Yesterday
LEFT FOOT FORWARD
As right-wing populist movements gain ground, we’re witnessing a deliberate undermining of climate science and policy at a time when extreme weather events, such as floods that claimed hundreds of lives in Spain and hurricanes that ravaged communities in Florida, confirm the need for urgent and bold action.
LEFT FOOT FORWARD
As right-wing populist movements gain ground, we’re witnessing a deliberate undermining of climate science and policy at a time when extreme weather events, such as floods that claimed hundreds of lives in Spain and hurricanes that ravaged communities in Florida, confirm the need for urgent and bold action.
The shift in attitudes towards climate action within right-wing political circles has been striking. Whatever we think about Boris Johnson, at least he ‘talked the talk’ about climate change. Then again, he liked to talk the talk about most things and how genuine he was about the cause, given that he once praised the weather forecasts of climate sceptic conspiracy theorist Piers Morgan, is anybody’s guess.
Labelling him a ‘net zero zealot,’ as the right-wing online magazine Spiked did, might be a bit strong though, but not surprising. Like many right-wing news sources, Spiked regularly features anti-environmental and climate science denial content with provocative headlines like: “Climate alarmism is misleading the public,” and “Let’s get fracking on with it.”
Nonetheless, climate progress was made during Johnson’s tenure. As it was under his predecessor. An often-forgotten part of Theresa May’s legacy was putting net zero by 2050 into legislation, something that achieved rare political consensus in June 2019.
Four years later, the former PM waded back into the climate change debate, warning the UK was “falling behind” other countries in the fight against climate change. In an apparent dig at net zero sceptics, including fellow Tories David Frost and Jacob Rees-Mogg, May also warned of “an increasingly vocal minority … looking to delay action on climate change.”
Today, climate action is under ever-creaking strain. Far-right figures like Nigel Farage are doing their best to undermine climate efforts. Worryingly in Europe, right-wing populist parties opposed to climate action are gaining power and popularity, alongside influential and politically connected climate sceptic organisations that further fuel resistance to change.
One such example is MMC Brussels, a think-tank funded by Viktor Orban’s Hungarian government, which is actively working to fracture the EU’s consensus on climate change. Frank Furedi, the group’s executive director, sees an opportunity to cultivate a new generation of climate sceptics within the heart of European politics.
“I hope to influence the people working around the bubble, particularly the younger employees and intellectuals,” he told Politico. His end goal is to create a “coalition of people who I would call genuinely sceptical.” But he insists on one thing – don’t call them “climate deniers.” According to Furedi, that label is a gross oversimplification.
Reform UK, much like the far-right movements across Europe, is built on a Eurosceptic, anti-immigration model and has openly rejected the net zero target. Unfortunately, there are few signs of the party losing momentum, with recent polls showing it has the support of 18 percent of voters.
The divisive, opportunistic politics championed by Farage and Reform seem to resonate with those disillusioned by mainstream parties, and the party is unashamed in its climate denial position.
A ‘Net Zero Referendum’
Farage has pledged to abolish the net zero target entirely, arguing that it has driven up energy costs and is “making us poorer and colder.” Drawing on tactics from the Brexit campaign, Farage has spearheaded a ‘Net Zero Referendum’ under the slogan ‘Vote Power, Not Poverty.’ Backed by climate science deniers, he echoes the talking points of groups like the Net Zero Scrutiny Group of MPs, who argue that the war in Ukraine justifies increased fossil fuel extraction and lifting the fracking moratorium.
Reform’s deputy leader Richard Tice says he wants to fight the next election against the “extreme cult of net zero.”
But Reform’s strange fixation on climate change denial not only dismisses scientific consensus but contradicts with the views of the majority of the UK public. A survey published by King’s College London on December 4, shows a majority of Britons believe climate change is one of the most, if not the single most, important problems the country faces – up from 46% last year
. 
In this sense, Reform’s misinformation on climate change may ultimately backfire (we can live in hope!) At the moment, Reform draws most of its support from older voters who vote the way they do mostly over immigration, coupled to a vague sense that the country is not what it once was and certainly does not deliver for them. Climate change is much less of a priority and certainly not the obsession that it is for some of the anti-climate change voices that claim to speak for them. There is some evidence though that indifference is fraying at the edges, but it’s really important that people like Ed Miliband, through their words and actions, change the narrative around climate change from a massive problem from which we will all suffer, into an opportunity from which we can all benefit. Once that begins to happen, the likes of Farage and Tice will begin to appear more like dinosaurs, even to Reform supporters.
Then there’s Elon Musk, who has described himself as “pro-environment” and “super pro-climate,” but threw his weight behind the re-election of Donald Trump, a man who famously called global warming a hoax.
