In 2015, then–presidential candidate Donald Trump called climate change ‘a hoax.’ If he wins office in November, he pledges to to boost domestic oil production and repeal the Inflation Reduction Act—a major piece of green legislation. Analysis by Carbon Brief indicates that a Trump victory could lead to an additional 4 billion tonnes of carbon emissions by 2030 (equivalent to the combined annual emissions of the EU and Japan), resulting in global climate damages of $900 billion.
Trump is far from being the only one denying climate change. Far-right parties opposing climate action are gaining significant momentum worldwide, especially in Western nations including Argentina, Italy, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK. It is particularly noteworthy that despite their differing domestic agendas, these parties are unified in their resistance to climate initiatives.
The contemporary far-right’s turn against the environment is a major break from the past. During the 1980s, traditional conservatives, like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, showed an interest in addressing environmental issues. In 1987, Reagan helped to secure global approval of the Montreal Protocol, which phased out most ozone-depleting substances. In a famous address to the UN General Assembly in 1989, Thatcher called for ‘a vast international, co-operative effort’ to save the planet because ‘[e]very country will be affected and that no one should opt out of the fight against climate change.’
However, the contemporary far-right often argues that climate action would infringe on personal choice, disrupt traditional industries, and threaten conservative principles. So, what has changed since the 1980s? What drives climate deniers today?
This article highlights three common factors that influence the contemporary far-right’s stance on climate action that transcend geographical, cultural, and economic boundaries: 1) scepticism about the costs, 2) anti-globalist sentiments, and 3) economic interests.
First, right-wing conservatives are starting to balk at the rapidly increasing costs of climate action. In the 1980s, climate action did not require immediate and drastic changes because the effects were still far-off. In her 1989 speech, for example, Thatcher spoke about ‘the prospect of irretrievable damage’ to the planet and called for future emissions reductions. Today, those irrevocable damages are becoming real—with twenty of the warmest years on record falling in the past twenty-two years. The world probably has only a few more years to avert the worst of climate crisis. Consequently, the actions required to avert environmental disaster are more drastic and the costs more immediate. They will require major transformation to both individual and national ways of life, from the management of household waste to transportation and energy.
As supporters of the far-right often hold traditional or ultra-conservative values, they are often sceptics towards these massively disruptive green policies. Right-wing politicians have expressed their frustrations and are abandoning their commitment to the planet.
To appease frustrations within its voter base, the Conservative Party, led by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, has weakened the UK’s climate goals. As a result, the British government has shifted the deadline for phasing out the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035 and issued new licenses for oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. These changes speak to perceptions among Conservatives that adopting electric vehicles is burdensome and unnecessary, while more ‘drilling’ signals continuity to the fossil-fuel industry.
Second, the isolationist stance commonly taken by contemporary far-right politicians represents a significant obstacle to global climate action. They view international cooperation as both a threat to national sovereignty and an overreach of government power—two powerful, emotional appeals that can overwhelm evidence-based policy discourse. Right-wing politicians frequently portray typically pro-climate stakeholders—such as the UN, scientists, and other intellectuals—as dishonest elites who are part of a broader ‘liberal or leftist agenda.’
When then-President Trump withdrew the United States from the 2015 Paris Climate Accords, he said that he was ‘elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh and not Paris.’ He added that the ‘Paris Accords would undermine our economy, hamstring our workers, weaken our sovereignty, impose unacceptable legal risks, and put us at a permanent disadvantage to the other countries of the world.’ ‘[W]ithdrawal from the agreement’, Trump claimed, ‘represents a reassertion of America’s sovereignty.’
Third, over the past decade, far-right politicians have maintained close ties with the fossil fuel industry and heavy manufacturing sectors. Extractive industries have influenced policymaking to dilute climate commitments that threaten their profits and economic interests. The cooperation between the far right and big corporate polluters demonstrates how economic interests intersect with political agendas, ultimately undermining climate action.
In the 1980s, fossil fuel companies recognised that they could better protect their interests not by denying climate change outright, but by promoting the notion that addressing it did not require a departure from fossil fuels. This tactic successfully allowed them to shape the narrative and influence policy. However, as the impacts of climate change become more apparent and destructive, policies to combat it have become more drastic. Fossil fuel companies now view these unprecedented measures as major threats. It is now widely accepted globally that phasing out fossil fuels is crucial to achieving climate targets. For example, during the 2023 UN Climate Change Conference (COP 28), nearly 200 countries reached a historic agreement to ‘transition away’ from fossil fuels.
In response to growing calls to phase out fossil fuels, major producers have shifted their tactics. Again, to avoid backlash, they are not denying climate change; still, they are increasingly backing far-right politicians who oppose climate action and advocate greater oil extraction. Contemporary far-right politicians who deny climate change naturally align with an industry threatened by climate action in return for financial incentives. This approach aims to undermine the growing momentum for comprehensive climate action that could jeopardize the future of the fossil fuel industry.
For instance, senior Conservative Party leader Jacob Rees-Mogg has advocated maximizing oil extraction from the North Sea and has opposed emissions-reduction measures that could hinder oil and gas exploration. He has also rejected calls for windfall taxes on oil companies. These pro-oil positions are unsurprising considering that between 2019 and 2021, the Tories received £1.3 million from fossil fuel interests and climate sceptics. Additionally, a report by InfluenceMap indicates that the five largest publicly listed oil and gas companies—including Chevron, BP, and ExxonMobil—collectively spend nearly £153 million annually on lobbying efforts globally to ‘delay, control, or block policies’ aimed at addressing climate change.
Contrary to what the contemporary far-right often claims, climate change is a real and complex global crisis that can only be addressed effectively by a united global community that transcends political ideologies and cultures. Nonetheless, global warming has unfortunately become another flashpoint in the ongoing culture wars instigated by the far-right. Until the electorate rejects divisive politics and prioritises our global interests, climate denialism will remain a potent political force. But the world cannot wait much longer. It’s high time for the far right to be on the right side of history.