Of Greta, Donald and #climate populism – an interview with Johan Nordensvärd and Markus Ketola

Recently an Open Access article was published by Environmental Politics “Populism as an act of storytelling: analyzing the climate change narratives of Donald Trump and Greta Thunberg as populist truth-tellers.” Here its authors explain their background, climate populism and ‘what next’?.

Who are you, how did you become interested in narratives of climate populism, and what was the particular impetus for this article? 

We are Johan Nordensvärd, Associate Professor in Political Science at Linköpings University in Sweden and Markus Ketola, Senior Lecturer in Social Policy at Edinburgh University in the United Kingdom. We have had a long interest in populism and the way populism is perceived in relation to different policy questions. Populism is often used in rather diminutive ways by the mainstream media as something of less value and even in academic literature the notion of populism as a thin ideology tends to dominate, where the focus is placed on a small number of relatively crude, core concepts. We argue that populism is actually a very powerful cognitive tool to mobilize people and that this is particularly the case in relation to issues that are complex and lack both affective and subjective entry points. Climate populism has been very effective in involving non-experts in a field that is otherwise very expert-dominated and tends not to allow meaningful exchange with laymen. So our interest here lies in understanding how climate populism involves and mobilizes people and how populist narratives reduce complexity and uncertainty around an issue that remains highly complex and uncertain even for world-leading scientific experts.

On page 8 you write “In each case we have focused on sources that serve as the most prominent examples of their storytelling, but given the different audiences whom these stories serve, we have chosen to focus on different types of mediums. In the case of Trump, we have analyzed four major speeches, two interviews, and 74 tweets. In the case of Thunberg, we have focused on the six most prominent speeches, by which we mean those she has delivered on the global stage – at the United Nations, Davos or COP summits. To what extent are both Trump and Thunberg tapping into – or even repeating – previous talking points/narratives over the 30 year history of climate contestation? 

We can see that both Trump and Thunberg position themselves on the opposite sides of the mainstream neo-liberal take on climate change mitigation and adaptation. The overall consensus has been that we need to take action against climate change but without getting rid of capitalism, economic growth or modernization. So the consensus is that something needs to be done within the capitalist system – any debate is limited to arguing about the degree to which the market or the state should be the prime mover within the capitalist system. Both Trump and Thunberg challenge and mobilize people against this mainstream position from two diametral positions. Of course their positions, just as the mainstream position, is something that has been under the sun for the last 30 years. Donald Trump falls back onto classical republican environmental discourse with less red tape and more economic growth. Greta Thunberg focusses on a more eco-centric narrative where we need to cut back on growth and excessive living standards to be able to save the climate and other environmental issues for that sake too. Trump argues for fewer sacrifices and Thunberg for more sacrifices. And in the middle most actors believe that technology, carbon markets and/or taxes and regulations will do the trick. 

On Page 12 you point out that Trump’s narrative “harks back to an imagined past where exploitation of fossil fuel resources was unproblematic. At this time coal, oil, and gas resources could be fully utilised to benefit the capitalist project without recourse to environmental protection or climate change mitigation policies.” How much do you think Trump’s position – and that of other “anti-reflexive” types (McCright and Dunlap 2010) – is wrapped up in resentment about all the changes — in their view negative – since the 1960s (around feminism, racial equality, etc) 

This might be the case of course and we can see that Donald Trump has been very true to the American path dependency in treating climate change policy as less of a priority. When the US exited the Paris Agreement it was seen as an anomaly, but in reality it was the US entering the Paris Agreement under the Barack Obama administration that was the change of path. Donald Trump simply reverted back to a path of policy skepticism towards international agreements on climate change that can be traced from Ronald Reagan all the way to George W. Bush. Within the frame of the article we can also see that there is a lively tension between exploitation of natural resources and a sincere will to protect nature and wildlife within the American political discourse. Trumps position harks very much back to this tradition in US politics.  

You conclude that “despite highly contrasting approaches, both Trump and Thunberg in fact practice similar forms of populist storytelling that rely on acts of truth-telling by the hero, applying the same populist narrative frame”.  What would you say to someone who said that this was a superficial comparison, given that Thunberg has at least listened closely to expert scientists in formulating her narrative, whereas Trump has not? 

Our first answer to the question – and here we refer to the position of Mouffe and Laclau who see populism primarily as a rhetorical logic – is that populist storytelling is more about mobilizing people than being close to any objective truth. There are a couple of assumptions worth highlighting here that tend to blur our understanding of populism. One is the idea that populism is something to avoid, or something inferior to other modes of communication or popular mobilization. The assumption might be that by describing Thunberg a populist it would somehow put her on the same (lower) level as Donald Trump, which is not the case. The second assumption suggests that there is a difference in  the quality of populist storytelling between Donald Trump and Greta Thunberg, because the former panders to both climate science denialism and conspiracy theories, while the latter uses populist storytelling and truth-telling to mobilize people on the grounds of climate change science and social action. All we are saying is that both use a particular populist narrative logic and by being a truth-teller challenge the mainstream position on climate change. One could then argue that Greta Thunberg and the people around her have been very skillful in using populist storytelling for the mobilization of diverse people and interests for positive change that is also aligned with cutting-edge science. But would she or her movement be so successful without using a populist storytelling approach to mobilize diverse groups?  

Were you tempted to write about how Greta Thunberg is just so much better at Twitter than the (now-banned) Trump, with the changes to her Twitter bio etc. 

Not really to be honest! However,  we would actually argue that both Thunberg and Trump have been very successful in using twitter for their positions and for their populist storytelling. Still, there is no denying that Trump overplayed his hand and now has to resort to creating his own platform while Thunberg is still trending on mainstream social media.  

What next? What are the big puzzles and debates in “climate populism”  that are yet to be resolved/engaged in? 

A real puzzle is how long the movement around Greta Thunberg can keep up the momentum, given we see so little change in actual policies. Most of the agreements are based on ambitions and pledges, often with very little to back it up in real changes to our high emission lifestyles in the developed world. Being climate-friendly is still very much a performance where countries with interests in extractive industries such as Norway (oil) and Sweden (mining, timber) become upset when they should deliver on biodiversity protection and sustaining natural forests – as they have both pledged. Up until now, it has been enough for Norway and Sweden to be seen as leaders in  environmentalism through loud pledges, but when the EU sets higher standards for Swedish forestry for an example then it creates a conflict. This is rooted in the fact that while most countries are committed to future changes, they are unwilling to do so right now, because this would have to come at a significant cost to the national economy or living standards. So, looking at the current situation, while the movement around Thunberg has plenty of reasons to keep the mobilization going, will they lose faith as not just adults but also many young people are not willing to let go of consumerism? All the more so considering that even Thunberg’s home country Sweden is not really serious about letting go of its extensive extractive industries or taking the reduction of living standards seriously. We can argue that at least Donald Trump and Greta Thunberg offer two honest positions on the willingness of people to sacrifice growth and living standards for mitigating climate change or ensuring environmental protection. Maybe such a discursive polarization is not a bad thing. While many politicians want to align themselves with Thunberg, both in photo ops and policy rhetoric, their actual practical actions lie closer to Donald Trump’s position. They know climate change is happening but they are not willing to make the necessary sacrifices as these are perceived by many in the developed world to be potentially worse than any potential consequences of climate change itself.