The ‘I’ in Climate: Negative Climate Change Ideologies

Nowadays, climate change is no longer a radical concept. People and governments worldwide have discussed it — some claim to work on climate change, while others undermine its severity, or simply deny its existence. Still, most people who are educated in modern science would perceive climate change to be good.

However, fewer know of the negative ideologies that have spawned precisely because of this good cause — these entail the eradication of a minority group, usually decided by race or other factors like physical attributes, religion or belief. We uncover the mindsets of zealots, systemic discrimination and more below.

ECO FASCISM

“Ethnic autonomy for all peoples with a focus on the preservation of nature, and the natural order.”

So went the manifesto of a 28-year-old Australian man in Christchurch, New Zealand, who on 15 March, 2019, entered a mosque parking lot and massacred 51 innocent people. While this horrific crime was globally publicised, fewer know of the reason the perpetrator cited for the killings: he was a self-confessed “eco-fascist” (1).

When one thinks of environmental friendliness, the term “fascism” likely does not come to mind, if at all (it seems oxymoronic, even). However, reality dictates otherwise; political orientation has seeped into this seemingly harmless cause and spawned extremist views in the West especially.

Stemming from the historical ideology of fascism, which exalts nation and often race above the individual, endorsing a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, eco-fascism expresses similar far-right notions (2). They focus on ecological politics, supposed overpopulation, deep ecology and the rejection of human rights (3). Furthermore, they have a conception of white identity that is directly tied to what they view as the geographical landscape that is important to that identity (3).

Like the Christchurch and El Paso shootings in 2019, terrorism driven by eco-fascism has surfaced and, worryingly, been perpetuated in online calls to action. Virtual communities of eco-fascists and alt-right proponents have only been enabled by the actions of these eco-terrorists, reading their easily-accessible manifestoes — posted on website 8chan — and being inspired in turn.

Eco-fascism has snaked tendrils not just in Internet subculture but also in real-life politics. German political party Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD), or Alternative for Germany, won seats for the first time in 2017 and is the biggest German opposition party. In the spirit of far-right ethno-nationalism, they advocate against Muslim immigrants and proclaim their desire to “conserve an unspoilt and diverse environment” in the same breath (4,5).

When the protection of the environment is being used to legitimise and glorify the discrimination of human communities, this must not be condoned.

So the next time you read a joking (or not) social media post as COVID-19 as the “vaccine for the Earth. We’re the virus”, remember what it perpetuates and move on.

ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM

Environmental activism has gained prominence in recent decades, but there remains a significant portion of the population who remain indifferent about the issue, or simply support the cause to jump on the bandwagon. The more affluent population may fail to recognize the gravity of this issue, as they do not suffer the direct impacts brought about by climate change.

However, the impacts of climate change often affects minority races at a disproportionate rate. Environmental racism is systematic, and it happens through policy making, workplace regulations and so on.

Cancer Alley, a stretch of land in the United States that is lined with oil refineries and petrochemical plants. As implied by its name, residents of that region are 50 times more likely to develop cancer than the average american; and those who live there are predominantly black. (6)

This is just a single example of a widespread phenomenon that plagues the United States, as some of its laws are skewed to protect the wellbeing of the majority race over the minorities.

“One thing that Covid-19 has done, it has made a lot of populations we made invisible, visible,” Sacoby Wilson, an environmental health scientist at the University of Maryland. (7) The recent and still ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has exposed how environmental racism can manifest itself in the real world. Black Americans are infected with COVID-19 at nearly three times the rate of white Americans. (8)

Some may attribute this to the fact that many Black American families tend to live in poverty, therefore leading to lower hygiene levels of the population, and therefore being more susceptible to diseases. However, upon further inspection, it is evident that it is a racial issue rather than a problem of affluence. The agents driving this discrimination include healthcare, housing, education, criminal justice and finance. (9)

No matter our race, we are all humans. It is a gross injustice that individuals have to be exposed to environmental conditions that endanger their lives at a higher rate than an average human merely because of the colour of their skin.

ECO ABLEISM

With the rise in the general public consciousness about the harms of single-use plastics comes a wave of initiatives to do away with them. Many able-bodied environmental activists have taken on different strategies to combat the prevalence of single-use plastics, such as campaigning to have single-use plastics banned everywhere to publicly shaming those who consume products with single-use plastics. However, they fail to realise the importance of such items to disabled communities, and hence perpetuate ableism under the guise of environmental activism.

Ableism is discrimination against people with disabilities, while eco-ableism can be loosely defined as discrimination against people with disabilities when it comes to being eco-friendly. (10)

Plastic straws, among other items, have become a hotly-debated single use plastic item as more FnB outlets have stopped providing them. As of July 2020, over 270 food and beverage outlets have stopped providing single-use plastic straws. (11)

Although this will greatly reduce our plastic consumption as a whole, it poses a problem for those who rely on plastic straws. Some disabled people are unable to lift cups up to their mouth to drink and would hence require straws. (12)

Some may suggest disabled people switch to environmentally friendly alternatives such as paper straws, or reusable metal and bamboo straws. However, these alternatives pose various problems for the disabled. (12)

Paper straws lack the flexibility needed to achieve a safe drinking angle, whereas metal and bamboo straws pose choking hazards. Furthermore, reusable straws can cause a build-up of bacteria as it is hard to clean it well, thus posing an increased risk to those with auto-immune disorders. (12)

Environmentalists may bring up the fact that disabled people can bring their own straws. However, this further inconveniences their life and discretion and further discriminates against them. By implying that they would have to compensate for the very fact that they are disabled just to be accepted into able society is fundamentally ableist.

Able-bodied environmentalists have also brought up that although plastic straws are not readily available, they can be requested for at various eating establishments. However, this is simply not viable for the disabled. Not only will they face scrutiny and judgement for being “environmentally unfriendly”, but they also have to face the possibility of eating establishments not having straws.

Such sentiments also place the responsibility of being able to drink safely on disabled people, instead of placing the responsibility of making ethical choices on able-bodied people. Surely, this responsibility should instead be a burden borne by those with freedom of choice.

The use of other single-use plastic utensils and wipes have also come under scrutiny for being harmful to the environment. The calls to ban such items and the public shaming that comes with it has an adverse effect on the disabled community. For those who are unable to wash utensils or take showers, such disposable items allow them to live their lives more conveniently, comfortably and independently.

Once again, environmentalists may call for the disabled to switch to biodegradable alternatives. However, those alternatives are either expensive or available in inaccessible areas. Able-bodied people — we with the privilege of choice — should allow those who do not to make their own choices, instead of forcing everyone to conform.

Written by Leia Ong, Naydene Tan, Li Decong, Christopher Wong

---

References