Jane Goodall died on Wednesday, October 1st. Her work was incredibly powerful and reached many, authoring 32 books, earning a laundry list of internationally recognized awards, and becoming one of the most revered conservationists in the world. Her work was deeply rooted in the importance of prioritizing conservation and sustainability, efforts to combat the devastating impacts of climate change, and what could occur in a world with massive biodiversity loss.
“The greatest danger to our future is apathy,” she wrote in an Op-Ed issue of Time Magazine in August 2002. This quote now, more than ever, is profoundly important and remains one of her most well-known to the public.
At its most basic level, climate change is defined by the United Nations as a “long term shift in temperatures and weather patterns.” Initially, this could appear harmless to lawmakers who are not closely listening to what scientists have to say. In reality, human activities have been the primary driver of climate change by emitting fossil fuels like coal, gas, and oil into the atmosphere since the 1800s, which are actively causing irreversible global damages such as water scarcity, declined agricultural activity, and extinction of species.
As Jane Goodall expressed herself, apathy surrounding the effects of environmental degradation is real—and also a real threat for democracy.
The 2022 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that the status quo trajectory of the climate will lead to “unavoidable increases in multiple climate hazards and presents multiple risks to ecosystems and humans” (IPCC 2022). Climate change is what is called a “threat multiplier.” This means, essentially, climate change has the ability to exacerbate pre-existing threats and drivers of instability that are not only environmental risks, but also security threats, health issues, and more relevant: threats to democratic stability.
Leader countries shifting away from prioritizing climate change as a threat does not help this fact. Across the United States in particular, key environmental protections and initiatives have been increasingly slashed or defunded by the Trump Administration. For instance, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin and President Trump shared a plan on July 25th, 2025 that published the principal goal of repealing the Endangerment Finding.
The Endangerment Finding is a longstanding determination that greenhouse gases harm human health—this finding informs the Clean Air Act and how the United States regulates pollution output through trucks, cars, etc. Additionally, just this month, the administration cancelled $8 billion in clean energy projects across the country, such as carbon capture technology projects, solar projects, etc.
What is the point in saying all this? A global hegemon and a top worldwide contributor to climate change is rolling back on valuable climate initiatives. This inaction and harmful approach to the burning of fossil fuels can set a precedent on handling climate change, further contributing to the potential of democratic backsliding related to climate change globally.
This behavior from the United States is high risk towards its own country and its influence on others. Climate change has intensified natural disasters such as drought, famine and flooding. Here is where the democratic erosion happens: government capacity to respond to climate-related events is weakened and as stability is threatened, repressive measures become more frequent in emergency responses.
In short, climate-change related events weaken democracy by increasing political instability and public grievances. This leads to a more conducive environment for authoritarianism to seep into a government. More specifically, climate change weakens horizontal accountability. Institutions weaken, and governments can capitalize on this. As Levitsky and Ziblatt explain in their book How Democracies Die, “democratic breakdown does not need a blueprint…it can be a result of a sequence of unanticipated events—an escalating tit-for-tat between a demagogic, norm-breaking leader and threatened political establishment” (75). That is what climate change is all about. Unanticipated, shocking natural disasters and events that have the potential to shock a democratic system.
In countries that are less developed, weakening agricultural systems are driven by climate change.
Take Mali as an example. Though a more extreme example, it is worth noting.
Environmental degradation driven by climate change along with the decline of democracy in Mali are intertwined. For years, Mali’s governance has been met with poor resource management, corruption, and failure to address environmental issues. Nearly 80 percent of Mali’s population relies on agrarian and pastoralist activities highly sensitive to rainfall variability. Fertile land scarcity in a country supported by agriculture can fuel grievances.
This has led to the exploitation and manipulation of local herders and farmers. Marginalization has made a favorable situation for armed forces to recruit members and gain support. The Macina Liberation Front, for instance, “exploited issues of Fulani herders to boost local support and recruit young Fulani pastoralists.” Conflict is rampant, with arbitrary killings continuing and the government being controlled by a military junta.
Of course, there are many other issue factors, but climate change is emerging as one of the top correlations of violence and conflict in regions. Compounded effects of climate-related shocks lend itself to high levels of conflict and make it easier to create violence. Rising temperatures are linked to the creation of armed conflict, food shortages, and economic recessions. These issues then “weaken democratic regimes and create conditions conducive to the advance of authoritarian movements…”
Climate change is an untraditional, yet important factor to consider in democratic backsliding. Democratic erosion is not just related to election interference, corruption, etc. but also about man-made issues like climate change that are forcing real implications for democracy, such as conflict caused by resource shortages, agricultural shocks, and extreme weather events.
Your post made me think about a connection I’ve never considered before. The fact that the effects of climate change are more heavily felt by states without the resource to mitigate it, or the governmental stability to enact policies that could provide some relief to those who feel its impact the most is important to consider in global efforts to combat this problem. While not as extreme a situation as Mali, the Bolsonaro regime made concentrated efforts to weaken the regulatory agencies that monitored illegal mining and deforestation efforts, and painted climate activists into a stigmatized group by claiming they were pushing foreign agendas. I think that as the Trump administration continues to cut funding to various regulatory agencies, we should be looking for ways that climate change is weaponized by government officials in order to create more division among the population while undermining both land and human rights in the name of economic prosperity and dominance while suppressing activists and opponents.
I really appreciated your insight on how climate change has exacerbated democratic backsliding. As I was reading, I began thinking about Kendall-Taylor and Frantz’s framework on populist-fueled authoritarianization. Specifically, the way that environmental issues are framed within a country where democracy is under attack. In the case of the U.S, Trump administration’s dismantling of environmental protections exemplifies precisely the “slow and steady approach” they describe, where populist leaders slowly work to undermine institutional constraints while claiming to represent “the people”. Trump has worked to frame climate scientists and regulatory agencies as the “other”, Trump’s rollback of the Endangerment Finding mirrors the populist playbook of neutralizing expert institutions that constrain executive power.
This is especially important with the context of your Mali example. It’s crucial to note how climate change has increased resource scarcity, creating the conditions of “economic hardship and growing unease” that Kendall-Taylor and Frantz identify as fuel for populist movements. The Macina Liberation Front’s exploitation of Fulani grievances demonstrates how environmental degradation provides populist actors with the discontent necessary to mobilize mass support while simultaneously undermining democratic institutions.
I think it would be interesting to analyze how different populist leaders utilize climate change for their advantage. Take Trump for example, with his denial and deregulation, while others might use climate emergencies to justify emergency powers or resource nationalization. I will say that perhaps climate change’s real democratic threat isn’t the “unanticipated events” that you discussed, but rather that it provides a perpetual emergency that populist leaders can exploit to justify reforms as “necessary”, masking their power grabs. This reframes the worry about climate inaction creating future vulnerabilities to an understand that it’s a perpetual emergency, as it’s an ongoing tool in the populist authoritarian toolkit.
With an interest in climate change, this analysis captured my attention because I never thought of climate change as a driver of democratic backsliding. As I consider the natural disasters and extreme weather conditions that were triggered by climate change and the devastating effects on so many developing countries in the Global South, it’s sad when leaders from developed countries in the Global North, who are responsible for the climate crisis, ignore climate change and the cries from vulnerable countries for climate related assistance. This shows how democratic backsliding can hinder climate action and lead to increased emissions. For example, Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are suffering from the effects of climate change and they are not responsible for the climate crisis. Their greenhouse gas emissions are nothing when compared to the emissions from developed countries in the Global North. Recently, Jamaica, a Small Island Developing State, was hit by the deadly and catastrophic Hurricane Melissa. This Category 5 hurricane destroyed homes, families and businesses. Other SIDS including Haiti, Cuba and The Bahamas were also affected by Hurricane Melissa. These countries did nothing to deserve the wrath of this hurricane. But when leaders from the Global North fail to acknowledge climate change and join the fight to fix the climate crisis, SIDS continue to suffer and democratic backsliding creeps in. However, it would be interesting to further investigate how democratic backsliding and democratic erosion are creeping into SIDS because of climate change. Hurricane relief efforts can contribute to democratic backsliding through politicization, corruption and the exploitation of crises to weaken democratic institutions and increase executive power. This can lead to decreased public trust, intensified partisan divisions, and the erosion of governmental transparency and accountability.