‘America last.’
‘Cultural Marxism.’
‘Tofu-eating wokeri.’
There is an endless list of quotes like these that have been muttered out by politicians when describing the climate movement [3]. In many ways, they perfectly encapsulate the way climate change has been, and in many parts of the world still is, co-opted into the culture war. Unlike an outright denial of the science, making climate change a culture war issue moves it into the realm of the personal and political [3]. It ceases to be a debate about science and carbon dioxide, instead becoming about beliefs, values and worldviews [7]. Through this culture war frame, climate action is an affront to human liberties and a threat to perceived traditions and interests [1].
This article seeks to break down the climate culture war – its roots, its proliferation across borders and how we might overcome it.
What is a culture war?
Put simply, a culture war is a clash between groups with opposing cultural or social values and beliefs [11]. It results in ideological polarisation that has implications for how one aligns themselves politically [11, 12].
Many trace the modern culture wars to the Civil Rights Movement in America, a period in which marginalised groups were demanding equal rights, alongside feminist and gay rights, all of which challenged normative American values [13]. Such demands were met with backlash, particularly from Christian and religious groups who felt their way of life was being undermined and that the nation was no longer on their side [13].
And so, gradually, a rift emerged and solidified between religious conservatives and social progressives [13]. In the 1980s, the Republican Party grew increasingly aligned with the former, understanding that they could gain a lot of political traction from religious groups by speaking about issues that resonated on a personal level [13]. Since then, a range of other issues – from abortion to gender to sexuality – have been central fronts in the culture war.
Scientific vs social consensus on climate change
And now to climate change. Before diving into the way climate change has also been swept up into the culture war, it is useful to first understand how people process and accept information about climate change.
On one level, there is the science – the IPCC reports, technical assessments and rational analyses of the risks we face [1,7]. But to assume that it is only science and rational facts that shape our beliefs would be to miss a significant chunk of the picture [7]. Ultimately, people are not only guided by scientific and rational assessments but by their personal experiences, values and culture [1].
Origins of the climate culture war
After the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, these latter factors became far more influential in shaping the public’s acceptance of climate change [2,8]. This is because, for the first time, climate change became an issue that affected political and economic elites [8]. Governments were required to set legally binding emissions reduction targets, which threatened the material interests of fossil fuel companies, who had up until then largely benefited from lax regulation and little interference from government [8]. Before Kyoto, climate change was largely the prerogative of scientists [2].
Once the economy was implicated in climate change, those with vested interests – chiefly right-wing politicians and the conservative media – began framing climate action as a Big Government response designed to impinge on individual freedoms and ways of life [9]. In doing so, they exploited an ingrained cultural tension between what Graves and Smith describe as ‘open progressivism’ and ‘ordered populism’ [1]. Those with an ‘open progressivism’ outlook are open to new ways of thinking, new value systems and different ways of organising society [1]. By contrast, the ‘ordered populist’ outlook is anti-elite, conservative and prefers tradition over change [1]. Those that fall into the latter category are generally more right-leaning and rooted in resource-dependent industries and communities [1].
Several authors talk about this as the ‘post-truth discourse’, where facts and rational arguments “lose their currency” in the public and political debate [1]. Climate science is still there – and still accepted by many – but takes a backseat while factors such as identity, symbolism and values determine how one perceives the climate change issue.
In some ways, it is more harmful than outright denial of the science because one finds oneself debating ideologies rather than clarifying facts and evidence.
Below are some examples of climate-related policy interventions in developed Western countries that were dragged into the culture war:
- Low-traffic neighbourhoods: The concept of the ‘15-minute city’, which was meant to be a tool to create more resilient and walkable cities, received backlash in several countries, such as the UK, Germany, the USA and Canada [4]. In parts of Canada, 15-minute cities were framed as an attempt to introduce ‘climate lockdowns’ akin to ‘covid lockdowns’ and as a way for governments to further regulate and undermine basic individual freedoms [1,4]
- Taxation of fuel use and emissions: Opponents of these taxes claim that they threaten entrenched ways of life, and forms of identity and status for many [1]. In Australia, for example, the proposed National Vehicle Emission Standard (NVES) was criticised by the liberal national coalition as an unfair tax that would hurt families and their way of life [5]
Add to this are some other absurd arguments that have been put forward by various right-leaning groups:
- Green energy is a conspiracy against the American way of life [6]
- Earth Day is a communist plot because it’s on the same day as Vladimir Lenin’s birthday [7]
- The principal cause of the 2022/2023 Canadian Wildfires was arson, not greenhouse gas emissions, and this was a way to give government officials more control over the public [1]
Winning social acceptance of climate change
With global temperatures breaking new records and climate-driven disasters intensifying, the need for broad consensus and collective action on climate change could not be more imperative. Yet we still seem a long way off consensus. One only needs to look at the seeds of division that have been sown in America and continue to be watered by Trump, particularly on the climate issue [14].
So where do we go from here?
Listening to others and creating spaces for constructive dialogue would be a good start [1]. It is clear that debates rooted in ideological positions are not going to help, but it is also clear that the topic stirs up feelings of anxiety, anger and a sense of being left behind – especially for workers in the fossil fuel industry [1].
Expanding the use of Climate Assemblies and other deliberative processes to explore these feelings and concerns, while also working towards agreement on the need for political action, could offer a more promising pathway to action [1]. There are many examples across the world of local climate assemblies breaking political deadlocks on the issue [10].
Time is not on our side, but we have to start somewhere. Without a broad social mandate for action, any government trying to do the right thing is going to face backlash [9].
