In this newspaper’s property supplement 25 years ago this month a feature article warned of the prospect of a “dream home” turning into a “financial nightmare” due to climbing temperatures, rising sea levels, coastal erosion, flooding and an Atlantic Ocean “brewing up more frequent and powerful storms”. Climate change, it announced, “is with us, and there is precious little we can do to stop it”.
To ease the alarm the feature provided lists of “the good” and “the bad” aspects of climate change, the “good” including warmer and drier summers that would “help make the summer barbecue a more predictable event”, while “holidaying at home will become much more attractive” due to excessive heat abroad. The “bad” list highlighted drought, storms and higher insurance costs.
There was a particular focus on coastal erosion in Wexford; its county council environment engineer at the time, Daragh Cullinan, spoke of the difficulty of planning ahead and the unfathomable expense of holding back the tide: “When you look at the funding we have, if you look at something that will happen well into the future it is just not practical.”
A quarter of a century on the reports and predictions are ever more urgent – there is no rationale for listing “good” aspects of climate change and “well into the future” is now.
How a hotter world is affecting Ireland in five graphics
We’re heading for the second biggest fiscal disaster in the history of the State
Progress and success are not the same thing when it comes to climate action
People see benefits of climate action but often prefer to keep status quo, research bulletin finds
Most importantly the assertion “there is precious little we can do” has been exposed as hollow yet denial remains paramount. In tandem, what constitutes “practical” action has been weaponised to provide polarising slogans for those who, when telling us Ireland is full, also denounce climate change action as an outrageous imposition.
This is not just an Irish problem; across the EU, as the scientific evidence and warnings accumulate, the pushback widens. In advance of the last European Parliament elections in 2019 protesters were visible and voluble in demanding climate change action; there was even a sense of it as a unifying theme. This year, however, their opponents are making the running on the back of domestic elections in various European countries that have seen gains for right-wing populists deriving political capital out of denouncing climate change action.
In Germany members of the AfD have labelled the Green Party “our enemies”. In the Netherlands Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom has formed a coalition intent on rowing back on climate change and pollution policy. During the election Wilders pledged to “stop the hysterical reduction of C02”.
Last year the Swedish government slashed its climate change budget and admitted it will greatly increase its carbon emissions.
In the current British parliament of 650 MPs there is but a single Green Party MP, Caroline Lucas, who is standing down. This week the Guardian published an analysis by VoteClimate which examined all parliamentary votes since 2010 on energy, transport, finance, housing and other issues impacting the climate crisis. It rated no Tory MPs as having voting positively on climate issues.
Here Minister for Climate Change Eamon Ryan briefed Cabinet this week on the insufficient progress made in relation to carbon emissions on the back of a report from the EPA suggesting that, in a best-case scenario, greenhouse gases will be reduced by 29 per cent rather than the legally-binding 51 per cent target by 2030. Opinion polls and the tone of the current election campaigns suggest the Green Party will not be thanked for its numerous climate change efforts.
The political space instead is being crowded with other themes all of which should be dwarfed by the enormity of the consequences of climate change. The tortuous progress of the EU Nature Restoration Law is just one indication of stalling momentum. The predictions made in a 2019 report for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace have been borne out; it suggested then that climate politics could go in a few years “from being relatively benign to downright nasty”, and that “resistance to the radical policy measures that are needed could rapidly lead to political paralysis and a political blame-game”.
It also insisted the EU needed to reform its institutions and policies to “handle the toxic politics that will emerge during the climate transition”. The more fractured and polarised political environment, it further suggested, required an EU approach encouraging voters to “see climate measures as part of a common agenda that is coherent and strategic so that they can trust that today’s sacrifices will bring a better future for all”. Legitimate grievances about the social impact of climate change policies and the power of vested interests to insulate themselves have not been adequately addressed.
But across the EU critics of necessary change are also falling back on lazy, dangerous strategies that involve scapegoating climate change activists and relying on assertions of national “freedom” or “independence”. The political gains for the deniers will be remarkably self-defeating and lead to the opposite of freedom.