Climate change is one of the most defining issues of our century. Changes in overall human behavior are necessary for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. These changes should come from everyone, including individuals, corporations, and governments. Politicians are leading messengers for these alterations. There is a current challenge to this, which is that the vast majority of politicians embrace “all-the-above (environmental) policy-making” [i] when they assure us they understand and accept the scientific warnings about climate change, but promote and practice a political agenda that fails to align with what the scientific consensus says we must do. In other words, everything is possible (i.e. green projects combined with more oil projects, more consumption, and more economic growth) and we do not need to make hard choices. Fascism and populism have always been deeply tied to environmental issues. Right-wing populists often garner political support by dismissing climate change and promising to increase activity dangerous to the environment; left-wing populists usually run on a platform that is highly pro-environment. However, while this rhetoric does have an impact on public thinking, actual numbers and evidence suggest that climate change is not only left unmitigated under left-wing leadership but is in fact accelerated under both right-wing and left-wing populism. Examining the cases of Brazil and the United States, which have both recently faced somewhat similar political events and leaderships, this short paper will evaluate the effects of leadership on political climate with regard to the environment. First, we will analyze how sustainability is achieved; next, we examine the data regarding greenhouse gas emissions over the past few decades; finally, we survey the public rhetoric of both right-wing and left-wing politicians in both cases.
Sustainability Factors
Stefan Wurster labelled two dimensions of sustainability, the weak and the strong.[ii] While the weak dimension relates to “adaptivity, substitutability, and the treatment of symptoms only,” it could be measured by elements such as the share of renewable energies, designated nature protection areas, and energy efficiency. However, the strong dimension entails real lifestyle changes by individuals, and could be measured by per capita indexes such as climate emissions, municipal waste production, and energy consumption.[iii] It would be fair to assume that governments have superior power to drive changes to weak sustainability factors, by incentivizing a green transition, passing legislation, etc. Hence, our paper will take a more quantitative approach to the weak sustainability factors rostered by Wurster. Notwithstanding, politicians’ impact on the strong sustainability factors should not be understated. The pivotal element of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is also evaluated quantitatively. In a world of instantaneous communication and propaganda, words spoken by political leaders can have a large impact on people’s behaviors. In this paper, most of the aspects related to strong sustainability will be approached in a more qualitative way, as political ideas and discourses can be highly effective in altering people’s behavior.
Drawing from Wurster’s model and focusing firstly on the weak dimension of sustainability, World Bank data reveal that both Brazil and the United States have grown their share of renewable energy consumption (over the total final energy consumption) from 2002-2020. The calculated compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) shows the comparatively greener Brazil increasing its share of renewables by 0.87% per year, from 42.85% to 50.05%. The CAGR for the United States was 4.75%, from 4.84% to 11.16%. Interestingly, Brazil accelerated its growth during the Bolsonaro years, going from 46.95% in 2018 to 50.05% in 2020. Conversely, the U.S.’s upward curve was more stable and did not show any positive inclination toward a democratic or a republican government from 2003-2020. In the terrestrial and marine protected areas factor (as a percentage of total territorial area), data from 2016 until 2022 reveal that Brazil showed a positive CAGR of 2.17% per year, while the U.S. presented a negative CAGR of 3.11% per year. Also notable, the U.S. lost protected areas mostly under the first half of President Biden’s administration (2021-2022), decreasing its average share of 25.85% from 2016-2020 to 15.88% in 2021 and 2022. Turning to strong sustainability climate emissions (CO2 emissions, in metric tons per capita), still using World Bank data, the overall numbers for the 1997-2019 period show a positive CAGR of 0.94% for Brazil (from 1.67 to 2.05 tons per capita) and a negative CAGR 1.47% for the United States (from 20.33 to 14.67 tons per capita). Note that the data from 2020 can’t be considered due to the COVID-19 pandemic’s abnormal effects. Brazil’s emissions evolution has been steadily growing, and did not show a very specific tendency towards more sudden moves explained by center (1997-2002), left (2003-2015), right (2016-2018), or more extreme right (2019) political actions. In the U.S., Democratic President Barack Obama was able to reduce emissions by 2.32% per year (2016 versus 2008 levels), which was better than republican President George W. Bush’s reduction of 1.41% per year (2008 versus 2000 levels) and President Donald Trump’s reduction of 1.06% per year (2019 versus 2016 levels).
