This article poses, and attempts to answer, two correlated questions: (1) Is nationalism, the dominant ideology in our world of nation-states, compatible with the struggle to halt or minimize climate change and related environmental catastrophes? and (2) Which form(s) of government, whether or not informed by nationalist ideology, could better address the most serious threat to human life that currently appears on the horizon? This article puts forward the claim that while the former question has only recently begun to be explored in a few essays and articles devoted to analyzing the linkages between nationalism and climate change, the latter remains unexplored. Attempting to fill this gap, we investigate case studies of exemplary nation-states that periodically scored the highest in the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) and the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI): Scandinavian countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark), Switzerland, and Germany. Their cities received environmental awards (i.e., the European Green Capital Award) and registered the highest levels in terms of citizen satisfaction. The goal is to identify factors and (pre)conditions that make forms of “green nationalism” possible.

Although nationalism has been identified as the dominant ideology of the modern era, and environmentalism is the 21st century rising star, few studies address the relationship between them. The consensus seems to be that they are hardly compatible, considering that nationalism is a boundary-building phenomenon while environmentalism advocates for the safeguarding of the environment beyond national borders. Drawing on evidence from fieldwork in the region of Freiburg-im-Breisgau, near the French-German border, our study challenges this assumption. Not long ago this was a heavily militarised territory and a place of historical national friction between France and Germany, yet now it has been converted to, and rebranded as, a model of a successful, environmentally friendly region.Rather than wearing down nationalist sentiments, national pride has been reinvigorated as the vestiges of German nationalism have been buried under a thick layer of environmental paint; this time national pride is grounded not in the military power of the nation but in its defence of the environment. Through this case study, framed within the lens of nationalism theories, we argue that nationalism has the potential power to adapt to harmful heteronomous threats

What can theories of nationalism and the nation-state tell us about climate change? Much of the available literature, including works by prominent thinkers Ulrich Beck and Bruno Latour, identify it as a collective global challenge rather than a local and national one. But is it really so? This article develops an original theoretical framework integrating the theory of “reflexive modernity”, theories of nationalism, and case studies of green nation-states. The goal is to change the observation point and search for original solutions to the climate crisis. Building on this theoretical framework, this study puts forward the following claims: (1) climate change is undeniably a global phenomenon, but its causes are national. It can be traced back to a small number of top polluting nation-states (the US, China, Russia, India, Japan and EU28) whose historical share of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, the main cause for global warming, surpasses 74%; (2) Most of these nation-states are entrenched in Resource Nationalism (RN), a form of nationalism that sees the environment as a resource to exploit; (3) there exist forms of sustainable nationalism, which this study conceptualizes as Reflexive Green Nationalism (RGN); (4) the solution to climate change is local rather than global. It depends on top polluters' capacity to re-modernize and develop RGN; and (5) according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, if emissions are not reduced by 43% by 2030, the world is likely to cross the tipping point into a global climate catastrophe. Therefore, updating these nation-states and their ideology to more sustainable forms is humanity's best shot at halting the climate crisis.

Some nation-states, i.e., Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, repeatedly score the highest in environmental indicators such as the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) and the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI). Their cities win environmental awards; they have well-developed recycling systems; they perform well with biodegradable waste; and their citizens show awareness of environmental problems, protesting publicly and even sueing their governing bodies if they don't do the same. For these and other reasons, recent scholarship defined these countries as “exemplary” green nation-states. The question is, which factors pushed them toward the green transition faster than others? And overall, what stops top polluting countries such as China, the United States and Russia from walking the same path? This article attempts to answer these questions by looking at climate change through a theoretical framework based on theories of nationalism and case studies of green nation-states. It compares three of said top polluting countries, China, the United States, and Russia, with “exemplary” green nation-states, and argues that the pace of greener nation-states rests on (1) a tradition of ecologism and environmentalism rooted in the long run, (2) the lock in of “green nationalism,” a form of nationalism grounded on sustainability, (3) free and effective environmental movements, (4) inclusivity and welfare, and (5) a sense of national pride in environmental achievements. The available evidence seems to suggest that top polluting nation-states lack one or more of these factors.

In this article the positive lessons from the coronavirus pandemic are examined, focusing on the intensive activities of solidarity at the local, national, and transnational levels, the increase in scientific cooperation, the implementation of assistance policies by states, and the various endeavors of NGOs, religious communities, private organizations, wealthy and less wealthy donors, and charities to support individuals and groups affected by it. It is argued that the pandemic is not only a tragedy that revealed some of the disintegrative processes of global risk society but is also a matchless opportunity for acknowledging what can be (and is) done in the globalized world when guided by positives such as cooperation, coordination, and solidarity. Discussing the theories of globalization, nationalism, and cosmopolitanism, with special attention to Ulrich Beck's theory of reflexive society, the core point of this article is that, considering upcoming global threats of even greater magnitude, such as climate change, potentially deadlier pandemics, and nuclear conflicts, a new world order based on cooperation, coordination and solidarity between nation-states is not only desirable but necessary for survival.