The dangers of environmentalism

According to many observers, the forest fires that have particularly affected south-western France are not merely a natural disaster, but also the result of political choices linked to a certain vision of ecology. Environmental activists have been campaigning for years against the thinning of vegetation, forest management and even reservoirs… Can we call this a political disaster? “I think so. We must learn to distinguish, on the one hand, between ecology – which refers both to a science and to a concern for the environment, for living things and their fragility – and, on the other hand, environmentalism, which is an ideology constructed and mobilised to serve a project aimed at seizing power”, says political scientist Dominique Reynié, director of the Fondation pour l’innovation politique (Fondapol), in an interview with Le Figaro, before adding: “It is easy to see that global warming favours the spread of fires. But the catastrophe we are experiencing is in fact the result of a specific political determination: the pernicious influence of environmentalism on public policy. From the very first fires, all-news channels have provided a platform for guests who explicitly established a direct cause-and-effect link between global warming and the fires, as if the fires had flared up spontaneously in an overheated atmosphere. We have seen representatives of Oxfam – which describes itself as ‘an international solidarity organisation fighting poverty, inequality and climate change’ – attribute the fires to global warming and immediately call into question our lifestyles, economic growth, businesses, ‘capitalism’, and so on. It took some time before discussions began to focus on the shortcomings of public policy, on insufficient or all too often delayed investment, and on the causes of the fires. Monitoring forests, improving fire-fighting equipment, penalising reckless behaviour, punishing those responsible, and so on: all of this depends on a strategy, on organisation, on financial, human and technical resources – in other words, on sound policy – but it is precisely this that environmentalists have never ceased to oppose, aided in this by La France Insoumise (Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s radical left-wing party, ed.)”. “The tragic fires of the summer of 2026,” continues Reynié, “show us, for the first time, that an ecological catastrophe is not merely the result of climate change or economic globalisation, but also of the influence of environmentalism, which exploits obviously striking images without leaving sufficient room for rigorous argumentation. The environmentalist narrative is so oppressive and anxiety-inducing that the term ‘eco-anxiety’ has even been coined to describe this distress, the damage of which to public opinion – particularly amongst the younger generations – is considerable.”

From the decline of our nuclear sector to wildfires, not to mention our lag in climate action against the backdrop of global warming, are we perhaps paying the price for the political influence of this brand of environmentalism? “Let us recall what this environmentalism is all about. It is hostile to economic growth, to business, to innovation, and often to scientific progress – in other words, to the very foundations of most political solutions to the major problems facing the world. Environmentalists have the same relationship with ecology as the Rassemblement National (RN) has with immigration: it is an existential issue; it is their raison d’être. For both environmentalists and the RN, a world of solutions is a world in which there is no longer any place for them,” emphasises Reynié. He adds: “Since the 1970s, environmentalists have gained prominence through the extreme politicisation of environmental issues, attributing responsibility for climate phenomena and disasters to states and their leaders without nuance. Today, they themselves are being singled out as among those responsible for this catastrophe. The summer of 2026 demonstrated to everyone that, in reality, this brand of environmentalism can be the enemy of ecology.”

The Minister for Ecological Transition, Monique Barbut, has spoken out against the wider use of air conditioning, even going so far as to threaten to resign following the passing of the emergency agriculture bill. What does all this tell us? Are centre-left and centre-right parties too often intimidated by radical environmentalism? “Without a doubt. The main problem posed by environmentalism is political and, more specifically, democratic. Environmentalism has managed to seize power without having succeeded in convincing the electorate. Thus, faced with climate change – which should have worked in their favour – environmentalists have chosen to respond not through the market, civil society, creativity, initiative and innovation, but with the grandiose project of ‘saving the planet’ through an ‘ecological transition’ conceived and led by Brussels, for the European Union, and by Paris, for France. These ideas stem from an excessively bureaucratic conception of the management of public affairs. The result is the implementation of an increasingly restrictive, intrusive and severe regime of regulations, authorisations, controls and surveillance, with no regard for individual freedoms and, moreover, with no effect on global warming,” explains Dominique Reynié. “This rules-based environmentalism, this bureaucratic environmentalism, has not only established itself without the need for voters’ consent, but also without informing them – just as they were not informed, between 1997 and 2017, of the virtual abandonment of our nuclear sector, which is nevertheless our greatest industrial asset, as well as our best response to the challenges of energy sovereignty and global warming. In this sense,” Reynié continues, “the ‘Yellow Vests’ movement can be seen as the first popular check imposed on environmentalist ideology – a check, moreover, brought about through a form of protest rather than via the ballot box, as if the ‘Yellow Vests’ were seeking to counter environmentalism with its own methods of protest blockades and violent clashes.” Is radical environmentalism losing the cultural battle? “I would say that environmentalism is losing the legislative and governmental battle. However,” concludes Reynié, “the electoral rejection of environmentalism does not prevent its cultural dominance. This can be seen in the extraordinary favour shown by the media, which is one of the great privileges granted to this ideology. It can also be seen in the ubiquity of environmentalist discourse, which has effectively been institutionalised. Consider what Althusser called the ‘ideological state apparatuses’: schools – and through schools, families are also reached – universities, the intellectual sphere, the media, particularly the state-run audiovisual sector, and the cultural sphere.”