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

A new justification is needed for environmental activists

Biodiversity crisis is one of the big environmental issues today. Although the problem is worst in the low latitudes, the topic is intensively discussed also in the European Union, which is in a process of preparing a stringent legislation to save the environment. 

In its current form EU biodiversity strategy would have serious effects on the Nordic forestry, which in Finland gives work to almost 100 000 people, and forms the basis of almost 20 percent of the export value. Despite these economic facts, a considerably higher amount of wood is growing in the Finnish forests now than was hundred years ago.   

One of the keystone species for biodiversity in North-European forests is bilberry. It is a valuable berry that many people are picking in forests, but it also is an extremely important source of food for many wild animals, especially birds - but also the king of the forests, bear. 

The environmentalists have for decades claimed that current forestry practices are reducing the amount of bilberries, and through food chain many other animals (example). The scientific basis supporting their claim are old investigations that showed bilberry area to have reduced between years 1950 and 1995. 

Now a new investigation is ongoing and its first results show that the forest area covered by bilberries has not reduced since 1995, but in contrast it has increased. Therefore the bilberry does not suffer from Nordic forestry, which has intensified between all those years, but may even have benefited on its current practices. 

Neither will many birds suffer from the lack of bilberries, but their reducing numbers result from some other causes. And those may or may not be related to forestry.  

In my opinion this little example demonstrates extremely well the problem typical to fanatic single topic movements. They have decided beforehand - based on their ideology - what is the problem they are opposing, and thereafter they search for evidence supporting their view from wherever that can be found. 

Therefore I do not expect truth about bilberries in Finland to change the opinions of environmental organisations towards commercial forestry. Instead, they will find other issues that seem to support their ideology. And use them against economic activities, that they have decided to oppose. That is, the Nordic forestry.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A popular hobby risks ecological balance, private property and human health in Finland
They want to wipe out from Finland what is good for Africa
Climate change raises dishonesty in the Finnish media