In the case of the other strong sustainability factors, other points of reference can guide practical actions one can take on the environment. As posited by Jonathan Safran Foer, “the four highest-impact things an individual can do to tackle climate change are to eat a plant-based diet, avoid air travel, live car-free, and have fewer children.”[iv]
The link between climate change and the animal industrial complex has been scientifically discussed in many publications such as “Livestock’s long shadow” from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations in 2006 and “Lifting livestock’s long shadow” from Nature in 2012.[v] Replacing animal products with plant proteins to swiftly reduce greenhouse gas emissions is paramount, as freeing up land enables rewilding, and repurposing land can serve ecosystems instead of destroying them. For these reasons, milk and meat consumption are factors that are closely linked to strong sustainability.
Air travel is also highly contaminant for the environment. For example, a long-haul flight taken by one passenger is equivalent to around three tons of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent, a metric measure used to compare emissions from various greenhouse gases based on their global-warming potential), or to 340,000 disposable plastic carrier bags.[vi] Three tons of CO2e per year is just about an individual’s emission threshold to help avoid a 2-degree Celsius rise in global temperatures.[vii] Air travel for tourism is more understandable than shipping purchases from distant countries, when local substitutes do exist. Moreover, shipping by sea is always better for the environment than the air option.[viii]
Public Rhetoric Regarding Climate Change
The issue of climate change has always been a popular talking point for politicians, particularly those with populist leadership styles. Climate change denial and the gutting of environmental protection is a nearly universal selling point among right-wing populists around the world today. This is reflected in those who vote for such politicians. One study, conducted by Uppsala University in 2020, found that the two strongest sociological indicators for opposition to environmental protection policies were “exclusionary and anti-egalitarian preferences (opposition, e.g., to multi-culturalism and feminism).”[ix] As such, those wishing to appeal to the masses on the conservative end of the spectrum may find anti-environmental policies a strategic move. However, environmentalism and focus on climate change is also a popular talking point for those wishing to garner support from voters on the liberal end of the spectrum. Unfortunately, while many attempts may be made by politicians on both sides, direct evidence may indicate that neither left-wing nor right-wing politicians actually accomplish much in terms of slowing climate change. To demonstrate, we will examine two case studies: the USA and Brazil. Within these two studies, we will look at both the political talking points and the actual environmental legacies of the two right-wing populists Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro, and the two liberal presidents Barack Obama and Lula da Silva.
Right-wing populists Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro have openly belittled the environmental crisis in their public speeches. The former called climate change “fake news” and a “hoax” on many occasions,[x] while the latter preached the infamous order of “passar a boiada”[xi] (which could be translated as “cattle should pass,” meaning deforestation is completely acceptable for the expansion of agriculture) during a ministerial meeting in the midst of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. Both leaders were very blunt in their views on the environment, emphasizing it as a secondary issue behind many other perceived priorities. Explicit condemnations of environmental protections, as such, are very harmful for the environment, as followers of both leaders normalize the denial, or the economy-first sentiments, preached from above. However, a fair assessment of these populist leaders would require comparing their record with whether their recent domestic political opponents, Lula da Silva in Brazil and Obama-Biden in the United States, have delivered more meaningful pro-environment actions.
Regarding the United States, Trump repeatedly made statements denying climate change leading up to the 2016 election, at both a professional and personal level. He frequently took to social media, making statements such as, “It’s freezing in New York. Where the hell is global warming.”[xii] However, he also stated, “My administration has made it a top priority to ensure that America has among the very cleanest air and cleanest water on the planet.” [xiii] This somewhat flimsy rhetoric eventually focused more on denial that any climate change was manmade, and that he would put more focus on defending people’s rights to harm the environment. During his tenure as president, Trump dismantled over 100 existing policies regarding environmental issues[xiv] and became increasingly anti-environment in his public communications.
In fact, in 2024, his supporters and voters have largely vocalized a desire for him to be even more ruthless with regards to climate change.[xv] Some point out that he often moderated his tone whilst in office, and even went a year without maligning climate change on social media.[xvi] However, in the 2024 election cycle, he has reignited his intense calls to “drill, baby, drill,”[xvii] and other such anti-environmental sentiments. This may demonstrate, once more, that climate change is an effective tool of populism.
In contrast, U.S. President Barack Obama, a more liberal president, took the opposite approach. While running for president, he promised to make climate change a huge focus of his presidency, to lower emissions, and to protect wildlife and eco-systems. During his presidency, he focused on putting climate change at the top of the world’s agenda and was instrumental in sewing a global accord with China—the 2014 environmental summit between this country and the U.S.—which committed both nations to the adoption of significant new measures to reduce climate emissions, and also catapulted the drafting of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. Although the U.S. later exited the agreement under the Trump administration, it rejoined under Biden’s administration.
