In recent years, the global political landscape has witnessed a remarkable transformation where environmental concerns increasingly intersect with the populist movements sweeping across various societies. The emergent phenomenon of environmental populism is compelling scholars and analysts alike to revisit the traditional boundaries of political ideologies. Professor C. Fu’s groundbreaking study, “The populistisation of green politics and the greening of populism: an examination of environmental populism in Europe,” published in the International Journal of Anthropology and Ethnology, dives deep into this confluence, charting new intellectual territories in the understanding of contemporary European politics. This seminal work offers both a theoretical framework and detailed empirical analysis, unveiling how ecological agendas intertwine with populist rhetoric in ways that challenge and redefine political identities.
At the heart of Fu’s research lies a crucial insight: environmentalism is no longer the sole province of mainstream progressive movements or technocratic institutions. Instead, green politics have undergone a populist makeover, becoming more accessible, emotionally charged, and rooted in anti-elitist sentiment. Simultaneously, populist actors traditionally skeptical of environmental regulations are embedding green issues into their platforms, though often reinterpreting them to fit nationalist or protectionist narratives. This dual process—populistisation of green politics and greening of populism—marks a significant departure from the previously polarized view of environmentalism and populism as oppositional forces. Fu meticulously analyzes case studies from across Europe to illustrate how this reshaping is unfolding in real time.
The study begins by elaborating on the theoretical underpinnings of populism and environmentalism as distinct but increasingly overlapping political phenomena. Populism, widely conceptualized as a thin-centered ideology, frames politics as a contest between the virtuous ‘people’ and a corrupt ‘elite.’ Environmentalism, historically linked to science-based, globalist approaches, is often perceived as elite-driven and technocratic. Fu argues that the emerging environmental populism synthesizes these seemingly incompatible elements. This synthesis manifests in a rhetoric that simultaneously calls for urgent ecological protection while mobilizing popular grievances against distant political establishments, corporate polluters, and global institutions perceived as unaccountable.
One of the technical contributions of the paper is its nuanced typology of environmental populism. Fu delineates at least three distinct variants based on their ideological framing and strategic orientations. The first variant is ‘inclusionary environmental populism,’ characterized by progressive platforms that integrate social justice with ecological sustainability, emphasizing inclusive, democratic participation and international cooperation. The second, ‘exclusionary environmental populism,’ appropriates green rhetoric to advance nationalist or xenophobic agendas, often blaming migrants or foreign industries for environmental degradation. Finally, ‘technocratic-environmental populism’ combines skepticism of both political elites and environmental advocates, advancing a narrative that elevates the ‘common sense’ ecological knowledge of ordinary people over scientific expertise, thereby paradoxically undermining established environmental science while championing certain local conservation practices.
Empirically, Fu’s research draws on a multi-disciplinary methodology, including discourse analysis, ethnographic fieldwork, and quantitative examination of political party platforms and social media discourse across several European countries, including Germany, France, Italy, and Hungary. This broad geographical scope enables the identification of cross-national patterns and local specificities in how environmental populism manifests. For instance, in Germany, the Green Party has grappled with the challenge of maintaining its traditional progressive base while fending off populist competitors appropriating green issues for nationalist purposes. In contrast, Hungary’s political landscape exemplifies exclusionary environmental populism, where government rhetoric fuses environmental concerns with anti-immigration and sovereignty narratives.
Fu’s research highlights the multifaceted role of media and social networks in facilitating the rise of environmental populism. Digital platforms have become fertile ground for the dissemination of simplified, emotive messages that resonate with a broad audience dissatisfied with the perceived failures of conventional politics and environmental regimes. By analyzing patterns of social media engagement, Fu uncovers the ways populist actors skillfully embed green messaging within broader anti-establishment campaigns, mobilizing support through symbols, slogans, and viral content that emphasize both ecological urgency and populist grievances. This technological dimension underscores the intricate interplay between communication technologies and political strategy in contemporary environmental debates.
The implications of this research extend to policy-making and democratic governance in Europe. The rise of environmental populism poses significant challenges to the formulation of coherent and inclusive environmental policies. On one hand, populist demands can push political systems to prioritize ecological vulnerabilities and socio-environmental justice, which mainstream actors sometimes neglect. On the other hand, populist actors may distort scientific facts or weaponize environmental issues to justify exclusionary or illiberal agendas. Fu calls for a delicate balancing act in democratic institutions, advocating for more transparent, participatory, and science-informed approaches that can engage diverse constituencies without succumbing to polarizing simplifications.
Furthermore, the study presents a critical reflection on the role of experts and intellectuals in the evolving political ecology. As populist movements challenge traditional forms of expertise, Fu argues that scientists and environmental advocates must reimagine their modes of engagement. This reimagining includes acknowledging the emotional and cultural dimensions of environmental concerns, improving public communication strategies, and fostering collaboration with grassroots movements to counter misinformation and build durable coalitions. This approach encourages a move beyond deficit models of public understanding toward more dialogic and participatory knowledge production processes.
Importantly, Fu’s examination reveals a paradox at the core of environmental populism: while it amplifies previously marginalized voices demanding urgent climate action, it simultaneously risks fragmenting political consensus due to its diverse and sometimes contradictory expressions. This paradox poses a conundrum for democratic societies striving to address the pressing environmental crisis amid rising populist sentiments. The author cautions that the greening of populism is not inherently progressive or regressive; rather, its outcomes depend heavily on the social contexts and political strategies involved.
The study also investigates the socio-economic and cultural drivers behind the appeal of environmental populism. Economic insecurities, regional inequalities, and identity anxieties intertwine with heightened environmental awareness to fuel support for populist platforms embracing green agendas. Fu’s ethnographic insights into affected communities uncover how symbolic struggles over nature, heritage, and sovereignty become entangled with demands for social dignity and political recognition. These findings challenge depoliticized or technocratic accounts of environmentalism, emphasizing the embeddedness of ecological issues within broader societal conflicts.
Additionally, Fu explores the interrelations between environmental populism and other contemporary political movements, such as feminism, anti-globalization, and indigenous rights activism. The analysis reveals both affinities and tensions. While some movements converge around shared concerns about ecological justice and systemic transformation, others diverge due to conflicting priorities or strategic disagreements. This complexity contributes to a fluid and dynamic political terrain, wherein environmental populism acts as both a catalyst and a site of contestation for diverse social forces.
The article contends that understanding environmental populism demands interdisciplinarity, combining insights from political science, anthropology, sociology, and environmental studies. Fu’s methodological commitment to blending qualitative and quantitative methods exemplifies this integrative approach, enabling a richer and more grounded comprehension of how ecological concerns are embedded in contemporary political imaginaries. This cross-pollination of disciplines provides a powerful corrective against reductionist analyses that either demonize or romanticize populist politics.
From a normative perspective, Fu poses critical questions about the future trajectories of environmental populism in Europe amid accelerating climate crises and geopolitical instability. Will environmental populism inspire innovative forms of political mobilization capable of transcending entrenched divisions, or will it reinforce fragmentation and illiberal populism? How can democratic institutions nurture inclusive ecological citizenship that respects diversity without diluting urgent climate action? These questions underscore the urgency of ongoing research and policy engagement with this phenomenon.
In conclusion, “The populistisation of green politics and the greening of populism” constitutes a landmark contribution to contemporary political ecology, providing urgently needed conceptual and empirical tools to navigate the intersection of populism and environmentalism. Fu’s work exposes the plasticity of political ideologies in a time of planetary crisis and highlights the need to rethink conventional binaries between progressives and populists. As Europe—and the world—grapples with existential environmental challenges, this research offers both a cautionary tale and a hopeful pathway toward reimagined democratic futures where ecological imperatives and popular sovereignty can coexist productively.
This investigation not only enriches academic discourse but also carries profound practical significance for activists, policymakers, and civil society leaders seeking to harness the populist energies for more sustainable and equitable environmental outcomes. Ultimately, Fu’s research invites us to reconsider how the politics of the planet might be transmuted by the politics of the people, opening avenues for more inclusive and responsive ecological governance in an era defined by both environmental emergency and political upheaval.
Subject of Research: The intersection of populism and green politics in Europe, focusing on the emergence and characteristics of environmental populism.
Article Title: The populistisation of green politics and the greening of populism: an examination of environmental populism in Europe.
Article References:
Fu, C. The populistisation of green politics and the greening of populism: an examination of environmental populism in Europe. Int. j. anthropol. ethnol. 9, 1 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41257-024-00124-4
Image Credits: AI Generated
