The resurgence of eco-extremism: The case of ecofascism

While the climate crisis intensifies, an unsettling, misleading and dangerous extremist ideology, ecofascism that merges environmental concerns with fascist ideas, is on the rise around the globe. Ecofascism exploits ecological crises and public anxieties by combining fascist ideologies with the alleged ecological concern to assert, promote, and impose their own agendas. Ecofascism has been used as a term describing the merging of fascist ideologies with environmentalism since the 1990s, encompassing contradictory imaginaries of utopia, love, nostalgia, and cuteness with violence and militarism. These efforts drew more scholarly and public attention due to recent terrorist attacks citing ecofascism as their ideological motif, while the roots of ecofascism could be traced all the way back to Nazi Germany, where environmental concerns were used as a tool for racist and supremacist policies. 

The roots of ecofascist thoughts

The early roots of ecofascist thoughts can be traced to Richard Walther Darré, a key figure in Nazi Germany that embodied the early fusion of environmental and fascist ideologies, in which Nazi ecology dominated the political arena with different political projects and legal arrangements established surrounding environmental doctrine. As Reich Peasant Leader, Richard Walther Darré championed the “Blood and Soil” ethos as a solution to the protection of the peasantry from racial extinction and national disintegration. Establishing his argument within the protectionist and racist framework, he convinced Hitler to advocate for peasant farmers, arguing that Nordic blood was being polluted by foreign admixtures in the cities, and racial purity could only be maintained through the preservation of peasant farmers and their land. Although his anti-urbanist arguments seemed sensible on the surface, they were, as obvious, deeply rooted in racism and protectionist mentality. This fusion of ecology and supremacy echoes the rise of modern ecofascism, which similarly exploits environmental concerns to propagate fascist ideologies.

Blaming the Vulnerable

In contemporary discourses, ecofascist narratives often entail anti-immigration rhetoric, placing the blame on the most vulnerable groups, including the spread of classist, capitalist and protectionist measures and ideas. Hence, as climate change concerns grow, the climate crisis in the U.S. is increasingly framed not as the result of systemic public and corporate failures driven by rising corporate power, economic disparities, and market-based solutions, but as the fault of immigrants and the poor. The ones who contributed the least yet are the most vulnerable to climate change consequences. 

Thus, figures like William Perry Pendly, who temporarily led the U.S. The Bureau of Land Management under Donald Trump,  saw “immigration as one of the biggest threats to public lands”. This narrative persists despite contrary scientific evidence which indicates that CO2 emissions of the average immigrant (legal or illegal) in the United States are 18 percent less than those of the average native-born American. By putting blame on immigrants, marginalized communities, and residents of low-income countries, ecofascist aim to divert attention away from those responsible the most for the climate crisis. Thus, while ecofascist argue that the most vulnerable are to be blamed, the evidence indicates the contrary. Oxfam report from 2020 indicates that the wealthiest 1% of the world’s population are the primary contributors to carbon emissions. 

Between 1990 to 2015, a critical 25-year period during which humans doubled the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the wealthiest 1% of the world's population accounted for more than twice as much carbon pollution as the 3.1 billion people who made up the poorest half of humanity. A more recent Oxfam report from 2023 found that the emissions of the richest 1% are equivalent to those of the poorest 66%. This evidence clearly demonstrates that ecofascist narratives place the blame on the actors who are least responsible for the climate crisis, shifting away attention from the emissions of the richest, and the fossil fuel industry.

Discursive similarities: Ecofascist Narratives & Carbon Footprint

Similarly to the ecofascist narratives, the element of shifting attention from actors who should be held responsible for the climate crisis to the most vulnerable is also reflected in the concept of the “carbon footprint”. Thus, while the well known term “carbon footprint” seems to be born out of environmental concern, this is perhaps not particularly the case. Instead, the “carbon footprint” term was devised as a PR stunt by a PR firm hired by the oil company.

The second-largest non-state-owned oil company in the world, British Petroleum (BP), played a pivotal role in the production and popularization of this narrative. With 18,700 gas and service stations around the world, British Petroleum (BP) hired PR professionals at Ogilvy & Mather, which gave birth to the term “carbon footprint”. In 2004, as Mark Kaufman writes, BP unveiled the “carbon footprint calculator”, a tool that encourages citizens to measure and assess how their daily lives contribute to global warming. Over time, this PR-driven invention was not only popularized among citizens but even found its way into the practices of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency per Kaufman. 

While personal accountability matters, the climate crisis demands much more than individual actions or citizens obsessing over their carbon footprints and the pursuit of techno-optimistic solutions. Addressing the root causes requires global cooperation and systemic solutions beyond individual carbon footprint nitpicking, especially when considering the asymmetric power dynamics highlighted in Oxfam's carbon pollution reports.

By focusing primarily on carbon footprints, the critical role of large-scale transnational polluters is likely to be overlooked and obscured. Similar to ecofascist narratives, this focus can divert attention from those most responsible for global warming while shifting responsibility and blame onto the more vulnerable.

Drawing back to ecofascist narratives, the stark differences that Oxfam report highlights raises critical questions: Who truly benefits from ecofascist framings? The privileged elite, who contributed the most to the climate crisis, or the underprivileged, who will suffer its worst consequences (e.g., displacements, conflicts over resources such as water, food shortage, etc.)? 

For years, far-right movements had denied the existence of climate change at large, propagating narratives that climate change is “a hoax” or “a globalist agenda”. But as the effects of the climate crisis have become undeniable, the tactics appear to have shifted. Thus, ecofascist narratives are becoming widely employed as a means to attract new followers, exploiting public anxieties to disseminate fascist ideologies veiled in false concerns for ecology. 

The resurgence of ecofascism highlights that achieving truly just and equitable climate solutions requires a green transition grounded in justice, with honest, fact-based discussions that prioritize fairness and equality. As ecofascist narratives spread and even become motivators for terrorist attacks, it is critical to highlight their contradictions. 

As the climate crisis is inherently unjust, climate actions must prioritize justice and inclusivity, rejecting the exploitation of fear and division. By addressing the true causes of the climate crisis, and enabling citizens to have access to clear and conscious knowledge about who should be held accountable, we can work towards building a fairer and more sustainable world while demanding accountability for those responsible for the climate crisis and climate inaction.