Climate change and even tethered bottle caps have got sucked into the culture wars

If necessity is the mother of invention, frustration is probably the father. The pull or ring tab on aluminium drinks can was invented by Ermal Cleon Fraze – he was having a picnic and was frustrated when he couldn’t open his beer can after forgetting his opener.
His invention revolutionised the beverage industry – but also created a litter problem from the ripped off and discarded tabs. The stay-on tab solved this dilemma and is the opening device used today.
I can’t remember exactly when the stay-on tabs became a thing in Ireland – but I do remember the sky didn’t fall in, people seemed to get on with their lives without feeling impeded by the “nanny State” or worse, controlled by some shady big State conspiracy, and there was a benefit for the environment.
Fast forward to 2024 and the introduction of new attached bottle caps, introduced for the same reason – a small measure with big pay-offs in preventing pollution. But the reaction to this environmental measure is an eye-opener. “Stupid”, “annoying”, “a nuisance”, “more green hype” if you read just some comments.
The environment, climate change and biodiversity loss have now got sucked into the culture wars. And in a world that is pivoting to the right, environmental policies are now in the crosshairs of many conservatives.
A dangerous narrative has crept in, branding any progressive environmental policy as costly, woke, nanny state, green madness and some kind of infringement on people’s freedoms. It may not have widespread support but the constant underlying criticism is enough to undermine genuine policies. The water is suitably muddied enough to ensure people are confused, unsure and unlikely to place their trust in what they’re being told.
The message of the benefits of environmental policy are not getting through and rightly or wrongly ordinary people feel the burden lies on their shoulders. There is a perception that environmental policies hit people in their pockets.
Some of the blame lies with various governments; lacklustre at best in their support of environmental measures, cynical at worst. Whether or not you agree with a carbon tax, it seems to be a lightning rod that is used to damn all environmental measures, despite not accounting for a fraction of fuel costs.
For example, on a litre of petrol costing 171.52 euro cents, carbon tax accounts for 14.69 cents, while excise accounts for 54.18 cents and VAT is 32.07 cents. But it is the carbon tax that critics want scrapped, though most of the money is ring-fenced to help finance green initiatives and other climate-related policies such as home retrofits as well as being used to tackle energy poverty.
Have you ever seen this properly explained by politicians?
Threats of EU fines if we don’t take measures to meet our climate targets only serve to feed into the populist rhetoric of a bureaucratic imposition of more taxes. And it’s not as if right-wing populists need any help in selling that message. They have been successful at painting environmental measures as anti-people, anti-progress – evident from the success of Trump and Brexit, while environmentalists have been portrayed as sanctimonious, well-off, out-of-touch elites who are inflicting costly measures on the less well-off.
And as we have seen, governments and politicians, wary and scared of being outflanked by right-wing populism, have no problem sacrificing nature and the environment for power. Concessions on EU climate rules in response to farmers’ protests is just one example.
[ Donald Trump’s return is a blow to global response to the climate crisisOpens in new window ]
So, where do we go from here? It is very difficult to convey climate action and environmental messages when people are feeling the effects of a cost-of-living crisis and are struggling to make ends meet – that is probably the message from a host of elections around the world. But it is not impossible.
The challenge is how to win back the disaffected. To borrow a phrase from the other side, it’s time for environmentalists to take back control. The first action is to wrest the messaging on environmental action back from the politicians. We need to adopt clear and simple messaging that clearly outlines benefits of protecting nature and the environment, sells the benefits of climate action and offers hope and a vision for a better future.
Many environmental groups sprang up in communities, spurred by the need to make change that would protect and benefit those communities. We need to get back to our grassroots beginnings.
Local Environmental Networks (LENs) are made up of individuals and groups with interests in a wide range of environmental issues. They provide a central hub around which people from a given county can gather, discuss projects, ask for help, create change and become involved in their local Public Participation Network, which lets them take part in council committees and be a voice for nature and sustainable development in local policy creation.
We are lucky in Ireland we all have the opportunity to take part in policy creation at this level. Local environmental groups can get involved from the beginning of policy creation and ensure action is taken in the interest of the local community and our environment. It’s an opportunity for people to be a voice for nature in planning, housing, heritage, transport, tourism, economic development and more. It’s an opportunity to show that, far from being a burden, good environmental stewardship is a win-win for everyone.
Clean air, fresh water, vibrant towns and villages, reliable and sustainable public transport, safe places for families to walk and cycle, local jobs – it shouldn’t be a burden. And it shouldn’t be a hard message to sell.
Karen Ciesielski is co-ordinator of the Environment Pillar