The Tesla billionaire is reportedly planning a $100 million donation to Reform as a “payback” to Keir Starmer. The Sunday Times reported that Musk might channel the funds through the UK branch of his platform X to bypass regulations that prevent foreign donations to British political parties.
Musk made his support for Reform clear after former Conservative minister Andrea Jenkyns defected to the party. When one X user claimed “Reform will win the next election”, Musk replied to the post with: “Yes.”
In this sense, Reform’s misinformation on climate change may ultimately backfire (we can live in hope!) At the moment, Reform draws most of its support from older voters who vote the way they do mostly over immigration, coupled to a vague sense that the country is not what it once was and certainly does not deliver for them. Climate change is much less of a priority and certainly not the obsession that it is for some of the anti-climate change voices that claim to speak for them. There is some evidence though that indifference is fraying at the edges, but it’s really important that people like Ed Miliband, through their words and actions, change the narrative around climate change from a massive problem from which we will all suffer, into an opportunity from which we can all benefit. Once that begins to happen, the likes of Farage and Tice will begin to appear more like dinosaurs, even to Reform supporters.
Then there’s Elon Musk, who has described himself as “pro-environment” and “super pro-climate,” but threw his weight behind the re-election of Donald Trump, a man who famously called global warming a hoax.
The Tesla billionaire is reportedly planning a $100 million donation to Reform as a “payback” to Keir Starmer. The Sunday Times reported that Musk might channel the funds through the UK branch of his platform X to bypass regulations that prevent foreign donations to British political parties.
Musk made his support for Reform clear after former Conservative minister Andrea Jenkyns defected to the party. When one X user claimed “Reform will win the next election”, Musk replied to the post with: “Yes.”
With Trump about to re-enter the White House, the big question is whether Musk will influence the easily swayed Trump on climate change, or if it will be the other way around, with Musk, increasingly embracing right-wing politics, becoming more ambivalent about climate action?
As he grew closer with Musk during the election campaign, Trump notably softened his rhetoric on electric vehicles. After months of criticising electric cars and promising to halt their sales, he backtracked somewhat.
Talking to a crowd in Michigan, he said: “I’m constantly talking about electric vehicles, but I don’t mean I’m against them. I’m totally for them. I’ve driven them and they are incredible, but they’re not for everybody.”
Musk took credit for Trump’s apparent change of heart. “I can be persuasive,” he told Tesla shareholders, adding: “A lot of his [Trump’s] friends now have Teslas, and they all love it. And he’s a huge fan of the Cybertruck. So, I think those may be contributing factors.”
What also might aid Trump’s softening position on climate change, is the fact large numbers of Americans support the United States taking steps to address global climate change and back an energy landscape that prioritises renewable sources like wind and solar, as the Pew Research Centre found.
With renewable energy becoming more popular in the US, Trump’s push to expand oil and gas may be less effective.
Climate action facing mounting pressure in UK
In Britain, aka the “51st” state which, as we know, tends to follow the US model on many things, climate action is facing mounting pressure.
The Climate Change Committee’s 2023 report argues that the UK is losing its long-standing reputation as a global leader in tackling climate change. The report also notes that the UK has failed to leverage the momentum from its relatively successful COP presidency to advance its climate goals.
Unlike Boris Johnson, there were never any doubts about Rishi Sunak’s position of climate action. As chancellor, he was hesitant to invest in green initiatives, and as prime minister, his climate scepticism became even more pronounced. Rishi Sunak has “set us back” on climate change and left the UK at risk of falling behind other countries, Chris Stark, head of the Climate Change Committee (CCC) told the BBC in April.
The new Conservative Party leader, Kemi Badenoch, is even more overt in her climate scepticism than her predecessor. A self-proclaimed “net zero sceptic,” Badenoch has suggested that the UK’s net zero targets could “bankrupt the country” and has criticised the “radical environmental policies” previously introduced by the Conservative Party in her leadership manifesto. She also dismissed Labour’s proposed ban on new North Sea oil and gas licenses as “foolish.”
While she has stopped short of calling for the complete abandonment of net zero, she did describe it in 2022 as “unilateral economic disarmament.”
During her leadership bid, Badenoch received financial backing from Neil Record, chair of the climate denial group Net Zero Watch. Just this week, DeSmog revealed that Victoria Hewson, Badenoch’s policy chief, previously argued, while working for the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), which has received funding from BP, that legally binding targets like the 2050 net zero goal are “arbitrary” and “distort decision-making.” She also called the 2050 target a “huge own goal.”
Following the announcement of the new 81 percent emissions reduction target by 2035 at the COP29 summit last month, Badenoch accused Keir Starmer of prioritising “short-term publicity” over long-term planning.
