Global climate policy is rapidly becoming a defining political battleground, influencing elections and public opinion in profound ways. As governments advance ambitious green agendas to combat climate change, these measures are also sparking polarised responses and political realignments, revealing that climate action is as much a social and economic debate as an environmental one.
How climate policy fuels political divides
Green policies (carbon taxes, renewable energy mandates, and fossil fuel phaseouts) are becoming increasingly contentious. In many regions, they fuel concerns over rising living costs, job losses in traditional sectors, and perceived government overreach. Europe’s so-called “Greenlash” is an example of this: protests and populist movements mobilise against climate measures seen as economically burdensome or culturally alien, challenging the political establishment. Meanwhile, in the U.S., climate action intersects with partisan divides, framing environmental policy through lenses of economic equity and ideological identity. In the Global South, the debate is often focused on climate justice, affordability, and the legacy of developed countries’ emissions, rendering consensus on international climate commitments more complicated.
Global politics and the green agenda
Worldwide, green policies are transforming alliances and diplomatic priorities. Developed nations push for ambitious net-zero targets and green technology transfers, while emerging economies advocate for financial support and equitable transitions. This dynamic is shaping votes and negotiations in global forums, like COP summits and trade agreements, sometimes mirroring domestic political pressures. The climate-populism nexus thereby reveals a geopolitical landscape where environmental ambition conflicts with sovereignty concerns, social stability, and economic development targets.
Why addressing climate populism matters for effective policy
Ignoring the political dimensions of climate policy risks backlash, policy rollbacks, and social unrest. To foster durable green transitions, policymakers must consider inclusivity, equity, and transparency. Integrating just transition frameworks that protect workers, and vulnerable communities can help minimise divides. Engaging diverse stakeholders and tailoring policies to local contexts improves legitimacy and public trust. Furthermore, recognising that environmental goals and political realities are intertwined is crucial for achieving sustainable climate solutions.
How Strategy&Ops navigates the climate populism challenge
- Political risk and stakeholder analysis: At Strategy&Ops, we guide clients in understanding the political landscape, identifying groups affected by green policies, as well as anticipating potential sources of opposition to design more resilient strategies.
- Inclusive policy design and communication: We assist in creating climate policies and narratives that address equity concerns along with economic impacts, and community voices, which can help to enhance public support and minimise polarisation.
- Adaptive governance frameworks: Our multidisciplinary team develop mechanisms for participatory decision-making and conflict resolution, promoting collaboration in the face of divergent interests.
- Global-local alignment strategies: At Strategy&Ops, we support navigating international climate commitments while accommodating domestic sociopolitical contexts, enabling organisations to meet targets without exacerbating divisions.
By navigating the political complexities of climate policy, Strategy&Ops equips companies to turn green challenges into opportunities for inclusive, stable, and effective climate action. Climate action today is inseparable from politics, and managing this nexus is essential for an equitable and sustainable future. Interested in developing politically informed climate strategies that foster cohesion and resilience? Contact our multidisciplinary team at info@strategyandops.net.
#ClimatePopulism #GreenPolitics #JustTransition #GlobalClimatePolicy #InclusiveGovernance #StrategyAndOps
References
Caldwell, D. (2025) ‘Long-run trends in partisan polarization of climate policy attitudes’, Environmental Politics, 34(2), pp. 1–22. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2024.2403957
Cole, J.C. (2023) ‘Social psychological perspectives on political polarization’, Political Psychology, 46(3), pp. 1–20. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11720282/
de Prinse, A. (2019) ‘Political polarization and the environment: A study into the factors contributing to the growing political divide over environmental issues’, Wageningen University & Research. Available at: https://edepot.wur.nl/504398
Hochachka, G., Wise, M. and Regan, W. (2025) ‘‘Sensemaking’ climate change: Navigating policy, polarization and the culture wars’, npj Climate Action, 4(43). Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s44168-025-00240-7
Page, L. and Ruebeck, H. (2023) ‘Reaching across the aisle: Does affective polarization hinder grassroots climate mobilization?’, MIT Economics Job Market Paper. Available at: https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/LP_JMP_2_0.pdf
Yi, J. and Chan, M. (2024) ‘Climate change attitudes under political polarization: A comparative analysis of the U.S., UK, Australia, South Korea, and Japan’, WAPOR. Available at: https://wapor.org/wp-content/uploads/Jingjing-Climate-Change-Attitudes-Under-Political-Polarization-A-Comparative-Analysis-of-the-U.S.-UK-Australia-South-Korea-and-Japan.pdf
Zhao, T. and Chen, T. (2021) ‘Polarization of climate politics results from partisan sorting’, Environmental Science & Policy, 124, pp. 1–9. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378021001278
Zhao, T. and Chen, T. (2025) ‘US partisan polarization on climate change: Can stalemate give way to opportunity?’, PS: Political Science & Politics. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/us-partisan-polarization-on-climate-change-can-stalemate-give-way-to-opportunity/2666C4C08C3A5456B3001240B882C48D