Reader Q&A: ask Ajit Niranjan anything about Europe’s hellish week of heat

Our European environment correspondent Ajit Niranjan answers your questions on the climate after reporting on the shocking heatwave that continues to scorch its way across Europe, covering everything from the lack of preparation to ways to deal with the heat

Woodworm20 asks: Almost all of the climate “solutions” on offer, so far, have involved yielding complete power over to a handful of billionaires [some] with extreme views and no notion of what life and community is for the other eight billion people. As we are almost certain to resort to the cheapest option of geoengineering our way forward, do you have any practical solutions that don’t involve a global autocracy?

Ajit: Climate action does not require a greater level of corporate capture or autocratic governance than the fossil fuel status quo - and the solutions on offer today already come from a broad range of actors. Autocracies are building wind turbines and solar panels in poor countries, publicly traded companies in democracies are getting state support to capture carbon from cement plants, cities are turning car parking into bike lanes, and individuals are swapping steak for tofu. All of these are important actions in scientific roadmaps to clean the economy by the middle of the century.

Ajit: I don’t think there’s evidence to suggest it’s a root cause, but I have wondered a lot whether it contributes. If you scroll through the social media feeds of far-right leaders in most western European countries, their top topic is migration/crime and the second is typically climate/energy. Yet if you speak to their voters, at least in Germany, where I live, it quickly becomes clear that opposition to climate policy is at most a minor issue.

That paradox is reflected in polling data. How can it be that less than 10% of the public denies the science of climate change, yet far-right parties who do so consistently get more than 20% of the vote? The obvious answer is that people are voting for them for the core issue of migration, not climate. But what is less clear is why these parties spend so much time bashing climate action. There are plausible suggestions that it plays well to fossil fuel lobbies many are linked to. A more convincing theory, I think, is that the far right sees itself as having already won the fight over migration – now it needs new battlegrounds to differentiate itself from mainstream parties.