The Rise of Environmental Fascism and the Securitization of Climate Change
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Projections The Rise of Environmental Fascism and the Securitization of Climate Change Efadul Huq, Henry Mochida Published on: Mar 30, 2018 DOI: 10.21428/6cb11bd5 License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0) Projections The Rise of Environmental Fascism and the Securitization of Climate Change (Header Image: Ammon Bundy was the spokesperson for the armed militants who occupied the Malheur Ntional Wildlife Refuge inEastern Oregon for 41 days in 2016. For more photos: http://boisestatepublicradio.org/post/41-days-documentary. Source: CC by DonkeyHotey, https://flic.kr/p/D9miyt) Abstract The predominant thesis explaining the rise of the Trump Administration and the alt- right in the American political landscape is that a dichotomy between urban and rural areas led to a backfiring of identity politics. Instead, we evidence that this rise is associated with decades-long white nationalist organizing. While the Trump Administration’s decisions regarding the environment are usually seen as dismantling existing environmental protections, we see the administration’s decisions as constructing an emerging framework for national environmental governance with global ramifications. In this paper, we highlight how current Washington ideologies are extensions of the Wise Use movement, a powerful anti-environmental lobbying front stemming back to the 1980s. We argue that the calls for eliminating environmental regulations to protect the reclamation of land rights for white nationalist interests marks the surfacing of environmental fascism. The term first appeared in the 1990s as a critical lens to address the emergence of ultra-right bio-politics in Europe reminiscent of Nazi-Germany. Today, the far-right has weaponized the term to be used against mainstream environmentalists, vilifying the protection of environmental rights over property rights. In response, this paper reappropriates environmental fascism as a critical lens, tracing the history of this position through national economic environmentalism and climate change security in U.S. policy. We propose environmental fascism as a necessary concept for planning theorists and practitioners to grapple with the origins and implications of emergent environmental policies. Key words Environmental fascism, palingenetic myth, populist ultra-nationalism, national economic environmentalism, takings clause, regeneration, reclamation, risk of the environment. 2 Projections The Rise of Environmental Fascism and the Securitization of Climate Change Introduction “Fascism sees its salvation in giving the masses not their right, but instead a chance to express themselves.” (Walter Benjamin quoted in Gaffney 2017). Ammon Bundy was the spokesperson for the armed militants who occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Eastern Oregon for 41 days in 2016. For photos: http://boisestatepublicradio.org/post/41-days-documentary. Source: CC by DonkeyHotey On January 4, 2016, Ammon Bundy, a fleet manager from Arizona, led an armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife refuge in eastern Oregon (Michaud et al. 2017). Ammon, with his brother Ryan Bundy, rallied a group of anti-government militiamen on fairgrounds in Burns, Oregon to sack the park’s headquarters (Bernstein 2016). Amongst Ammon’s demands were vague claims to restore the people’s constitutional rights, to give a voice to voiceless rural America, to take back federal lands they believed belonged to the states, and to fight encroachment on private property rights (Fantz et al. 2016; Bernstein 2016). The standoff was part of a decade long tension with the federal government, marked by increasingly militant displays of defiance. Earlier in 2014, for example, Ammon’s father Cliven Bundy had notoriously led the successful armed standoff against the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in 3 Projections The Rise of Environmental Fascism and the Securitization of Climate Change Nevada when federal agents attempted to round up trespassing cattle over delinquent grazing fees on federally owned land (see Bonds and Inwood 2016). At the Malheur standoff, in an interview with CNN (January 4, 2016), Ammon Bundy issued this seemingly disjointed statement: People need to be aware that we've become a system where government is actually claiming and using and defending people's rights, and they are doing that against the people. (Fantz et al. 2016; emphasis added). For the most part, media dismissed the claims coming from the Malheur militants as unclear and incoherent (see IFantz Ashley et al. 2016; Weiner-Bronner 2016). At the trial, the court proceedings were riddled with bizarre and lengthy statements lasting for days. For example, Ryan Bundy attempted to