Keir Starmer’s pledge to cut the UK’s emissions by 81 percent by 2035 is undoubtedly ambitious. With the election of Trump and the absence of the leaders of the United States, China, Brazil, Germany and France at the summit, this was in important statement of intent. But, as the Institute for Government notes, politicians often find it easier to set targets than to deliver, and, as we know, Starmer himself isn’t immune to U-turning.
Nonetheless, if the Conservative Party continues to adopt climate sceptic positions, they risk alienating the majority of voters who prioritise climate action. As Greenpeace UK’s policy director Doug Parr put it: “The UK is not the US in terms of public attitudes to climate change. Reform voters tend to be more net zero sceptic, but they are not opposed to climate action.
“If the Tories increasingly adopt a net zero or climate sceptic attitude, they are putting a ceiling on their own votes.”
Chris Venables, director of politics at Green Alliance, is more cautious, saying the group was “really alarmed” by the shift in tone. “It’s a really worrying time for climate politics in the UK,” he said.
As right-wing populist movements gain ground, we’re witnessing a deliberate undermining of climate science and policy at a time when extreme weather events, such as floods that claimed hundreds of lives in Spain and hurricanes that ravaged communities in Florida, confirm the need for urgent and bold action. Whether the growing public support for climate action can overcome the right’s divisive and irrational position on the issue, remains uncertain. The stakes though have never been higher.
Right-wing media watch – Right-wing press blame ‘woke BBC’ over Barba Banda award
The BBC, a favourite target of the anti-woke brigade, is once again under fire, this time over its decision to award Zambian footballer Barbra Banda the title of Women’s Footballer of the Year.
Banda, who – and this is the crucial detail – topped the public vote for the award, has been at the centre of controversy due to speculation about her gender eligibility. Some reports have suggested she was withdrawn from the 2018 and 2022 Women’s Africa Cup of Nations after allegedly failing gender tests. However, Banda’s agent, her club, and the Confederation of African Football have all denied these claims, stating she did not undergo any gender eligibility tests and was instead withdrawn by the Football Association of Zambia.
Despite Banda’s public support, her award has been met with criticism from figures like author J.K. Rowling, a vocal critic of transgender and DSD (Differences in Sexual Development) athletes in women’s sports. Rowling, whose comments have often stirred controversy, took to social media to slam the BBC’s decision, claiming the broadcaster was “spitting directly in women’s faces” by awarding the title to Banda.
Many notable figures in sport condemned the trolling of the 24-year-old footballer. Emma Hayes, head coach of the US women’s football team, called the online abuse Banda has faced “ridiculous.”
“Barbra Banda is an amazing football player,” said Hayes. “It is ridiculous that she has to endure questions like this, to be quite honest with you. She has our support. She’s someone who’s done a tremendous amount, not just for her club but for her country, and what a brilliant season she’s had,” said Hayes.
Retired US forward Megan Rapinoe also voiced her support, praising Banda on social media for her inspirational play. “This is so deserved as is every bit of your success. You stand so much taller than the tiny people trying to tear you down,” she said.
But as well as Banda being the target, so is the BBC. Michael Deacon, assistant editor at the Telegraph, argued that Banda’s award was evidence of the BBC’s so-called “woke” agenda.
“Despite vocal resistance from the British public, this pious, poisonous progressivism is now ingrained in our major institutions,” read the sub-header.
Deacon referenced Elon Musk’s comments that “the tide has turned” on wokery in the US, before arguing that such claims were “wishful thinking” for the UK. “It’s because they’ve won,” Deacon declared, seemingly oblivious to the fact that the BBC’s award decision was based on a public vote, not some ideological agenda.
“Their views and values are now firmly embedded throughout our country’s major institutions. They prevail in the civil service, universities, schools, the NHS, the arts, and even, comically, luxury car manufacturers – as we’ve all seen, thanks to the excruciating new advert for Jaguar,” he continued.
The article finally gets to the point of the title, describing how the BBC announced that it was presenting its “Women’s Footballer of the Year” award to Barbra Banda.
“As JK Rowling put it, in response: “Presumably the BBC decided this was more time-efficient than going door-to-door to spit directly in women’s faces,” writes Deacon.
Fortunately, many Telegraph readers saw through the rhetoric. One pointed out the flaw in Deacon’s argument: “It was a public vote, though…” Another remarked: “The BBC had no role in choosing Banda as its winner. The award’s shortlist was decided by a panel of independent football experts, and the winner was then selected by public vote. But I suspect the journalist knows this.”
In the end, the right-wing press’s latest attempt to weaponise the “woke” narrative against the BBC falls flat. The public has spoken, and the BBC simply honoured the result. Yet, for some, it’s easier to blame the broadcaster than to accept that the award was a reflection of public support for a talented player like Barbra Banda.
