The pursuit of ambitious environmental and climate targets has become one of the defining policy agendas of the 21st century. Governments, international organizations, and the European Union (EU) in particular, have committed themselves to carbon neutrality and “net zero” targets within the next decades. However, this transformation is not occurring in a political vacuum. While green policies promise long-term environmental benefits, they often generate short-term social and economic costs for specific groups, especially workers in fossil fuel industries and farmers whose livelihoods are directly affected by regulatory shifts. This tension fuels a growing debate: how can policymakers balance environmental goals with social fairness to avoid backlash from those who feel left behind?
Farmers’ protests across Europe illustrate this challenge vividly. In countries such as the Netherlands, France, Germany, and Poland, farmers have mobilized against environmental regulations, such as stricter rules on nitrogen emissions or reductions in pesticide use. While policymakers frame these measures as essential for meeting EU climate and biodiversity targets, farmers often perceive them as existential threats to their economic survival. The protests are not simply about agricultural rules but signal broader fears that climate policies disproportionately burden rural and working-class populations, while urban elites and multinational corporations remain less directly affected.
The risk of populist backlash arises when environmental policies are perceived as top-down, technocratic, and inattentive to social consequences. In France, the 2018 “Gilets Jaunes” (Yellow Vest) movement erupted in response to proposed fuel tax increases intended to cut carbon emissions. Although the measure was environmentally motivated, it hit lower-income and rural commuters hardest, leading to mass protests and violent clashes. This case demonstrates how green initiatives, if designed without adequate social cushioning, can be weaponized by populist movements to portray climate action as elitist and unjust.
At the heart of this debate lies the question of climate justice. Climate justice requires that the burdens and benefits of environmental transitions be distributed fairly across society. It emphasizes that those least responsible for climate change—often marginalized communities—should not bear the heaviest costs of mitigation. Applying this principle in Europe means designing climate policies that are socially inclusive, compensating vulnerable groups, and ensuring that farmers, small businesses, and low-income households can adapt without losing their livelihoods. Without such fairness, even well-intentioned policies risk eroding democratic legitimacy.
One key solution is the concept of a “just transition”, widely promoted by the International Labour Organization (ILO) and embedded in EU policy discourse. A just transition seeks to protect workers and communities during the shift to a green economy. For example, the EU’s Just Transition Mechanism provides financial assistance to regions most affected by decarbonization, such as coal-mining areas in Poland or lignite-dependent regions in Greece. Expanding this model to agriculture could involve subsidies, technical training, and support for farmers to adopt more sustainable practices without facing bankruptcy.
Moreover, successful green policies require broad stakeholder engagement. When farmers are included in policy design, rather than treated as passive recipients of top-down regulations, the chances of acceptance increase. For instance, Denmark’s collaborative approach—where agricultural unions, environmental NGOs, and the government negotiate emissions targets—has yielded more cooperative outcomes than confrontational approaches elsewhere. By contrast, policies imposed without adequate dialogue risk creating political fault lines that populist actors can exploit.
The political economy of green transformation also intersects with global trade and competitiveness. European farmers often argue that stricter environmental standards put them at a disadvantage compared to producers in countries with weaker regulations. This argument resonates with populist narratives that frame climate policy as sacrificing domestic jobs for abstract global goals. To counter this, mechanisms such as the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) aim to ensure that imports face similar environmental standards, thereby addressing fairness not only within Europe but also in global trade relations.
Social fairness also requires a careful approach to distributional impacts. Policies such as carbon pricing, fuel taxes, or restrictions on fertilizers can disproportionately affect rural households and small-scale producers. Redistribution mechanisms, such as carbon tax dividends or direct subsidies for sustainable farming, can mitigate these impacts. For example, Canada’s federal carbon pricing system includes rebates to households, making the majority of low- and middle-income families financially better off, while still incentivizing emissions reductions. Translating similar mechanisms into the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) could help balance green targets with fairness.
Another dimension is the role of information and communication. Populist movements often thrive on narratives that frame climate policies as elite-driven impositions. Countering this requires transparent communication about the long-term benefits of climate action, as well as the costs of inaction. For example, emphasizing that sustainable farming enhances soil health, reduces dependence on costly chemical inputs, and increases resilience to climate shocks can reframe policies as opportunities rather than threats. Bridging the gap between short-term sacrifices and long-term gains is crucial for maintaining public support.
Ultimately, the balance between green targets and social fairness is a political as well as a technical question. Policymakers must recognize that climate action, while urgent, cannot succeed without democratic legitimacy. If the costs of transition are unevenly distributed, populist actors will continue to mobilize discontent, undermining both environmental and democratic goals. Conversely, if climate policies are designed with fairness, inclusivity, and transparency at their core, they can strengthen democratic resilience while advancing ecological sustainability. The task ahead is not only to decarbonize economies but to do so in a way that sustains social cohesion and political trust.