The Far Right and Climate Change Denial

Science-related populism: Conceptualizing populist demands toward science

“…They suggest that science-related populism may indeed exist as a “demand-side phenomenon,” indicating that segments of populations in different countries have low confidence in the scientific community (Motta, 2018), are skeptical toward expert opinion (Oliver and Rahn, 2016), distrust doctors, professors, and other experts (Merkley, 2020), feel controlled by science and technology (Finnish Society for Scientific Information, 2016), do not think that scientists act in the interest of the public (Funk et al., 2019), believe that scientists have a power that makes them dangerous (European Commission, 2010), and, in turn, want a say in science-related decision-making (Schäfer et al., 2018a), demand that scientists pay attention to the wishes of the public (Anderson et al., 2012), and think that people should rely more on common sense when dealing with issues such as the COVID-19 pandemic (Wissenschaft im Dialog, 2020). Other studies suggest that science-related populism also exists on the “supply side,” describing anti-scientific sentiments in political rhetoric, party programs, election posters, and slogans of populist parties and politicians in Belgium (Pauwels, 2010), France (Harsin, 2018), Germany (Berbuir et al., 2015), or Sweden (Hultman et al., 2019). But even if these studies provide first indications of the existence of science-related populism, they have not been connected to an umbrella framework like the one proposed here, and accordingly, only measure parts of science-related populism.…”

“…Populist movements have emerged around the globe. Populist politicians and parties, claiming to promote the will of an allegedly virtuous people and challenging established political elites and structures (Rooduijn, 2019), have positioned themselves prominently on issues like immigration and climate change (Berbuir et al., 2015; Hultman et al., 2019) and gained considerable voter support (Lewis et al., 2018). This led some scholars to diagnose an “age of populism” (Smith, 2018).…”

“…However, scholarship on this linkage has empirical gaps and conceptual shortcomings. Empirically, it has only analyzed specific aspects: scholars have investigated conspiracy theorists (Harambam, 2017) or supporters of far-right ideologies (Hultman et al., 2019) and published case studies of right-wing online platforms (Ylä-Anttila, 2018) or conservative radio shows (Saurette and Gunster, 2011), but were often not, or not primarily, concerned with populism related to science (e.g. Harsin, 2018).…”

Climate emotions and emotional climates: The emotional map of ecological crises and the blind spots on our sociological landscapes

“…Especially in the context of increasingly skepticism and denial of the manifold facets of the ecological crises, emotions seems to be crucial, but mostly underestimated both in public discourse and in science. While there is plenty of current research on climate change denial and political orientation (Hultman et al, 2020; Jylhä and Hellmer, 2020; Krange et al, 2019; McCright and Dunlap, 2011), so far little attention has been paid to the role emotions play concerning these social dynamics, especially in sociology (Haltinner and Sarathchandra, 2018). One insightful study on denial and emotions is Kari Marie Norgaard’s (2010) ethnography Living in Denial of a rural community in western Norway.…”

Climate nationalisms: Beyond the binaries of good and bad nationalism

“…They want to rebuild your home! They want to take away your hamburgers!” 8 These ideologues often deny or dismiss the reality of anthropogenic climate change, while questioning the legitimacy of the ongoing demands for regulation of energy‐intensive consumerist lifestyles in industrialized countries (Hultman et al, 2019; Jylhä & Hellmer, 2020). Populist nationalist discourses also build on the narratives of climate securitization, as they point to the threat that millions of climate refugees present to the United States or European Union (see, Krange et al, 2021; Paerregaard, 2019).…”