The Rise, Fall, and Future of the European Green Parties

During the 1980s, European media headlines were dominated not only by the fear of nuclear war but also by the nuclear power plant accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, biodiversity loss, and pollution, which was blamed for causing widespread forest dieback in Poland, Germany, and Finland. In other words, the atmosphere of doomsday was similar to what we experience today with the fear of global warming.

Especially young people were anxious – just as they are today – which provided an opportunity for a new kind of political movement. This gave rise to the political emergence of green movements in Germany, Finland and various other countries, leading to significant support in many nations, where environmental advocates even entered national governments.

However, over time, the consequences of nuclear accidents were found to be far less severe than feared four decades ago, and forests continued to grow. At the same time, European industries reduced their emissions to a fraction of what they had been, and agriculture and forestry became more environmentally friendly.

As a result, the driving force behind the popularity of green movements began to fade, leading them to seek new agendas. These were primarily found in value-liberal thinking, whose conclusions were incorporated into green party programs across Europe. This appeared to make the movements a permanent part of the European political power structure.

Eventually, the year 2015 arrived, along with the large migration wave from developing countries. Green movements supported this, which led to a collapse in less than a decade, as the newcomers proved poorly adaptable to European societies.

Thus, the previously extremely powerful German Green Party practically collapsed this fall in the state elections in eastern Germany. Its support in Thuringia was only 1.1% of the votes. In Saxony, the party's share was even smaller, at 1.0%, and in Brandenburg, it was a dismal 0.8%.

In Finland, the Green Party, which at its peak attracted about one-sixth of Finns, fell out of government after the poorly performing 2023 parliamentary elections, and its support has not recovered from rock-bottom levels. It is reasonable to assume that its support would be even lower without the prominent media coverage of the supposed consequences of climate change.

It remains to be seen whether Europe's green movements will have a return to prominence in the future. In my view, this is not possible without a significant reform, in which the parties would abandon at least the most irrational of their value-liberal theses, such as boundless empathy for poorly integrating immigrants or their support for eco-fascist organizations like Extinction Rebellion.

In this regard, I noted as a positive development that at least one Finnish Green politician has condemned the recent attack by the aforementioned eco-fascist organization against Finnish democracy. However, this doesn't allow them to stand out, as also all other Finnish political movements – even the far left – acted similarly. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Green Movement of Finland is Lost
The Role of Ukraine Aid in the Elections of Thuringia and Saxony, Germany
Competence of the political left

The fundamentals of conservation biology wavered

The late Finnish Professor Ilkka Hanski and his team were at the absolute forefront of metapopulation research, as evidenced by the $500,000 Crafoord Prize awarded to him. The theory, which was Hanski's area of interest, also serves as a central framework for conservation.

According to Wikipedia, "in classical metapopulation theory, each population cycles in relative independence of the other populations and eventually goes extinct as a consequence of demographic stochasticity (fluctuations in population size due to random demographic events); the smaller the population, the more chances of inbreeding depression and prone to extinction."

As conservation has also become an increasingly important sector in political decision-making, as shown by Finland's rejection of the EU Commission's proposed restoration regulation, it was interesting to note a research report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States.

The report modeled the maintenance of the viability of metapopulations in fragmented landscapes by creating more complex, i.e., realistic, as well as simpler landscape structures. The former reflect fragmentation more realistically. The results showed that the findings from simpler models are not necessarily generalizable.

This is because dynamic phenomena that arise in more realistically fragmented landscapes often contradict the conclusions produced by simpler models. Thus, the new research undermines traditional metapopulation theory thinking - and at the same time its practical application in conservation thinking.

It remains to be seen how the research I have presented here will be covered by the European mainstream media. Or how it will affect, for example, the further development of the EU's restoration regulation. Or will it remain below the publication threshold of the media and thus not influence European conservation discussions in any way?

Since I strongly suspect that the research discussed here will remain unnoticed by the public, I decided to highlight the issue in this writing - in English and also Finnish - so that any journalist, politician, or other influencer interested in the matter - who reads this blog - could become aware of it. And could, if desired, read it themselves (the publication is open for reading) and utilize its results in their own activities.

Previous thoughts on the same topic: Preventing future fires in Hawaii is possible, but the question remains: Are animal activists and politicians prepared for the necessary measures? Traditional beliefs turned out to be wisdom Wolfs affect nature conservation

Fair policy will build a strong Union

EU Commission is planning to decide on legally binding nature restoration targets. Those targets include restoration of at least 70% of drained peatlands and protecting 30% of land and 30% of sea in the EU. 

Those demands would have a major negative effect in Finland, where forest industry is extremely important by producing 18.1 % of exported goods and bringing a tax revenue of 2,7 billion euros. Such an economic benefit has been possible due to the extremely efficient management of - mostly privately owned - forests in the country. 

It should be noted that Finnish forests were not converted to other use - like in most of Europe - despite demands during the 19th century. In contrast, Finnish forests fortunately got economic value due to the developing industry which saved them from being destroyed. 

To ensure the raw material for saws and the pulp and paper mills, many actions were made during the 20th century to ensure forest growth. Tree production sustainability was reached in 1970´s, and thereafter forests have grown every year more than they have been used - although also the production of forest industry has increased. 

Furthermore, during recent decades many voluntary actions have been made by forest owners to save the biodiversity, which already has turned the previously highly negative development more positive. And therefore, Finnish forests are today remarkable carbon sinks, important source of raw materials and on their way of reaching ecological sustainability.

Finland rarely looks for its own benefit in the Union. Accordingly, the Finnish Government´s decision of nature restoration followed those tracks until the last week. And that was a huge difference to Sweden - exerting almost as sustainable forestry - which noted that the Union has no justification in forest issues. 

However, the Commission plans were noted by the Finnish forest industry, forest owners and professionals as well as ordinary countryside people, who put a pressure on politicians. And finally, they were heard in the national Parliament, where the big opposition parties - Conservatives and True Finns - challenged Government´s earlier decision to support the EU decree on restoration. 

And as a result, also Parliament members of Social democrats, Center party and Swedish people´s party joined the opposition. Only ultimate left of the government - Left alliance and Green party - kept their original position as supporters of the Commission´s arrogant plans.

It remains to be seen, how Finland´s changed view affects EU policy. It would, however, be a benefit for the whole EU to change it to become fairer. For Finland the current plans would be roughly equal if Germany was demanded to reduce its car industry by 30% or Netherlands was forced to return 30% of its dried sea coasts back to a seabed. 

Actually, the leader of EU Commission´s current environmental policy - Frans Timmermans - should understand that only fair policy towards all member states will build a strong Union capable to respond to challenges posed by other economic great powers USA and China. And therefore, even small members should be respected instead of making efforts to destroy their preconditions of living.  

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Share of EU recovery funds will turn attitudes more negative
A new justification is needed for environmental activists
Finnish parties agreed on actions against the climatic change