The French Right’s Green Turn?

Since 2012, the French far-right has improved its electoral standing, with the June 2022 legislative elections highlighting this growth. The National Rally (NR) secured 89 seats in the National Assembly in their strongest legislative performance ever, which allowed them a substantive role in policymaking. This explosion in popular support has occurred simultaneously with efforts to overhaul party rhetoric on climate issues to present themselves as more moderate. Last year’s Presidential election saw NR candidate Marine Le Pen craft an environmental message in-line with a French public overwhelmingly supportive of measures designed to lower emissions and combat climate change. Her platform included promises to restore biodiversity, invest in the hydrogen sector, guarantee clean air and water, and lower carbon emissions, among other things. She even dubbed incumbent President Emmanuel Macron a “climate hypocrite” for his perceived inaction on environmental issues.  

While linguistically pleasing, this green-sounding rhetoric is squarely at odds with platform positions on climate issues. Previous party leader Le Pen declined to adopt aggressive climate goals and argued for slow-walking the energy transition. Additionally, the party’s inflexible nationalism has fostered opposition against international frameworks to address climate issues, which provides opportunities to rally the world together to reduce carbon emissions. Finally, Presidential candidate Le Pen pledged to cancel wind turbine subsidies, dismantle existing ones, and shelve future projects. She designated them an “ecological, economic, [and] strategic absurdity,” despite the ample evidence that wind power could play a crucial role in lowering emissions. This continues a phenomenon occurring since 2014: a party utilizing ecologically friendly language while supporting environmentally destructive policies.  This messaging shift has allowed the far-right to present themselves as more moderate than they actually are, with a rapidly growing voter base to show for it. How did it get to this point?

Established in 1972 by Jean-Marie Le Pen, the National Front (NF)—predecessor to the NR—experienced limited electoral success through the years. The far-right party attracted mostly protest votes, holding few elected offices by 2012: zero of the 577 seats in the National Assembly and only three of the 79 seats in the European Parliament. Like right-wing political parties across the globe, the NF denied climate change was occurring and was firmly anti-climate. Between 2009-2014, NF MEPs maintained a 100% anti-climate voting record, tying for the worst European party on environmental issues. Meanwhile, official party statements were equally anti-climate. Party founder and former leader Jean-Marie Le Pen infamously once cut a watermelon to “prove” that environmentalists were secretly communists, hiding their red core inside a green cover. During a 2012 Presidential debate, candidate Marine Le Pen cast doubt about whether humans were causing climate change, despite 99.9% of scientific studies concluding that climate change is caused by humans.

Just two years later, the NF launched a “New Ecology” movement. This environmental program was designed to offer a “patriotic” platform focused on promoting the NF as the true protectors of the planet, while slamming other parties as failing to adequately promote climate issues. Additionally, the project allowed the NF to claim a deep commitment to the environment and ecology. However, the movement included very little policy substance and mainly relied on previously utilized National Front positions such as restricting the cruel treatment of animals during the preparation of Halal and Kosher, promoting additional investments into nuclear power, reducing shale exploration, and opposing international climate organizations and agreements. Opponents quickly denounced the move as a sham, pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of the party’s rhetoric not matching its policies.  The Socialist party took to Twitter to slam the movement as focused merely on winning voters while Green MEP Yannick Jadot pointed out obvious areas of contradictions, such as claiming to defend fish while supporting deep sea fisheries and never addressing biodiversity.

Missing were actual solutions, providing additional evidence that the movement was designed more to persuade voters that the NF valued the planet rather than to solve the various climate issues. The project was completely devoid of solutions to decrease carbon emissions, a staple of any substantive climate plan. Another instance is the NF’s call to limit shale gas exploration while also shamelessly opposing a legislative measure designed to declare a moratorium on shale extraction, highlighting a glaring difference between words and actions.

As noted by the previous paragraph, the NF staunchly opposes global climate agreements—perhaps the most effective manner of addressing global climate issues—and a member of the NF environmental committee went as far as to call the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change a “communist project.” Finally, despite the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community that climate change is occurring and human activity is causing it, the same environmental committee member said that human-caused climate change was a technical question and that “there are pros and cons to the scientific evidence.” 

Building off the attempts of the New Ecology towards embracing more pro-climate rhetoric, Le Pen’s second presidential run in 2017 continued and strengthened the NF’s appeal to voters who viewed the environment as one of their top priorities. Additionally, compared to 2012 and 2014, the party produced positions on more climate issues: according to an analysis from Carbon Brief, Le Pen held positions on 12 of the 23 issues researched, a substantial increase from the platform in 2012. Among her positions, she supported investments into promoting increased usage of renewable energy, approved additional research into developing the hydrogen energy sector, urged reduction of French dependence on foreign oil, and wanted the government to promote recycling. Bizarrely, Le Pen even released a statement regarding the American withdrawal from the Paris climate accords, denouncing the move despite opposition to international climate actions and despite previously criticism of the deal as flawed. This rhetorical embrace of pro-climate language appears to have been marginally successful, as she advanced to the second round of the Presidential election where she was promptly obliterated by current President Emanuel Macron.  

While this shift in language might seem a benign attempt to gain votes, the French far-right is also utilizing pro-climate rhetoric to advance anti-migrant positions. Le Pen has stated that “if you’re a nomad, you’re not an environmentalist”, effectively placing all migrants within the box of being anti-climate. Additionally, MEP Hervé Juvin echoed these sentiments: “Fundamentally, ecology is about people living on a territory, who are attached to it and who make plans for the long term.” Furthermore, the far-right equates limiting immigration with protecting the planet, as articulated by current leader Jordan Bardella: “Borders are the environment’s greatest ally […and] it is through them that we will save the planet.” Finally, MEP Aurelia Beigneux wrote an op-ed arguing that the “environment therefore does not justify accepting global immigration. On the contrary, it is the... existence of borders... that will kill two birds with one stone: protect our environment and fight against the migratory wave.” 

Embracing environmentalism to advance anti-migrant positions is not limited to just the French far-right, as other European right-wing political parties have similarly moved themselves towards embracing pro-climate language while continuing to hold their anti-immigrant viewpoints.  Eco-nationalists in Switzerland have sought to severely limit immigration because “two thirds of [Switzerland] is uninhabitable due to our mountains and lakes.” Meanwhile, the Danish People’s Party combines a deep distrust of immigrants and other cultures with a pledge to “ensure that… the [way] earth’s resources are used bears the stamp of consideration, care and a sense of responsibility.” Finally, Hungary’s Jobbik Party goes as far as to oppose importing foreign plants into the country, claiming they harm Hungary’s own plants and animals. The French far-right is merely another member of the club, though its electoral success does set itself apart from others. 

This shift in language surrounding climate issues has taken many forms, as the French far-right has reduced its communication of unpopular positions, highlighting more popular viewpoints, utilizing green rhetoric, and pretending to care about the planet. While it does appear as if the far-right has moved marginally towards adopting some pro-climate positions, the majority of its positions only further hinder environmental progress rather than promote it. Additionally, while the messaging on climate issues might sound rhetorically pleasing to some, their lack of substance and history of saying one thing while doing another highlights their true, lackluster feelings about the environment.

In conclusion: climate change, extreme heat, clean air and water, protecting the planet, reducing waste, and keeping the earth clean have all become top priorities for voters across most of the world and especially in Europe. As evidenced by first the National Front and then the National Rally, the French far-right has managed to successfully navigate the delicate balance of winning green voters without needing to change their positions on climate issues. Additionally, it serves as a cautionary tale for voters, journalists, researchers, and climate advocates, highlighting the necessity for rigorous examination of actual positions and voting habits rather than merely accepting what a party or candidate claims to believe. Finally, centrist and center-left parties must be bold enough to challenge far-right candidates and parties on the issues and refuse to let up unless detailed policies and comprehensive solutions are provided. While language can provide insights on what someone believes, actions certainly speak louder than words.