hand out Bibles to all twelve jurors before giving his statement. After pleading not guilty to all charges, Bundy and his six co-defendants were acquitted on the grounds that the “occupation” was only meant to be an expression of political protest to create ‘awareness about the death of rural America’ (Bernstein 2016; emphasis added). This acquittal came despite the attempts by Assistant U.S. Attorney, Geoffrey Barrow, to prosecute the defendants for leading an “armed occupation of the refuge” (ibid). The verdict delivered on October 27, the birthday of Theodore Roosevelt who established the Malheur National Wildlife refuge in 1908, “came to symbolize the growing divide between urban and rural America” (Templeton et al. 2016). The defendants were, by and large, dismissed as a motley crew incapable of plotting to overthrow the U.S. government. However, in our analysis we find that the usurpers’ rhetoric stems from a well-funded pro-industry movement in the rural American landscape. The Malheur standoff is associated with the rise of the increasingly militant and factious Wise Use movement, a powerful but loose-knit coalition of anti-environmental lobbyists dating back to the 1980s (Feuer 2017). Ammon Bundy’s statement positioning “people’s rights” against those of “the people” is traceable to the discourse created by the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, a Wise Use think tank, to undermine the predominantly urban-driven environmental rights movements (see Harvey 1997, 392; Davoudi 2014). In this way, Bundy is conflating the rise of identity politics and environmentalism in urban areas with the phrase “people’s rights,” which he sees the Obama Administration protecting over those of “the people” - rural white Americans’ right to private property. Accordingly, the phrases are imbued with a white nationalist ideology that are revealing of the rise of anti-environmental alt-right rhetoric in the Trump Administration. But planning currently lacks a term with which 4 Projections The Rise of Environmental Fascism and the Securitization of Climate Change to name Wise Use discourse in the executive branch of the White House and therefore stave off its interpretation of the Constitution to serve anti-environmental agendas. In this paper, we build upon Davoudi’s (2014) analysis of the securitization of climate change to suggest that what we are witnessing is a far more sinister force - environmental fascism. Hence, this paper seeks to contribute to environmental discourse on climate security by reappropriating the term, environmental fascism, as a critical lens for exploring the rise of alt-right militancy in U.S. policy for planning and other spatial fields. In the following section we will briefly review the origins of environmental fascism as it emerged in the 1990s as a concern over the re-emergence of Nazi-Germany and Fascist-Italian dark ecology policies, identifying its core tendencies before revisiting the Wise Use movement. In particular, we trace the rise of environmental fascism from Wise Use to the Trump Administration through national economic environmentalism and the securitization of climate change. Environmental fascism. For brevity and at the risk of oversimplification, here we present our definition of the term’s chief tenets. Environmental fascism is founded on the assumption that nature should be unconditionally opened up for extraction in order to serve the needs of “citizens,” i.e. members of a white nationalist state that is economically organized around principles of state-backed capitalism. Environmental fascism requires the conquest of nature's frontiers, the depths of oceans and mountains with prophetic visions of expanding beyond the earth in search of resources to feed a capitalist growth economy and maintain the promise of more jobs. Hence, the imperiled consumptive life conditions of late capitalism's white nationalist workers forms the material basis for the rise of environmental fascism. Furthermore, proponents of environmental fascism develop a contradictory relationship with law enforcement agencies, backing police forces and opposing them based on situational fascist logic. Simultaneously, their national politics proceeds through demonizing dissenters, scapegoating Others, and promoting border enforcement. In the remainder of this section, we probe the historical genealogy and theoretical structure of the term. Environmental fascism was initially coined to identify and resist ultra-right ideologues in Europe. Janet Biehl and Peter Staudenmaier in their book, Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience (1995), trace how historically bio-political ideologies (organic farming, vegetarianism, and nature worship) served as Nazi platforms. In the following passage, they express concerns that the uptick in fascist ideologies in the 1990s were “once