Cooperation is needed from local to global levels to enact meaningful efforts in addressing climate change. Expanding with this movement is the ideological divide witnessed in the political landscape. The increasing polarization of politics threatens intersectionality, especially as it pertains to environmental issues. This direct threat can be broken down into the fragmentation and oversimplification of environmental movements, policy gridlock, divided narratives on victimhood and stigmatization of intersectionality, and reduced solidarity across movements. These conditions are demonstrated in the United States (U.S.), where the Republican and Democratic parties demonstrate vastly different approaches, followership, and priorities when it comes to climate action.
Intersectionality is a framework that seeks to understand overlapping identities, experiences, and perspectives relevant to a given issue. This framework is an approach to examining issues to evaluate how characteristics such as race, age, gender, and geography “intersect with each other and interact with power structures to create and reinforce power, privilege, disadvantage, and discrimination” (Jackson & Humphrey, 2022, para. 1).
Intersectional analysis originates from Black feminist perspectives on how social identities and or subjectivities intersect and diverge to re-create unique forms of oppression
This topic within the sphere of environmentalism has been explored extensively as it pertains to inequitable ecological effects experienced by marginalized communities. This has since expanded to consider environmental justice alongside gender-environment relationships to deepen the socioecological model more broadly in sustainability (Ergas et al., 2021).
Figure 1: Components Considered in Intersectionality
Source: https://www.londonenvironment.net/environmentalism_in_action_environmental_justice_and_intersectionality
The exclusion of marginalized groups from larger discussions is reflective of problematic power dynamics that lend to inequitable climate impacts that have disproportionately affect such groups (Jackson & Humphrey, 2022). From local to global engagement and across all sectors, an inclusive approach can lend to increased “legitimacy of decision-making, transparency, and accountability” (Kapilashrami et al., 2023, p. 1). An intersectional approach is critical in climate action and inclusive environmental policy design as these topics affect all citizens in varying degrees with varying results.
Fragmentation and Oversimplification Across Environmental Movements
Within a polarized context, the identification of the most pressing issues in environmental movements is occurring increasingly over ideological lines.
Regardless of one’s belief in the need for environmental action, their partisanship can affect what aspects of the issue are most deserving of attention, the policy tools they favour, and the overlapping issues they identify.
For instance, progressive environmental activist groups may have diverging priorities from a conservative environmental group. A progressive environmental group may emphasize projects such as communal housing and access to green space centred on social justice and calling on systemic changes to address social issues alongside ecological resilience. Whereas a conservative environmental group may focus on approaches such as the advancement of liquid natural gas (LNG) for large vessels that continue to benefit economic growth or seek to advance technology and innovation while addressing ecological issues. The previous takes a targeted approach to environmental sustainability while failing to consider the social context of the issue.
Policy Gridlock and Lack of Cooperation
Policy gridlock occurs different parties or groups prioritize ideological purity over collaboration. In this context, stakeholders that share common goals, even in regard to climate action, may refuse to work together on the basis of a difference of beliefs. This makes the formation of robust, consentient, and lasting environmental policy difficult. Compromises are often made which has traditionally resulted in the social justice and the consideration of vulnerable groups, integral to intersectionality, getting lost in the process in order to reach some form of movement (Monbiot, 2012).
Overall, gridlock both slows the momentum in enacting policy and impedes the creation of sustained and impactful policy.
Figure 2: Gridlock Cycle
Source: https://theconversation.com/the-world-is-in-economic-political-and-environmental-gridlock-heres-why-85641
Differing Definitions of Victimhood and Stigmatization of Intersectionality
Within ideological differences exists divisive narratives on victimhood and those seen as deserving of attention and resources. As clearly stated within its definition, intersectionality seeks to shed light on and uplift marginalized groups that suffer disproportionate impacts within the greater discussion of environmental policy. A challenge to this is more conservative agendas that diminish and or deny the previous impacts thus failing to acknowledge how structural inequalities contribute to climate change at large (Hefti, 2024).
This threatens progress through the upholding of stereotypes and can result in stigmatization of intersectionality as a broader topic. This is proven as the dismissal of topics of justice often results in the labelling of intersectionality as overly concentrated on identity politics (Lopez, 2017). This label leads to this topic being seen as overly radical or partisan (Heninger, 2024).