However, the U.S. government’s infrastructure dedicated to tackle climate change under Obama was still inferior to the one dedicated to combat terrorism. It was also during the Obama years that the environmentally harmful shale gas/oil revolution took off in the United States, as the country became the world’s number one oil producer.[xviii] Some have attempted to accuse Obama of “greenwashing” his legacy[xix]—overstating the environmental impacts of his presidency while minimizing these negative outcomes. This may indeed reflect the same premise under which Obama was elected—a lot of talk, with less tangible impact.
In fact, most of Obama’s actions regarding the environment were based on making statements and taking actions which were easily rejected by other branches of government. Most of his initiatives were quickly overruled by an increasingly Republican Congress, and those that remained were quashed by the succeeding administration. One may argue that this wasn’t his fault per se, but it seems unlikely that Obama would not have predicted such outcomes. While Obama’s administration was significantly better for the environment than Trump’s, his legacy is murky at best.
Here is where one can truly assess the impact of populism on the environment. While it is difficult to determine whether Obama’s inaction towards climate change was due to unwillingness or inability, it is clear that his public rhetoric, which gained him much public support, was more important than the environment itself. Both Trump and Obama used the environment and climate change as key issues in their respective election campaigns, and in keeping their supporters happy during their tenures as president. While Trump used climate change denial, Obama used greenwashing; and while Trump has certainly been worse for the environment than Obama, the evidence shows that Obama also used populistic rhetoric to gain traction. However, in both cases, the environment paid the price.
Regarding the second case, Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro also gained support through right-wing populism, and similar to Trump, used climate change denial as a large selling point of his candidacy. His particular brand of rhetoric has even been called anti-environmental populism.[xx] He frequently disparaged conservation efforts, protection of the rainforest, and special rights for indigenous peoples. Many saw his rise to power as “the worst thing that could happen for the environment.”[xxi] Under his governance, many facets of the environment did indeed suffer, with indigenous people being attacked, political opponents being purged, and forests being decimated.[xxii]
When the time came for re-election, many praised Bolsonaro’s opponent for his outward efforts to roll back much of this damage. In 2022, Bolsonaro lost his re-election to former President Lula da Silva, who campaigned on a platform of liberalism, positioning himself as antithetical to Bolsonaro. He had formerly been president from 2003-2010 and was reelected in 2022 for four more years. He made repeated promises to not only undo the environmental catastrophes of Bolsonaro’s governance, but also to take Brazil even further in the fight against climate change, aiming to end all deforestation by 2030 (among other ideas). This approach, positioning himself as the antithesis to Mr. Bolsonaro, proved popular with voters, especially those disillusioned with the latter’s rule.
Under his governance, Lula’s stance on the environment has appeared very positive on the surface, particularly given the presence of the globally respected Environment Minister Marina da Silva, who held the position for most of Lula’s first two terms and was reappointed when he returned to power in 2023. However, Lula’s recent plans and speeches have endorsed large projects that directly conflict with environmental preservation. Upon his election in late 2022, he declared that Brazilians should return to eating picanha (prime beef). He also proposed subsidizing affordable cars, as opposed to focusing on public transportation investments, and cheap air tickets (200 reais, or around 40 U.S. dollars per leg) for the poorer population. Additionally, his government planned to waive taxes on small purchases (up to 50 U.S. dollars) from Chinese websites, with these items often being shipped by air.
Furthermore, Lula has shown considerable enthusiasm for exploring oil in the Amazon delta, a move that Marina da Silva has largely opposed. Lula’s stance is typical of many, especially older, politicians, which are inclined to believe that “peace in our time has been found with the fossil fuel industry.”[xxiii] Similarly to Obama, Lula has faced a conservative congress that has blocked many of his efforts, or otherwise made them an uphill battle, but he has also greatly altered his rhetoric with regards to the environment. However, unlike Obama, the evidence suggests that in the end, Lula was more unwilling than unable to address climate change. Clearly, this Brazilian leader has tried the “all-the-above policy-making.” He made speeches regarding the environment that garnered him large public support, professing himself as an alternative to Bolsonaro, but once elected, failed to follow up on his promises, and even changed his public discourse.
In this short paper, we have analyzed the lasting environmental legacies of two right-wing and two left-wing presidents of the USA and Brazil, respectively. In both cases, right-wing leaders have used climate change denial and disparagement of the environment in order to bolster support from conservative voters, and left-wing leaders have used environmental and conservational rhetoric to bolster support from liberal voters. While right-wing presidents have had an objectively worse impact on the environment, these left-wing presidents have not fulfilled their campaign promises and have often become more moderate in their approaches once elected. Furthermore, the right-wing politicians have gone further to the right in their re-election efforts, while also not quite delivering what they promised in their previous tenures. It is also of note that all four presidents’ failure to adequately address the climate crisis, or outright acceleration of said crisis, has had lasting impacts after their tenures as leaders have ended. In some cases, this unfortunate legacy has lasted years. This may illustrate that both sides of the political spectrum may use the environment for the purposes of election and support, though in seemingly antithetical ways, while failing to fully follow up on their campaign promises while in office. Both have also failed to adequately address and respond to climate change and other threats to the environment. As posited by Klein, “winning slowly on climate change is just another way of losing.”[xxiv]
Data statement: The data worked and used in this paper can be found at: https://osf.io/6xptb/
References
[i] Klein, S. A Good War – Mobilizing Canada for the Climate Change Emergency (Toronto: ECW, 2020), 30.