Smear of the week – Tories revive their attack on civil servants
With Labour in power, we may have thought the relentless assault on civil servants might finally be over. After all, figures like Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson who respectively branded civil servants as “workshy” and blamed them for the Partygate scandal, have been relegated to the political dustbin.
Yet, this week, civil servants were back on the front pages, the subject of a new smear campaign.
On December 4, the Telegraph dedicated its lead front page story to: ‘Whitehall reverts to working from home – Labour oversees drop in office numbers as private sector hauls staff back to the office.
’
According to their analysis, attendance at 13 government departments has fallen since Keir Starmer won the election. Meanwhile, the private sector has supposedly reversed the trend, pushing workers back into the office.
Seizing the opportunity to stir up further controversy over Labour’s budget, the article added: “It comes despite Rachel Reeves signing off inflation-busting pay rises of up to 6 percent for millions of public sector workers at a cost of £10billion.”
Adding further fuel to the fire, the Telegraph quoted Richard Tice, who minimises his own contribution to public spending by squirreling money away in a tax haven and who warned of a “nightmare” in Whitehall.
“Public sector spending is rising, their attendance at work is falling, and productivity is collapsing. This leads to a vicious circle where the government says we need a bigger public sector. This will destroy growth and, if we carry on like this, bankruptcy awaits,” said Tice.
The article also cites a Tory source, claiming Labour has gone soft on working from home.
Given the chaos of Downing Street’s handling of the pandemic, you’d think the Tories and their media allies might hang their heads in shame on the issue of working from home.
But no, the smear continues, tapping into the conservative narrative that civil servants have it too easy.
What the Telegraph conveniently overlooks is the reality of working from home: a policy that reduces costs on office space, promotes work-life balance, and even contributes to a greener environment. Far from weakening the public sector, it enhances morale, aids retention, and attracts top talent. Yet, the ‘Torygraph’ continues its crusade, insisting that working from home is somehow a scandal worthy of front-page attention.
This latest smear comes after the Tories accused Labour of “stuffing” the civil service with supporters and donors.
The Whitehall watchdog, the Civil Service Commission (CSC), even launched an investigation following complaints by the opposition that the government had given people jobs without going through the proper procedure.
Awkwardly for the Tories, the report found that 550 “appointments by exception” were made by the new government in July and August, “considerably lower” than the Tories’ time in office, when 61,815 civil service jobs were handed out in that way at a rate of 1,287 a month.
Following its publication, the Tories were accused of a ‘desperate smear campaign.’ A Labour source said:
“This report destroys the Tory Party’s desperate smear campaign and exposes their rank hypocrisy after they made more than four times as many civil service appointments a month without competition.”
And so say all of us!
Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch
According to their analysis, attendance at 13 government departments has fallen since Keir Starmer won the election. Meanwhile, the private sector has supposedly reversed the trend, pushing workers back into the office.
Seizing the opportunity to stir up further controversy over Labour’s budget, the article added: “It comes despite Rachel Reeves signing off inflation-busting pay rises of up to 6 percent for millions of public sector workers at a cost of £10billion.”
Adding further fuel to the fire, the Telegraph quoted Richard Tice, who minimises his own contribution to public spending by squirreling money away in a tax haven and who warned of a “nightmare” in Whitehall.
“Public sector spending is rising, their attendance at work is falling, and productivity is collapsing. This leads to a vicious circle where the government says we need a bigger public sector. This will destroy growth and, if we carry on like this, bankruptcy awaits,” said Tice.
The article also cites a Tory source, claiming Labour has gone soft on working from home.
Given the chaos of Downing Street’s handling of the pandemic, you’d think the Tories and their media allies might hang their heads in shame on the issue of working from home.
But no, the smear continues, tapping into the conservative narrative that civil servants have it too easy.
What the Telegraph conveniently overlooks is the reality of working from home: a policy that reduces costs on office space, promotes work-life balance, and even contributes to a greener environment. Far from weakening the public sector, it enhances morale, aids retention, and attracts top talent. Yet, the ‘Torygraph’ continues its crusade, insisting that working from home is somehow a scandal worthy of front-page attention.
This latest smear comes after the Tories accused Labour of “stuffing” the civil service with supporters and donors.
The Whitehall watchdog, the Civil Service Commission (CSC), even launched an investigation following complaints by the opposition that the government had given people jobs without going through the proper procedure.
Awkwardly for the Tories, the report found that 550 “appointments by exception” were made by the new government in July and August, “considerably lower” than the Tories’ time in office, when 61,815 civil service jobs were handed out in that way at a rate of 1,287 a month.
Following its publication, the Tories were accused of a ‘desperate smear campaign.’ A Labour source said:
“This report destroys the Tory Party’s desperate smear campaign and exposes their rank hypocrisy after they made more than four times as many civil service appointments a month without competition.”
And so say all of us!
Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch
