The re-election of Donald Trump marks a victory for anti-environmentalism. Trump’s announcements and staff appointments openly and blatantly aim at rolling back environmental regulation and weakening the capacity of the US government to tackle environmental problems and threats. Trump is not alone or the first in this quest. Many other political leaders and governments before him and around the world, from US Presidents (Reagan and the Bushes), Brazil’s Bolsonaro, and the right-wing government of New Zealand elected in 2023, to name just a few, have openly stated their commitment to relaxing or removing environmental constraints on economic development. Environmental actions that hinder economic development are increasingly criminalised or labelled as terrorism as they are said to harm the national interest.
What’s behind this? Putting the onus on individuals (populist leaders) or populism is simplistic and misleading. They may be the most vocal anti-environmentalists, but they are part of a broader and deeper movement aimed at destroying the capacity of states to address the environmental challenge effectively. At a time when concerns about global heating are surging, and scientists and environmental advocates are desperately calling for effective action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, politicians who explicitly reject the need for such action get elected.
One explanation is that other issues have arisen that dominate the political and public agendas. Rising prices and stagnating or falling (real) incomes, growing unemployment, unaffordable housing, food insecurity (dependence on food banks), and declining health care services, among many other social issues, understandably have priority for those affected. Add to that the COVID-19 pandemic, the conflicts and violence affecting millions of people in many parts of the world, the masses of refugees seeking a safe haven or a better life (migration), and ethnic tensions, and it becomes clear why climate change or environmental protection are not front-of-mind issues for many people. This also helps explain why many people vote for populist parties and leaders, as mainstream political parties and governments are often blamed for these problems and for not addressing them sufficiently.
However, most of these issues are interconnected and have arisen due to underlying factors and drivers. The main factors are political-economic. More clearly than ever, neoliberal governments are acting as committees serving the interests of capitalism, in particular, of their national branches. They affirm this openly in almost everything they say and do, even though they substitute the term economy for capitalism. Capitalism and its imperatives (economic growth and investment opportunities—capital accumulation) dominate everything else. Governments are trapped within the national political-economic systems that they serve. Heeding the needs of their national branches of capitalism has priority, even if this requires measures at the expense of their own people and the environment.
In the broader context, neoliberal globalisation enabled capital to flow to where the greatest profits could be generated. For a while, this served the interests of US and European capitalists well. However, with the rise of China and other rapidly industrialising countries, this “rule-based order” came back to bite the United States and many European countries, leading to deindustrialisation, rising socio-economic problems, and demands to protect domestic industries.
On the other hand, this government support benefits billionaires (so-called wealth creators), leading to extreme inequalities. Many politicians and experts serving capitalist interests also profit handsomely by receiving exorbitant salaries and bonuses, often through speculation or corruption. By contrast, despite many years of economic growth, the funding pool for public goods and services has been ever-decreasing.
The rise of China and other newly industrialised economies poses not only a formidable competitive challenge to Western capitalists, but is also defined as a geopolitical and military threat to US hegemony and the West. As China is an authoritarian state, this threat is easily converted into a threat to the freedom and democracy of the West that needs to be contained. “We” (especially the US) need to prepare for war with China and with Russia (especially the EU), which, of course, justifies boosting military spending and creates economic growth and new investment opportunities. If “needed”, the use of force is justified to protect and advance these “national interests”.
Thus, the dynamics of capitalism have fuelled a politics of economic nationalism, socio-economic austerity, and environmental destruction. This causes social immiseration and polarisation, while privileging national capitalist economic interests. As long as globalisation served American capital well, notably by opening up investment opportunities worldwide, free trade was the dominant mantra. However, with the weakening of the US’s competitive position and the social and political pressures caused by globalisation, the pendulum has swung back to protectionism. Both Biden and Trump adopted this course, with Biden, especially, by rebuilding essential infrastructure. Trump, by contrast, openly and bluntly privileges the interests of billionaires, including himself and his family. However, for both Biden and Trump, maintaining US hegemony was and is a priority.
The growing emphasis on national development and reindustrialisation does not bode well for the environment. As long as political-economic systems remain in the grip of capitalism, its imperatives will dominate all other interests, including social well-being and environmental protection. Environmental concerns are ignored or labelled “woke”, while keeping wages low and cutting social spending are touted as economic necessities. Thus, people and the Earth are sacrificed to save and bolster national capitalism, even if doing so will also imply the end of capitalism.