> The study, by the universities of Sussex and Warwick, looked at the policy of more than 25 countries over a period of more than a decade. Researchers created a climate policy index and compared it with a baseline of a centre-right government. They found the combined effect of the presence of a rightwing populist party in parliament and in government was associated with a reduction in the index of about 25% on average.
OK, interesting study, but *which* 25 countries did they look at? Its so frustrating when articles reference a “study” as the main source of info but fail to link it or show any of the data. In this case, the countries they looked at are pretty key to the results they got.
Edit: big thank you to the users below for looking it up. The data is from the full list of OECD countries. The OECD was initially called the Organization for European Economic Cooperation, or OEEC. It was started in 1948, after World War II, to run the Marshall Plan to reconstruct Europe. Its goal was to help European governments recognize their economic interdependence. In this way, it was one of the roots of the European Union.
> Most of the 38 OECD members are from Europe. They are Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.
> There are five countries from the Americas: Canada, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Costa Rica, and the United States. The four Pacific members are Australia, Japan, Korea, and New Zealand. The two member countries from the Middle East are Israel and Turkey.
A few decades from now when climate change is the number one issue facing the world you’ll be hard pressed to find a single person who doesn’t claim to have been passionately supportive of combatting it the entire time. But of course by that point the damage will already have been done.
I don’t care how we get people to support a move to clean energy, I don’t care if they believe in climate change… as long as support can be gotten for it.
You’ve got a perfect opportunity right now to campaign for:
“Energy Independence! Free from the sanctions and impacts of foreign wars. Free from the political influence of the European Union, demanding we buy our energy else where! This is home grown, British Energy. We have the windiest coasts in the world, let’s use them so we can keep being British!”
And instead of doing this, it’s the same arguments which people don’t listen to.
And to go back a little further one has to ask what created the increased support for such Populist parties in first place… I’d guess the 2008 Financial crisis and subsequent decade of Austerity imposed on the poor by the rich neoliberal elite…
Tories, for example.
COP26 was forgotten immediately, wasn’t even very convincing while it was on.
I am pretty sure they blight any policy that’s about betterment of world or country.
i.e. They try to keep the West dependent on Russian energy imports.
Oh yeah rightwing parties are absolutely responsible.
People who vote for ‘green parties’ and support NGOs like ‘greenpeace’ famously also are the type on that side of the spectrum. Stupid parties which had a hissy fit over a sustainable non polluting power source for no logical reason.
They should shut up and pay more taxes to help fund companies like Shell and BP save the world
9 comments
> The study, by the universities of Sussex and Warwick, looked at the policy of more than 25 countries over a period of more than a decade. Researchers created a climate policy index and compared it with a baseline of a centre-right government. They found the combined effect of the presence of a rightwing populist party in parliament and in government was associated with a reduction in the index of about 25% on average.
OK, interesting study, but *which* 25 countries did they look at? Its so frustrating when articles reference a “study” as the main source of info but fail to link it or show any of the data. In this case, the countries they looked at are pretty key to the results they got.
Edit: big thank you to the users below for looking it up. The data is from the full list of OECD countries. The OECD was initially called the Organization for European Economic Cooperation, or OEEC. It was started in 1948, after World War II, to run the Marshall Plan to reconstruct Europe. Its goal was to help European governments recognize their economic interdependence. In this way, it was one of the roots of the European Union.
> Most of the 38 OECD members are from Europe. They are Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.
> There are five countries from the Americas: Canada, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Costa Rica, and the United States. The four Pacific members are Australia, Japan, Korea, and New Zealand. The two member countries from the Middle East are Israel and Turkey.
A few decades from now when climate change is the number one issue facing the world you’ll be hard pressed to find a single person who doesn’t claim to have been passionately supportive of combatting it the entire time. But of course by that point the damage will already have been done.
I don’t care how we get people to support a move to clean energy, I don’t care if they believe in climate change… as long as support can be gotten for it.
You’ve got a perfect opportunity right now to campaign for:
“Energy Independence! Free from the sanctions and impacts of foreign wars. Free from the political influence of the European Union, demanding we buy our energy else where! This is home grown, British Energy. We have the windiest coasts in the world, let’s use them so we can keep being British!”
And instead of doing this, it’s the same arguments which people don’t listen to.
And to go back a little further one has to ask what created the increased support for such Populist parties in first place… I’d guess the 2008 Financial crisis and subsequent decade of Austerity imposed on the poor by the rich neoliberal elite…
Tories, for example.
COP26 was forgotten immediately, wasn’t even very convincing while it was on.
I am pretty sure they blight any policy that’s about betterment of world or country.
Russians try to blight our climate policy too:
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-secretly-working-with-environmentalists-to-oppose-fracking](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-secretly-working-with-environmentalists-to-oppose-fracking)
i.e. They try to keep the West dependent on Russian energy imports.
Oh yeah rightwing parties are absolutely responsible.
People who vote for ‘green parties’ and support NGOs like ‘greenpeace’ famously also are the type on that side of the spectrum. Stupid parties which had a hissy fit over a sustainable non polluting power source for no logical reason.
They should shut up and pay more taxes to help fund companies like Shell and BP save the world