These perceptions of the framework work to reduce its acceptability within more conservative groups and reinforce opposing and stigmatized understandings.
Figure 3: Underlying Factors and Types of Stigmatization
Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Ffigure%2FA-visual-representation-of-stigma-domains-and-their-respective-themes_fig2_317143770&psig=AOvVaw2_QRGL1ByCdam44sx83jjn&ust=1734136352201000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBcQjhxqFwoTCLDAnL6_o4oDFQAAAAAdAAAAABAx
Reduction in Solidarity
Solidarity is a necessary condition in climate action granted the recognized interconnection of impacts often caused in one region and felt in another. Fragmentation and oversimplification of issues, policy gridlock, and stigmatization all contribute to the overall reduction in solidarity observed in movements with increasing political polarization. This is clear as all previous factors are both resulting from and enhancing the impacts of the ideological divides. The effects of this are increased inter-group solidarity, but overall reductions in cross-party agreement.
Major implications of these obstacles include the diminished ability to:
- Center equity as a goal in environmental sustainability;
- Evaluate inclusion and representation for procedural and distributive equity; and
- Support policies that invest in protection and promotion of rights and priorities (Barrientos, 2020).
U.S. Case Study
The Democratic and Republican political parties exemplify all four of the previous conditions. The summary of how each factor is present in the U.S. context is provided in the table below.
Factor | Example | Explanation |
Fragmentation and oversimplification of issues | 2/3 Republicans prefer to prioritize economic growth in climate action compared to Democrats more concentrated on environmental protection. | There is representation across both groups for the need for climate action; however, their priorities differ within what aspects should take precedence: environmental protection versus economic growth. This reduces these topics into silos and impedes the ability for cross-collaboration and expansion to consider more complex layers beyond the argument for conservation versus growth. |
Policy gridlock | Democratic government ratification of the Paris Agreement followed by Republican government withdrawal with leadership change and later reinstatement into the agreement under President Biden. | The withdrawal from Paris led to the development of inconsistent, non-robust, and unsuccessful policy in states that attempted to maintain their individual commitment to the goal. The severity of these changes with every policy cycle makes creating adequate policy difficult and unscalable thus resulting in gridlock. |
Definitions of victimhood and stigmatization | Encouragement of extremism and active denial of scientific facts from Republican groups during campaigns to earn votes from targeted groups. | Active denial of scientific fact is seen increasingly on the part of Republican groups and acts as a weaponization of existing bias to gain votes. Dismissal of in-depth understandings of social impacts and concerns often occur on the part of Republican groups to simplify the issue and frame intersectionality as an overly complicated process. |
Reduction in solidarity | Cross-group violence and growing animosity amongst Republicans and Democrats. | The belief in the need for climate action is growing in opposite directions, despite between represented in both groups. Democrats are increasingly likely to view climate as a serious issue, whereby Republicans are moving the other way. Political violence has resulted from these divisive ideologies within environment and other spheres that are primarily targeted at women and minorities in the opposing political group. |
Figure 4: Growing Gap Between Democrats and Republicans Perspective on Climate Policy
Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2Finteractive%2F2020%2F02%2F20%2Fclimate%2Fclimate-change-polls.html&psig=AOvVaw2TXlZlQKNH-0m-we8paZ09&ust=1734137369162000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBcQjhxqFwoTCIDuyKDDo4oDFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE
Overall, increased political polarization creates a range of obstacles for intersectional environmentalism by deepening ideological divides, reducing the willingness to collaborate, and simplifying complex issues into binary, often adversarial, positions. Intersectional environmentalism requires an understanding of how environmental issues and social injustices are interconnected. Polarization, on the other hand, frequently works to ignore or dismiss these complexities. All of the previous contribute to ongoing stigmatization of intersectionality itself and the communities it seeks to uplift thus resulting in decreased likelihood of achieving wholistic policy approaches. To address the challenges posed by polarization, environmental movements must find ways to bridge divides, recognize the interdependence of social and environmental struggles, and advocate for policies that prioritize both justice and sustainability for all communities.