[ii] Wurster, A. (2013) Comparing ecological sustainability in autocracies and democracies. Contemporary Politics, 19(1), 76-93.
[iii] Ibid., 81.
[iv] Foer, J. S. We are the weather: saving the planet begins at breakfast (New York: Penguin Books, 2019), 98.
[v] See https://agris.fao.org/search/en/providers/122653/records/64745b862437ad1e5b960f25, and https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1755.
[vi] Berners-Lee, M. How Bad Are Bananas? The Carbon Footprint of Everything (Vancouver: Greystone, 2011), 137.
[vii] See Calculate Your Carbon Footprint, at https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/carbon-footprint-calculator/ (2024).
[viii] Berners-Lee, M. How Bad Are Bananas? The Carbon Footprint of Everything (Vancouver: Greystone, 2011), 90.
[ix] Jylha, K. M., & Hellmer, K. (2020). “Right-Wing Populism and Climate Change Denial: The Roles of Exclusionary and Anti-Egaliatarian Preferences, Conservative Ideology, and Antiestablishment Attitudes.” Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 20(1), 315-335.
[x] Cheung, Helier. “What does Trump Actually believe on climate change?” BBC. 23 January 2020. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51213003.
[xi] For Trump, on March 12, 2019, he wrote on his Twitter/X account, quoting a co-founder of Greenpeace, that “the whole climate crisis is not only fake news, it’s fake science”. (retrieved from Twittter/X, in February 2023). Already out of presidency, on March 21, 2022, Trump called climate change a “hoax” in a Fox Business TV show (see https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2022/03/21/on-fox-donald-trump-calls-climate-change-a-hoax-in-the-1920s-they-were-talking-about-global-freezing/?sh=18842d0d3787). For Bolsonaro, see https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/brasil-54364652.
[xii] Trump, D. [@realdonaldtrump]. “It’s freezing in New York—where the hell is global warming?” Twitter. 23 April 2013. https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/326781792340299776.
[xiii] Trump, D. “Remarks by President Trump on America’s Environmental Leadership.” Trump White House Archives. 8 July 2019. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-americas-environmental-leadership/.
[xiv] Albeck Ripka, L., Pierre-Louis, K., and Popovich, N. “The Trump Administration Rolled Back More than 100 Environmental Rules. Here’s the Full List.” The New York Times. 20 January 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html
[xv] Waldman, S. “No more going wobbly in climate fight, Trump supporters vow.” Politico. January 12 , 2024. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/12/trump-second-term-climate-science-2024-00132289.
[xvi] Ibid.
[xvii] Trump, D. “Donald Trump Full Acceptance Speech at 2024 Republican National Convention.” C-SPAN. 18 August 2024. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oy8_kk2uzs.
[xviii] Yergin, D. The New Map – Energy, Climate, and the Clash of Nations. (New York: Penguin, 2020), 65.
[xix] Bookbinder, D.“Obama had a chance to really fight climate change. He blew it.” Vox. April 29, 2017. https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/4/28/15472508/obama-climate-change-legacy-overrated-clean-power.
[xx] Motta, F. M., & Hauber, G. (2022). “Anti-environmentalism and proto-authoritarian populism in Brazil: Bolsonaro and the defence of global agri-business.” Environmental Politics, 32(4), 642-662.
[xxi] Escobar, H. “‘We are headed for a very dark period.’ Brazil’s researchers fear election of far-right presidential candidate.” Science. October 16, 2018. https://www.science.org/content/article/we-are-headed-very-dark-period-brazil-s-researchers-fear-election-far-right.
[xxii] Observatório do Clima. “Nunca Mais Outra Vez – 4 Anos de Desmonte Ambiental sob Jair Bolsonaro.” 2023. https://www.oc.eco.br/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/AF_reduzido_20220323_individuais_nunca-mais-outra-vez-1.pdf.
[xxiii]Klein, S. A Good War – Mobilizing Canada for the Climate Change Emergency (Toronto: ECW, 2020), 47.
[xxiv] Ibid., xxii.
