature of socio-political realities and governing models of the various states, those civil societies belong to, require more synchronisation in their efforts.

For instance, scores of people gathered in major urban centres in Pakistan to raise their voices for climate preservation in tandem with fellow ideologues. However, for Pakistan to campaign for climate preservation on similar principles, begs a serious change in the dynamics of manufacturing and production. The revision of which might impede the austerity drive and the government’s current focus on exports. Prime Minister Imran Khan referred to climate change as one of the most daunting challenges facing Pakistan in his address to the UN General Assembly, but any conviction on part of the government is yet to reflect its awareness of climate change among the majority. An article published as part of the Agenda on the World Economic Forum website talks of individual responsibility to tackle climate change. As important as community-based endeavours are to addressing the issue in addition to taking account of corporations, a homogenised resolution to the climate change is, perhaps, more difficult than the latter. For that to be achieved, countries, such as Pakistan, will need to make people aware of climate change at the very basic levels: through education institutions.

Another principle at the heart of the debate on climate change is that of the continuity of any political action taken to combat climate change. The US’s withdrawal from the Paris agreement and the dubious role of its Environmental Protection Agency, which is running its political battles under the guise of climate protection, all the while creating a Potemkin village is a testament to the populist undertones of climate change. Populist movements, oppositional or governmental, tend not to last longer than their leaders.

The struggle for climate protection does differ from its populist undertones in that regard for the realisation of the problem is more widespread and has diffused across political, economic, scientific and social spheres of governance. Greta Thunberg might be the contemporary voice for climate protection, but she will surely be followed by many. Continuity entails financing and funding on unprecedented levels channelled through more responsive legislative bodies. The likes of the Green New Deal, championed most fervently by Bernie Sanders running for the Democratic Presidential Primary, is a profound start. The proposed framework of the deal, still in its infancy, is indicative of financial troubles, which threaten to stymie progress. The engagement of the private sector or the sourcing of funds from an inflated public sector is a debate that runs along not only financial lines but brings into play ideological differences, which will, not surprisingly, hamper progress in developed countries, especially those that have populist influences as part of their governance.

The funding of sustainable projects is an issue, which cannot be discussed in the article given the dearth of space. It is one that the debate on climate protection revolves around. It does, in that regard, call for policies, which can be sustained in the longer run. This is where it diverges most notably from most populist inferences. Climate change will only intensify and so should the conviction of international institutions, governments and civil societies to fight a sustained battle against it.

The writer serves as an assistant research officer at the Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI)