Antiscience

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience

Antiscience is a set of attitudes and a form of anti-intellectualism that involves a rejection of science and the scientific method.^[1] People holding antiscientific views do not accept science as an objective method that can generate universal knowledge. Antiscience commonly manifests through rejection of scientific ideas such as climate change and evolution and the effectiveness of vaccination. It also includes pseudoscience, methods that claim to be scientific but reject the scientific method. Antiscience can lead to belief in false conspiracy theories and alternative medicine. Lack of trust in science has been linked to the promotion of political extremism, corruption and distrust in medical treatments.

History

In the early days of the Scientific Revolution, scientists such as Robert Boyle (1627–1691) found themselves in conflict with those such as Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), who were skeptical of whether science was a satisfactory way to obtain genuine knowledge about the world.

Hobbes' stance is regarded by Ian Shapiro as an antiscience position:

In his Six Lessons to the Professors of Mathematics,...[published in 1656, Hobbes] distinguished 'demonstrable' fields, as 'those the construction of the subject whereof is in the power of the artist himself,' from 'indemonstrable' ones 'where the causes are to seek for.' We can only know the causes of what we make. So geometry is demonstrable, because 'the lines and figures from which we reason are drawn and described by ourselves' and 'civil philosophy is demonstrable, because we make the commonwealth ourselves.' But we can only speculate about the natural world, because 'we know not the construction, but seek it from the effects.'

In his book Reductionism: Analysis and the Fullness of Reality, published in 2000, Richard H. Jones wrote that Hobbes "put forth the idea of the significance of the nonrational in human behaviour". Jones goes on to group Hobbes with others he classes as "antireductionists" and "individualists", including Wilhelm Dilthey (1833–1911), Karl Marx (1818–1883), Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and J S Mill (1806–1873), later adding Karl Popper (1902–1994), John Rawls (1921–2002), and E. O. Wilson (1929–2021) to the list.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his Discourse on the Arts and Sciences (1750), claimed that science can lead to immorality. "Rousseau argues that the progression of the sciences and arts has caused the corruption of virtue and morality" and his "critique of science has much to teach us about the dangers involved in our political commitment to scientific progress, and about the ways in which the future happiness of mankind might be secured". Nevertheless, Rousseau does not state in his Discourses that sciences are necessarily bad, and states that figures like René Descartes, Francis Bacon, and Isaac Newton should be held in high regard. In the conclusion to the Discourses, he says that these (aforementioned) can cultivate sciences to great benefit, and that morality's corruption is mostly because of society's bad influence on scientists.

William Blake (1757–1827) reacted strongly in his paintings and writings against the work of Isaac Newton (1642–1727), and is seen as being perhaps the earliest (and almost certainly the most prominent and enduring) example of what is seen by historians as the aesthetic or Romantic antiscience response. For example, in his 1795 poem "Auguries of Innocence", Blake describes the beautiful and natural robin redbreast imprisoned by what one might interpret as the materialistic cage of Newtonian mathematics and science. Blake's painting of Newton depicts the scientist "as a misguided hero whose gaze was directed only at sterile geometrical diagrams drawn on the ground". Blake thought that "Newton, Bacon, and Locke with their emphasis on reason were nothing more than 'the three great teachers of atheism, or Satan's Doctrine'...the picture progresses from exuberance and colour on the left, to sterility and blackness on the right. In Blake's view Newton brings not light, but night". In a 1940 poem, W.H. Auden summarises Blake's anti-scientific views by saying that he "[broke] off relations in a curse, with the Newtonian Universe".

One recent biographer of Newton considers him more as a renaissance alchemist, natural philosopher, and magician rather than a true representative of scientific Enlightenment, as popularized by Voltaire (1694–1778) and other Newtonians.

Antiscience issues are seen as a fundamental consideration in the historical transition from "pre-science" or "protoscience" such as that evident in alchemy. Many disciplines that pre-date the widespread adoption and acceptance of the scientific method, such as geometry and astronomy, are not seen as anti-science. However, some of the orthodoxies within those disciplines that predate a scientific approach (such as those orthodoxies repudiated by the discoveries of Galileo (1564–1642)) are seen as being a product of an anti-scientific stance.

Friedrich Nietzsche in The Gay Science (1882) questions scientific dogmatism:

"[...] in Science, convictions have no rights of citizenship, as is said with good reason. Only when they decide to descend to the modesty of a hypothesis, of a provisional experimental point of view, of a regulative fiction, maybe they be granted admission and even a certain value within the realm of knowledge – though always with the restriction that they remain under police supervision, under the police of mistrust. But does this not mean, more precisely considered, that a conviction may obtain admission to science only when it ceases to be a conviction? Would not the discipline of the scientific spirit begin with this, no longer to permit oneself any convictions? Probably that is how it is. But one must still ask whether it is not the case that, in order that this discipline could begin, a conviction must have been there already, and even such a commanding and unconditional one that it sacrificed all other convictions for its own sake. It is clear that Science too rests on a faith; there is no Science 'without presuppositions.' The question whether truth is needed must not only have been affirmed in advance, but affirmed to the extent that the principle, the faith, the conviction is expressed: 'nothing is needed more than truth, and in relation to it, everything else has only second-rate value".

The term "scientism", originating in science studies, was adopted and is used by sociologists and philosophers of science to describe the views, beliefs and behavior of strong supporters of applying ostensibly scientific concepts beyond its traditional disciplines. Specifically, scientism promotes science as the best or only objective means to determine normative and epistemological values. The term scientism is generally used critically, implying a cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations considered not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards. The word is commonly used in a pejorative sense, applying to individuals who seem to be treating science in a similar way to a religion. The term reductionism is occasionally used in a similarly pejorative way (as a more subtle attack on scientists). However, some scientists feel comfortable being labelled as reductionists, while agreeing that there might be conceptual and philosophical shortcomings of reductionism.

However, non-reductionist (see Emergentism) views of science have been formulated in varied forms in several scientific fields like statistical physics, chaos theory, complexity theory, cybernetics, systems theory, systems biology, ecology, information theory, etc. Such fields tend to assume that strong interactions between units produce new phenomena in "higher" levels that cannot be accounted for solely by reductionism. For example, it is not valuable (or currently possible) to describe a chess game or gene networks using quantum mechanics. The emergentist view of science ("More is Different", in the words of 1977 Nobel-laureate physicist Philip W. Anderson) has been inspired in its methodology by the European social sciences (Durkheim, Marx) which tend to reject methodological individualism.

Political

Elyse Amend and Darin Barney argue that while antiscience can be a descriptive label, it is often used as a rhetorical one, being effectively used to discredit one's political opponents. Thus, charges of antiscience are not necessarily warranted.

Left-wing

One expression of antiscience is the "denial of universality and... legitimisation of alternatives" and that the results of scientific findings do not always represent any underlying reality but can merely reflect the ideology of dominant groups within society. Alan Sokal states that this view associates science with the political right and is seen as a belief system that is conservative and conformist, that suppresses innovation, that resists change, and that acts dictatorially. This includes the view, for example, that science has a "bourgeois and/or Eurocentric and/or masculinist world-view".

The anti-nuclear movement, often associated with the left, has been criticized for overstating the negative effects of nuclear power, and understating the environmental costs of non-nuclear sources that can be prevented through nuclear energy. Opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has also been associated with the left.

Right-wing

The origin of antiscience thinking may be traced back to the reaction of Romanticism to the Enlightenment, a movement often referred to as the Counter-Enlightenment. Romanticism emphasizes that intuition, passion, and organic links to nature are primal values and that rational thinking is merely a product of human life. Modern right-wing antiscience includes climate change denial, rejection of evolution, misinformation about transgender healthcare, Modern flat Earth beliefs, and misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines. While concentrated in areas of science that are seen as motivating government action, these attitudes are strong enough to make conservatives appreciate science less in general.

Characteristics of antiscience associated with the right include the appeal to conspiracy theories to explain why scientists believe what they believe, in an attempt to undermine the confidence or power usually associated to science (e.g., in global warming conspiracy theories). In modern times, it has been argued that right-wing politics carries an anti-science tendency. While some have suggested that this is innate to either rightists or their beliefs, others have argued it is a "quirk" of a historical and political context in which scientific findings happened to challenge or appeared to challenge the worldviews of rightists rather than leftists.

Religious

Main article: Relationship between religion and science

In this context, antiscience may be considered dependent on religious, moral, and cultural arguments. For this kind of religious antiscience philosophy, science is an anti-spiritual and materialistic force that undermines traditional values, ethnic identity, and accumulated historical wisdom in favor of reason and cosmopolitanism. In particular, the traditional and ethnic values emphasized are similar to those of white supremacist Christian Identity theology. Still, similar right-wing views have been developed by radically conservative sects of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. New religious movements such as the left-wing New Age and the far-right Falun Gong thinking also criticize the scientific worldview as favouring a reductionist, atheist, or materialist philosophy.

A frequent basis of antiscientific sentiment is religious theism with literal interpretations of sacred text. Here, scientific theories that conflict with divinely inspired knowledge are regarded as flawed. Over the centuries, religious institutions have been hesitant to embrace such ideas as heliocentrism and planetary motion because they contradict the dominant interpretation of various passages of scripture. More recently, the body of creation theologies known collectively as creationism, including the teleological theory of intelligent design, has been promoted by religious theists (primarily fundamentalists) in response to the process of evolution by natural selection. One of the more extreme creation theologies, young Earth creationism, also finds itself in conflict with research in cosmology, historical geology, and the origin of life. Young Earth creationism is predominantly exclusive to fundamentalist Protestant Christianity, though it is also present in Catholicism and Judaism, albeit to a lesser extent.

Studies suggest that a belief in spirituality rather than religion may better indicate an anti-science position.

To the extent that attempts to overcome antiscience sentiments have failed, some argue that a different approach to science advocacy is needed. One such approach says that it is important to develop a more accurate understanding of those who deny science (avoiding stereotyping them as backward and uneducated) and also to attempt outreach via those who share cultural values with target audiences, such as scientists who also hold religious beliefs.

Areas

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge".

— Isaac Asimov, "A Cult of Ignorance", Newsweek, 21 January 1980

Historically, antiscience first arose as a reaction against scientific materialism. The 18th century Enlightenment had ushered in "the ideal of a unified system of all the sciences", but there were those fearful of this notion, who "felt that constrictions of reason and science, of a single all-embracing system... were in some way constricting, an obstacle to their vision of the world, chains on their imagination or feeling". Antiscience then is a rejection of "the scientific model [or paradigm]... with its strong implication that only that which was quantifiable, or at any rate, measurable... was real". In this sense, it comprises a "critical attack upon the total claim of the new scientific method to dominate the entire field of human knowledge". However, scientific positivism (logical positivism) does not deny the reality of non-measurable phenomena, only that those phenomena should not be adequate to scientific investigation. Moreover, positivism, as a philosophical basis for the scientific method, is not consensual or even dominant in the scientific community (see philosophy of science).

Recent developments and discussions around antiscience attitudes reveal how deeply intertwined these beliefs are with social, political, and psychological factors. A study published by Ohio State News on July 11, 2022, identified four primary bases that underpin antiscience beliefs: doubts about the credibility of scientific sources, identification with groups holding antiscience attitudes, conflicts between scientific messages and personal beliefs, and discrepancies between the presentation of scientific messages and individuals' thinking styles. These factors are exacerbated in the current political climate, where ideology significantly influences people's acceptance of science, particularly on topics that have become politically polarized, such as vaccines and climate change. The politicization of science poses a significant challenge to public health and safety, particularly in managing global crises like the COVID-19 pandemic.

The following quotes explore this aspect of four major areas of antiscience: philosophy, sociology, ecology and politics.

Philosophy

Philosophical objections against science are often objections about the role of reductionism. For example, in the field of psychology, "both reductionists and antireductionists accept that... non-molecular explanations may not be improved, corrected or grounded in molecular ones". Further, "epistemological antireductionism holds that, given our finite mental capacities, we would not be able to grasp the ultimate physical explanation of many complex phenomena even if we knew the laws governing their ultimate constituents". Some see antiscience as "common...in academic settings...many people see that there are problems in demarcation between science, scientism, and pseudoscience resulting in an antiscience stance. Some argue that nothing can be known for sure".

Many philosophers are "divided as to whether reduction should be a central strategy for understanding the world". However, many agree that "there are, nevertheless, reasons why we want science to discover properties and explanations other than reductive physical ones". Such issues stem "from an antireductionist worry that there is no absolute conception of reality, that is, a characterization of reality such as... science claims to provide".

Sociology

Sociologist Thomas Gieryn refers to "some sociologists who might appear to be antiscience". Some "philosophers and antiscience types", he contends, may have presented "unreal images of science that threaten the believability of scientific knowledge", or appear to have gone "too far in their antiscience deconstructions". The question often lies in how much scientists conform to the standard ideal of "communalism, universalism, disinterestedness, originality, and... skepticism". "scientists don't always conform... scientists do get passionate about pet theories; they do rely on reputation in judging a scientist's work; they do pursue fame and gain via research". Thus, they may show inherent biases in their work. "[Many] scientists are not as rational and logical as the legend would have them, nor are they as illogical or irrational as some relativists might say".

Ecology and health sphere

Within the ecological and health spheres, Levins identifies a conflict "not between science and antiscience, but rather between different pathways for science and technology; between a commodified science-for-profit and a gentle science for humane goals; between the sciences of the smallest parts and the sciences of dynamic wholes... [he] offers proposals for a more holistic, integral approach to understanding and addressing environmental issues". These beliefs are also common within the scientific community, with for example, scientists being prominent in environmental campaigns warning of environmental dangers such as ozone depletion and the greenhouse effect. In the medical sphere, patients and practitioners may choose to reject science and adopt a pseudoscientific approach to health problems. This can be both a practical and a conceptual shift and has attracted strong criticism: "therapeutic touch, a healing technique based upon the laying-on of hands, has found wide acceptance in the nursing profession despite its lack of scientific plausibility. Its acceptance is indicative of a broad antiscientific trend in nursing".

Glazer also criticises the therapists and patients, "for abandoning the biological underpinnings of nursing and for misreading philosophy in the service of an antiscientific world-view". In contrast, Brian Martin criticized Gross and Levitt by saying that "[their] basic approach is to attack constructivists for not being positivists," and that science is "presented as a unitary object, usually identified with scientific knowledge. It is portrayed as neutral and objective. Second, science is claimed to be under attack by 'antiscience' which is composed essentially of ideologues who are threats to the neutrality and objectivity that are fundamental to science. Third, a highly selective attack is made on the arguments of 'antiscience'". Such people allegedly then "routinely equate critique of scientific knowledge with hostility to science, a jump that is logically unsupportable and empirically dubious". Having then "constructed two artificial entities, a unitary 'science' and a unitary 'academic left', each reduced to epistemological essences, Gross and Levitt proceed to attack. They pick out figures in each of several areas – science studies, postmodernism, feminism, environmentalism, AIDS activism – and criticise their critiques of science".

The writings of Young serve to illustrate more antiscientific views: "The strength of the antiscience movement and of alternative technology is that their advocates have managed to retain Utopian vision while still trying to create concrete instances of it". "The real social, ideological and economic forces shaping science...[have] been opposed to the point of suppression in many quarters. Most scientists hate it and label it 'antiscience'. But it is urgently needed, because it makes science self-conscious and hopefully self-critical and accountable with respect to the forces which shape research priorities, criteria, goals".

Genetically modified foods also bring about antiscience sentiment. The general public has recently become more aware of the dangers of a poor diet, as there have been numerous studies that show that the two are inextricably linked. Anti-science dictates that science is untrustworthy, because it is never complete and always being revised, which would be a probable cause for the fear that the general public has of genetically modified foods despite scientific reassurance that such foods are safe.

Antivaccinationists rely on whatever comes to hand presenting some of their arguments as if scientific; however, a strain of antiscience is part of their approach.

Political

Political scientist Tom Nichols, from Harvard Extension School and the U.S. Naval War College, points out that skepticism towards scientific expertise has increasingly become a symbol of political identity, especially within conservative circles. This skepticism is not just a result of misinformation but also reflects a broader cultural shift towards diminishing trust in experts and authoritative sources. This trend challenges the traditional neutrality of science, positioning scientific beliefs and facts within the contentious arena of political ideology.

The COVID-19 pandemic, for example, conflicting responses to public health measures and vaccine acceptance have highlighted the extent to which science has been politicized. Such polarization suggests that for some, rejecting scientific consensus or public health guidance serves as an expression of political allegiance or skepticism towards perceived authority figures.

This politicization of science complicates efforts to address public health crises and undermines the broader social contract that underpins scientific research and its application for the public good. The challenge lies not only in combating misinformation but also in bridging ideological divides that affect public trust in science. Strategies to counteract antiscience attitudes may need to encompass more than just presenting factual information; they might also need to engage with the underlying social and psychological factors that contribute to these attitudes, fostering dialogue that acknowledges different viewpoints and seeks common ground.

Antiscience media

Major antiscience media include portals Natural News, Global Revolution TV, TruthWiki.org, TheAntiMedia.org and GoodGopher. Antiscience views have also been supported on social media by organizations known to support fake news such as the web brigades.

Environmental skepticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_skepticism 

Environmental skepticism is the belief that statements by environmentalists, and the environmental scientists who support them, are false or exaggerated. The term is also applied to those who are critical of environmentalism in general. It can additionally be defined as doubt about the authenticity or severity of environmental degradation. Environmental skepticism is closely linked with anti-environmentalism and climate change denial. Environmental skepticism can also be the result of cultural and lived experiences.

About

Environmental skeptics have argued that the extent of harm coming from human activities is less certain than scientists and scientific bodies say, or that it is too soon to be introducing curbs in these activities on the basis of existing evidence, or that further discussion is needed regarding who should pay for such environmental initiatives. One of the themes the movement focuses on is the idea that environmentalism is a growing threat to social and economic progress and the civil liberties.

Bjørn Lomborg in 2025

The popularity of the term was enhanced by Bjørn Lomborg's 2001 book The Skeptical Environmentalist. Lomborg approached environmental claims from a statistical and economic standpoint, and concluded that often the claims made by environmentalists were overstated. Lomborg argued, on the basis of cost–benefit analysis, that few environmentalist claims warranted serious concern. The book came under criticism by scientists noting that Lomborg misinterpreted or misrepresented data, criticized misuse of data while committing similar mistakes himself, examined issues supporting his thesis while ignoring information contrary to it, cherry picks literature, oversimplifies, fails to discuss uncertainty or subjectivity, cites mostly media sources, and largely ignores ecology.

Michael Shermer, who debated Lomborg on several topics from his book, notes that despite the scientific consensus many people are driven to environmental skepticism by the extremism inherent in both sides of the debate and not having been exposed to a sufficiently succinct and visual presentation of the available evidence.

In 2010, Lomborg refined his position and stated that he believes in the need for "tens of billions of dollars a year to be invested in tackling climate change" and declared global warming to be "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and "a challenge humanity must confront". He summarized his position, saying "Global warming is real - it is man-made and it is an important problem. But it is not the end of the world."

A 2014 study of individuals from 32 countries found that environmental skepticism stems from insufficient education, self-assessed knowledge, religious/conservative values, lack of trust in society, mistrust of science, and other concerns trumping environmental concern.

Climate change skepticism

Main articles: Climate change denial and Global warming controversy

According to an annual poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, global warming has been a low public priority, ranking 29 out of 30 in the top priorities for the United States President and Congress. Additionally, in a list of 20 policy priorities, it ranks 19th.

Climate skeptics represent about a third of Americans according to national polls. This number makes it challenging for decision-makers who hesitate to implement environmental policies related to global warming and climate change. Anthony Leiserowitz, a professor from Yale, determined that the American community's attitude towards climate change fall on a scale from concerned or alarmed to disengaged or dismissive. The term climate skeptic is made up of numerous components such as dubious, doubtful, dismissive, and denial. It does not describe simply a non-believer. In a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, 61% of the public believed there was evidence of global warming. However, 35% of the public still believed there was no significant evidence for global temperature rise.

Climate skepticism is considered to be strictly an American belief constructed of governmental fear, scientific distrust, and interests in resource extraction that support a dominant Western lifestyle. Academics argue that we need to understand Americans underlying ideologies before we denote someone as a skeptic.

A cultural study on Maryland's Eastern Shore helped discern some of the differing beliefs of Americans about environmental change. The study included three groups of residents who are dependent on the Eastern Shore of Maryland: commercial fishermen, farmers, and recent migrants. The research conducted was determined to gain a consensus of shared knowledge between the subgroups in regard to the changing environment. Along the scale from denial to concerned, it was found that a majority of respondents noticed climate change but believed that humans were not the cause of it. About a third of the respondents were unaware of it, while the rest of the interlocutors were either dismissive of it or somewhat concerned.

One of the cultural models found in this research was that climate change was natural. The respondents interpreted the changes such as rising sea-levels and drought as cycles of nature. They explained them as natural processes in the Earth's evolution not affected by humans. They expressed doubt about human induced climate change but acknowledged the changing environment around them. The residents of the Eastern Shore question the legitimacy of the buildup of greenhouse gases from our use of fossil fuels, which cause sea level rise or glacial melting. Part of this hesitation comes from the knowledge passed down through their families and the stories of weather cycles from previous relatives, all who lived in the same area for generations. This concept of nature going through cycles is culturally significant to the groups living in the area.

The respondents also make note that climate change may have been newly identified by scientists but has been a phenomenon that has been with us from the beginning of time and not with the onset of the industrial revolution. This reinforces the belief that climate change is happening, just not because of humans. Therefore, when contemporary theories of climate change challenge respondents’ longstanding traditional cultural models, the latter tends to emerge as the more likely outcome.

The respondents also believe that if climate change becomes apparent to politicians as a human-induced problem, that will lead to regulations being placed on them. They do not believe that climate policies will benefit them and are therefore unlikely to support such programs. They are concerned more with policies and regulations rather than climate change in the area. They see themselves as living with the climate instead of the common approach of overcoming or conquering it. Living with the climate is viewed as nature and society being connected and sharing a relationship where humans must change their activities to fit the changing climate.

Communicating with people who are labeled as skeptics can help create policies that may not be rejected. These beliefs are deeply rooted in longstanding traditions and not influenced by right wing think tanks or other media platforms. Therefore, communicating and working with these people may help reduce the amount of time it will take for policies to be accepted and approved by them. For policy makers to be effective, they should consider the knowledge that these people have and work with them instead of imposing a top-down approach for climate change policy.

Criticism

According to The Guardian, such widespread skeptical doubts have not developed independently, but have been "encouraged by lobbying and PR campaigns financed by the polluting industries". Supporters of environmentalists argue that "skepticism" implies a form of denialism, and that, in the US particularly, "large donations [have been made] to Senators and Congressmen and [have] sponsored neoliberal think tanks and contrarian scientific research. ExxonMobil, the oil major, has been accused by Friends of the Earth and others of giving millions of dollars to a long list of think-tanks and lobbyists opposed to Kyoto."

A study from 2008 showed that the overwhelming majority of environmentally skeptical books published since the 1970s were either written or published by authors or institutions affiliated with right-wing think tanks. It concludes that "scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection."

Peter Jacques wrote, "The skeptical environmental counter-movement is a civic problem and in dealing with the propositions from the counter-movement we are forced to reach down to the bedrock issues of epistemology, identities, articulation and other core work for politics. To use scientism as a hammer against the screw of skepticism will split the wood of public life into splinters or it will immobilize the hammer. Scientism is a modernist tool that will haplessly reshuffle the old excursions - and we all know the 'master's tools will not dismantle the master's house"

Apologies to Indigenous peoples

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologies_to_Indigenous_peoples 

Apology to Australia's Indigenous people from the Prime Minister

Apologies to Indigenous peoples refer to apologies extended by political leaders or representatives, acting on behalf of a political entity or nation, to acknowledge and express remorse for a mass atrocity that has been committed against Indigenous peoples.

Background

During the era of colonization, European empires colonized territories inhabited by Indigenous peoples and the colonies created new countries that would contain Indigenous peoples within their new political borders. In such processes, there were a series of atrocious crimes against Indigenous populations. Given that the dominant group has held political and economic power, these facts had not been officially investigated and recognized.

During colonialism, many Western officials have expressed concerns, enacted laws to protect Indigenous peoples, and have punished a few colonial agents for some of their colonial atrocities. Widely known examples are the Laws of Burgos and the New Laws in the Spanish Empire, which were poorly implemented. On occasion, some Indigenous government agencies committed atrocities, as is the case of the Indian Protection Service in Brazil as described in the Figueiredo Report, or the Office of Indigenous Affairs in the United States, who acknowledged its systemic shortcomings.

Indigenous groups have publicly requested apologies from a number of states and Christian churches for their historical or contemporary role in atrocities committed against Indigenous peoples. No country has ever voluntarily acknowledged committing genocide.

In 2023 Indigenous leaders from Antigua and Barbuda, Aotearoa (New Zealand), Australia, the Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines issued an open letter. The signed letter requests King Charles III to acknowledge at his coronation the "horrific impacts" of colonization.

Apologies to Indigenous peoples

Government apologies to Indigenous peoples

In recent decades governments have acknowledged past atrocities or apologized for the policies of previous governments. In their apologies, some state officials do not always agree with scholarly characterization of the atrocities.

From	To	Scope	Year of apology
Argentina	Toba and Mocoví	Napalpí massacre, 1924	2022
Australia	Indigenous peoples	Stolen generations, 1905-1970s	2008
Belgium	Belgian Congo	Colonial abuse	2020
Canada	Indigenous peoples	Canadian Indian residential school system, 1867-1998	2008, 2017
Canada	Inuit	Forced relocation, mistreatment, dog slayings	2019, 2024
California	Indigenous peoples	California genocide, 1846-1873	2019
Catalonia	Indigenous peoples	Colonial abuse in Mexican conquest	2019
Chile	Mapuche	Colonial abuse	2017
Germany	Tanzania	Colonial killings	2023
Germany	Herero and Nama	Herero and Nama genocide, 1904-8	2021
Mexico	Maya peoples	Historical injustice and contemporary discrimination	2021
Mexico	Yaqui	Marginalization, injustice and abuse	2021
Netherlands	Suriname	Slave trade and atrocities committed against the Indigenous populations	2023
Netherlands	Indonesia	Excessive violence, 1945-1949	2020
Netherlands	Indonesia	Rawagede massacre	2011
New Zealand	Moriori	Expropriation, slavery, and treaty breaking	2020
Norway	Sámi	Norwegianization (forced assimilation)	1997, 2024
El Salvador	Indigenous peoples	Oppression and extermination	2010
United Kingdom	Tainui	Land appropriation and invasion	1995
United Kingdom	Kĩkũyũ	Colonial abuse	2013
United States	Guatemala	Role in Guatemalan Civil War in support for military government, 1960–96	1999
United States	Native Hawaiians	Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, 1893	1993
United States	Indigenous peoples	Violence, abuse and negligence	2000, 2010
United States	Indigenous peoples	American Indian boarding schools, 1819-1969	2024

The apology plaque in Kalinga, Queensland, containing the key words from Kevin Rudd's 2008 speech to the Australian Parliament.

Apologies from religious institutions

Pope Francis apologized for the Catholic Church's role in colonization and for "crimes committed against the native peoples during the so-called conquest of America". He has also apologized for the Church's role in the operation of residential schools in Canada, qualifying it as genocide. In 2023, the Vatican rejected the Doctrine of Discovery.

In 2022 Justin Welby, the Primate of the Church of England, apologized to the Indigenous peoples in Canada for the role of the church in the Canadian Indian residential school system, adding to similar apologies by other churches in Canada such as the Anglican Church of Canada.

Other apologies

Scouts Canada has issued an apology for "its role in the eradication of First Nation, Inuit and Métis people for more than a century".

In 2016 the Australian Psychological Society apologized to Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders. In 2023, the American Psychological Association issued an offer of apology to First Peoples for more than a century of harmful practices. In 2024, the Canadian Medial Association issued an apology for mistreatment and unethical experimentation.

Criticism of the apologies

Professor Alice MacLachlan has criticized the apologies of the Australian and Canadian governments as they have apologized for specific policies, "avoiding the broader question of apologizing for a much longer history of genocidal appropriation and displacement." Francesca Dominello has said official apologies from Canada and Australia have done little to change the status quo for Indigenous peoples.

Indigenous historian Gary Foley has criticized the Australian government's apology for the Stolen Generations, as there is lack of compensation.

Anti-environmentalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-environmentalism 

Anti-environmentalism is a set of ideas and actions that oppose environmentalism as a whole or specific environmental policies or environmental initiatives. Criticism of environmentalism originates from multiple ideologies, interest groups, and political objectives. Oppositions can take the form of an organized countermovement, aimed at scientific claims about climate change, environmental policies and regulations, in both national or international spheres. Anti-environmentalist actors may include workers in industries and companies that are threatened by environmental policies, and anti-environmentalist think tanks.

The reasons for opposition vary. They range from economic interests to ideological and political positions that are hostile towards environmental social and political change, including critical perspectives that encourage environmentalists to think about more inclusive approaches toward sustainability.

History

Criticism of environmentalism has taken different forms in different historical periods. Many oppositions to environmentalism have arisen within the environmental movement itself, from the internal contrasts and debates.

During the 1960s and 1970s, environmentalism was inspired by concerns about resource scarcity and over-exploitation: fear of the future well-being of humanity in relation to the planets health. This concept is known as neo-Malthusianism. These ideas came under criticism from neoclassical economists, who felt that the role of scientific and technological innovation in securing additional resources was overlooked. Some challenged the reliability of mathematical models, including that of the famous Club of Rome's Limits to Growth Report: critics argued that it had not adequately considered feedback and the effects of human decisions. Criticism also came from the left, for example from thinkers such as Murray Bookchin, who attributed environmental problems to political and social causes rather than natural resource scarcity. Marxist critics argued that environmentalist ideas, influenced by neo-Malthusianism, had racist, elitist, and imperialist overtones, and considered them reactionary.

Meanwhile, business interests affected by the rapidly expanding environmental legislations formed alliances to counter it. These coalitions reflected the same methods of social and environmental movements: community-level mobilization and collaborative partnerships, as well as public awareness campaigns, media engagement, research publications, and providing testimony during hearings.

During the 1980s, environmentalism gained traction as a social and political force in many Western countries. National environmental legislation and international environmental initiatives grew in response to scientific findings. Oppositions arose against perceived excesses among environmentalist positions (e.g., against apocalyptic visions of the future). Radical and organized oppositions also arose in the form of countermovements.

The 1990s witnessed the full emergence of public relations applied to environmental issues. The corporation-led coalition-building efforts from the 1970s continued to expand. Some corporations even went beyond their corporate allies by hiring specialized PR firms to establish front groups, creating the illusion of grassroots support for corporate interests to persuade politicians to oppose environmental reforms. Environmental public relations, often referred to as greenwashing, has become a lucrative industry for PR firms. Tactics that were enacted to defend Tobacco companies by minimizing or denying health effects are applied today by the fossil fuel industry; in some instances employing the same actors^[3]. American companies now invest hundreds of millions of dollars annually in greenwashing and strategic counsel, which involves shaping public and governmental perceptions of environmental problems and devising strategies to counter environmentalists and regulations. Misinformation around climate change is spread via think tanks, political actors, influencers, conservative media creating information echo chambers.

The United States, which since the 1970s had first developed models of environmental legislation later imitated around the world, has repeatedly seen the rise of pressure and initiatives to reduce environmental legislation among Republican politicians and administrations. For example, President George W. Bush stated in his campaign platform that he would "ensure that the federal government, which is the country's largest polluter, complies with all environmental laws" and that the United States would even exceed the set standards.^[4] Though once elected, Bush verged from what he had promised during his campaign, and instead reversed the initiatives of the previous Clinton administration on drinking water, and advocated for oil exploration in protected regions.^[5] Bush's administration also moved forward in withdrawing its support of the Kyoto Protocol, a worldwide global warming agreement created in 1997.^[5] Bush stated that he would work with allies to the United States to reduce greenhouse gases, but would not carry out a plan that would "harm the economy" and "hurt American workers".^[5] The conflict between support and opposition to environmental policies has become an important factor in the growing social and political polarization in the United States.^[6]

Anti-environmentalist movements and ideologies

Anti-environmentalism is fueled by both social and economic reasons and ideological positions. The ideological underpinnings of anti-environmentalism can be very diverse and sometimes opposed to each other: from neoliberal to anti-capitalist ideologies.

In some contexts, especially in the United States,^[7] anti-environmentalist social movements and initiatives are frequently inspired by conservative or neoliberal political ideologies:^[8] these favor a free market economy over government regulation. Such political positions find support in corporate interests that feel threatened by environmental concerns or environmental regulations. Although many observers of anti-environmentalism point out the frequent association between these initiatives and specific business interests threatened by environmental policies, others consider that there are cultural factors in certain social groups that underlie their anti-environmentalism.^[9]

For example, a study of the American right has suggested that many of the anti-environmentalist positions are rooted in its traditional distrust, widespread within the right-wing electorate, of government intervention, its support for the free market as a symbol of the American dream, and its defense of Christian values, family, white identity and traditional masculinity. This resistance is fueled by concern about political and cultural changes resulting from the social movements of the 1960s out of which environmentalism emerged. Some anti-environmentalist positions may arise from genuine anxiety related to the consequences of environmental regulations feared for the economic well-being of families and communities. Opposition to environmentalists may also be widespread among social sectors that see environmentalists as linked to urban life, alienated from local realities and knowledge, and closer to specialized knowledge.

Many experts argue that ideological explanations of anti-environmentalism, based on traditional concepts of the political left and right, are of little use in interpreting current political positions, especially regarding climate policies. Research in the social and political fields suggests that populist and nationalist ideologies are more relevant factors.

In Europe, anti-environmentalism is widespread in the radical right and is generally associated with typical opposition to immigration, nationalism, welfare chauvinism (i.e., social policies must favor the country's citizens), and euroscepticism. The anti-environmentalism of the radical right can be understood as a materialist reaction against the post-materialism of the left and the greens, i.e., that ideology that elevates the need for political freedom and participation, self-actualization, personal relationships, creativity, and care for the environment over the satisfaction of material needs.

The reasons behind the prevalent anti-environmentalism expressed by right-wing populists in Europe and North America are subject to debate and remain intricate. On one hand, economic and social factors play a role: a significant portion of these parties' supporters comprises individuals who have felt the economic impacts of globalization and modernization, viewing climate policies as linked to their struggles and exacerbating their situation. On the other hand, ideological considerations come into play and can be categorized in two ways. Firstly, there is a disdain for climate policies perceived as initiatives championed by liberal, globally oriented individuals who are seen as not prioritizing the nation's interests. Secondly, there is a preference for a direct connection between ordinary citizens and those in positions of power. The complexity of climate change, demanding intricate solutions, contrasts with their inclination toward simplicity. Additionally, there is a belief that figures in authority, including climate scientists and environmentalists, are influenced by special interests, fostering skepticism toward climate initiatives.

Actors supporting anti-environmentalism

Opposition to environmentalism is often supported by corporations and coordinated through conservative think tanks, alongside sham public support campaigns (known as astroturfing) orchestrated by public relations firms. These actors create links between corporate interests, conservative intellectuals, and segments of the public who share conservative perspectives or are concerned about the impact of environmental policies on communities and workers in specific sectors.

Conservative think tanks or sometimes academic researchers participate in the development of anti-environmentalist analysis and policy positions. Among the intellectuals and authors who have distinguished themselves internationally are Danish academic Bjørn Lomborg, Canadian former Greenpeace activist Patrick Moore, Canadian journalist Rex Murphy, and the US commentator Vivian Krause.

Public relations firms regularly assist the communication and lobbying of large companies whose interests are affected by environmental policies. Some communications initiatives may support the establishment of social front groups capable of lobbying legislators to reduce environmental regulations. Conservative foundations and philanthropic entities that fund anti-environmental initiatives are also active in the United States.

Some of these institutional actors (e.g., Citizens for a Sound Economy, founded by entrepreneur David Koch) call themselves environmentalists and argue that traditional environmental groups have overstated environmental problems. They use green marketing techniques to convince the public of their high level of environmental responsibility. In essence, these organizations create controversial information and call it environmental or green ideology. They frequently endorse campaigns to increase access to certain resources, such as forests and mines.

Think tanks associated with companies and seemingly independent groups can present themselves as autonomous research centers capable of providing expertise (analysis and communication) valued by the mass media. The media gives them space to balance environmentalist perspectives. However, this process can lead the media to overemphasize scientific uncertainty on some environmental issues. In other words, by presenting such sources as independent and reliable, the media may unintentionally amplify the perception of uncertainty, influencing public perceptions of specific environmental issues.

Additional strategies used by corporations or support actors like PR firms and think tanks may also include: co-opting moderate environmentalists through donations, job offers, and deals, while marginalizing and alienating non-cooperative individuals, often labeling them as extremists; dirty tricks campaigns to falsely implicate environmentalists in violent actions; threat of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) (in the United States) to intimidate environmentalists and citizens who engage in activities such as petitioning, writing to officials, attending public meetings, organizing boycotts, or participating in peaceful demonstrations, aiming to silence critics through legal pressure.

Other conservative think tanks (e.g., Cato Institute and The Heritage Foundation) address environmental issues as part of a broader agenda, including discussions of fiscal policy, energy, monetary policy, education, health care, and global economic liberalism. They consider that many public interest or environmental regulations are counterproductive. They support judicial activism to protect civil and economic liberties, an open and competitive energy market, and the importance of consumer choice and private incentives over a public approach to address real environmental concerns.

Many conservative think tanks involved in climate change, mineral resources, and indigenous rights issues are connected to the Atlas Network. Since the 1980s, the Atlas Network has been a supporter of neoliberal ideas, promoting these through international networking and funding of conservative think tanks. The organization operates globally, encompassing hundreds of think tanks across all continents.

Notable cases

Climate change skeptics

The most widespread contemporary example of organized anti-environmentalism is the climate change denial or skepticism movement. Skeptics attack the evidence for climate change. Skepticism can target the observed trend ("global warming does not exist"), the identification of causes ("warming exists, but humans are not responsible"), or the impact ("warming could be harmless or even beneficial"). This kind of skepticism is intended to fuel uncertainty about climate science: the goal is to undermine scientific discourses of environmental policy or to confuse the public and policymakers.

Another type of skepticism is so-called response skepticism, that is, skepticism directed at actions taken to address climate change. It can be associated with climate denialism, but can also be expressed without opposing the evidence of climate change ("climate change exists and is caused by humans, but the prevailing responses are wrong or overly harmful").

Climate skepticism is widespread among European parties of the far right and radical right. However, a study of the positions expressed by these parties in the European Parliament indicated that they rarely manifest climate denialism: opposition is more often directed at climate policies. Anti-environmentalist positions are intended to fuel a pro-sovereignist and anti-elite desire and speak to issues close to voters, such as economic welfare. They also include pro-environmental and pro-climate positions and support for the fight against climate change. They are accompanied by a critique of liberal climate policies as causing pollution, and of global capitalism and in favor of localism and economic nationalism.

The climate skeptic movement is supported by certain corporate or national interests that wish to maintain the profitability of economic sectors (especially those related to fossil fuels) in the face of growing environmental concerns. It also draws on anxieties about environmental protection among segments of the public that rely on fossil fuel-intensive economies. The countermovement is supported by a minority of scientists who have been visible promoters of climate science skepticism and by an extensive network of think tanks, which often also pursue other neoliberal or conservative agendas (e.g., against government regulation).

Libertarian movements in the United States

In the 1980s, the so-called "wise use" movement emerged, consisting of local groups mainly in the western part of North America. This movement emerged as a diverse alliance of ranchers, miners, loggers, hunters, off-road vehicle drivers, oil workers, and farmers who, despite their differences, united against environmentalists. They oppose public environmental management initiatives, which are perceived as authoritarian and detrimental to individual freedoms. They share the belief that a limited, non-interventionist government is more just, believing that a large bureaucracy threatens individual rights and freedoms. They support the individual right to use natural resources as part of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Their proposals include logging in national forests, revising the Endangered Species Act to eliminate protection of "non-adaptive" species such as the California condor, immediate oil extraction in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and opening all public lands, including national parks and wilderness areas, to mineral and energy production. They also support the development of national parks run by private companies and civil penalties for anyone who legally challenges economic activity or development on federal lands. Some members have also supported violent actions.

Internal criticism

External criticisms of environmentalism often arise from or are related to internal disputes between different currents within the movement. Over the past two decades, the environmental movement has undergone significant changes and has not only faced external criticisms but also internal challenges with the emergence of environmental justice movements, civil environmental movements, and those focused on sustainable development choices and the transformation of production and technological systems. In particular, the tension between deep or ecosystem-centered ecology (accused of anti-humanism by external opponents) and humanist or social justice-oriented environmentalists has generated new perspectives that are more attentive to the social aspects of environmental choices. The environmental justice perspective deals with the disproportionate and unjust distribution of environmental risks and harms within and among societies.

In recent years, environmental social sciences, such as environmental history, political ecology, and environmental sociology, have been growing in importance. These disciplines have contributed to a deepening understanding of the complex link between the environment and society. This progress has overcome the simplified views that often underlie anti-environmentalist positions, paving the way for new perspectives and more sophisticated approaches.The new knowledge has had a significant impact on the formulation of alternative concepts of sustainability and the practice of more conscious environmental policies.

One example of this tension relates to the application of nature conservation models inspired by North American ideals of wilderness conservation. The use of such models in different contexts has caused conflicts with local traditions of land use. This tension and the criticism of traditional conservation models have often led to an evolution of the models themselves, seeking to better integrate pre-existing relationships between local people and their land. In general, in developing countries, local environmentalist ideas and actions are not necessarily influenced by the post-materialist perspectives of Western environmentalism. For communities in these countries, environmental challenges are often linked to struggles over natural resources, as in the case of disputes between farmers and companies over timber or between rural and urban residents over water and energy. Such conflicts often focus on the environment, as poorer communities seek to preserve control over their natural resources to prevent them from being lost to increasing state control or the expanding market system.

As a result of these debates and criticisms, environmentalism is changing the way it deals with environmental science and the management of environmental problems, moving away from intransigent principled positions and accepting the complexity of the issues. This shift recognizes the uncertainties in establishing cause-and-effect relationships, especially when dealing with large-scale environmental problems. In addition, there is an increasing emphasis on understanding power dynamics, winners and losers in environmental change and legislation. Although some changes are taking place, traditional ways of thinking, such as neo-Malthusian, romantic, and catastrophist perspectives, persist in the environmental movement.

Examples of national and local conflicts

Alberta oil sands in Canada

The Alberta oil sands has also been a point of contention between environmentalists and those who exclusively consider economic growth to be important. Anti-environmentalists maintain that the oil sands have improved Canada's relations with the United States as Canada is their number one foreign supplier of oil.

As well, the oil sands have brought a secure source of energy to Canada, as well as tremendous economic gains for Alberta. There are environmental efforts in place to mitigate the effects that the mining involved in operating the oil sands mine has on animal species, though some environmentalist groups are not satisfied. Environmentalist groups such as Greenpeace are concerned with the environmental, social and health impacts of mining the oil sands, particularly on First Nations communities in Alberta.

Standing Rock in the United States

See also: Dakota Access Pipeline protests

The source of this conflict is that on January 25, 2016, Dakota Access announced that it received permit approval to move forward with the construction of a four-state crude oil pipeline which would transport 470,000 barrels of oil per day from North Dakota to Illinois. Anti-environmentalists defended the construction of the Pipeline as it would create thousands of jobs, make the United States more energy independent and create a more cost-effective method of transporting oil to major refining markets. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe took issue with this as the pipeline would run through their communities, tainting their sacred land as well as contaminating their water supply. What followed in the next ten months was a response from Sioux communities, protestors and environmentalist groups in the form of peaceful protests in which over 400 arrests were made by local law enforcement. Environmentalist groups responded to the event with an open letter condemning the actions of the North American banks who helped fund the pipeline, and encouraged them to stop any future payments contributing to it.

The Czech Republic and the Highway by-pass project

In 1991, Plzeň, Czech Republic experienced immense air pollution that citizens felt was the source of their health problems. The government decided they needed to build a new highway so the traffic could no longer create pollution in the city. Two different plans were created, one being the K variant which put the highway south of the city, and the S variant which would go through protected land, and would have negative impacts on rural areas as opposed to the city. This event began environmental movements in the Czech Republic that protested the S variant. In previous years, Czechoslovakia had been focused on the Soviet model of industrial expansion which lacked environmental regulation. This had effects on the environment, such as low-grade coal used in houses and by industries as well as lead gasoline used in automobiles. In the 1980's environmental activists protested the governments lack of environmental regulation. Political campaigns thereafter became increasingly anti-environmental through media outlets and newspaper coverage. Media coverage shared statements such as "Environmentalists believe that bugs are more important than people" and "Beware of environmentalists – they are extremists." These statements created fear of environmental causes in the population.

Situation in some countries

Canada

Stephen Harper: Stephen Harper criticized Canada's prior environmental policy for having high restrictions on industry, as Harper sought to industrialize. He wanted to ensure that industries could have better access to natural resources with the goal of increasing Canada's Economy. In May 2011, Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada won the Canadian federal election with a majority government, which allowed them to make significant changes to Canada's environmental policy. A bill passed May 2012 titled the "Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act." The Harper government focused more economic growth, such as the oil industry in Alberta. Northern Alberta has oil in their tar sands and extracting it was seen by environmentalists as destruction to the environment and a source of Greenhouse gas emissions. The Harper government focused on expanding the economy over the interests of environmentalists. Also environmental groups were also deemed "extremists" by the Harper Government and listed them under the anti-terrorism strategy as a national security threat.

In 2014, Environment Canada released its annual emissions trends report, which showed that Canada was not going to meet emission reduction targets as was promised in 2009. In fact, Canada is on track to increase its emissions up until 2020. Harper's government, while committed to reducing emissions over the long term, disapproved of limiting oil and gas emissions as the price of oil rose higher.

This was consistent with Harper's decision to withdraw Canada from the Kyoto Protocol in 2011. The main reason given for this by Harper was that Canada was not having success in meeting the protocol's targets. In the following years, Harper's administration made it difficult for foreign-based environmental groups to obstruct Canadian economic growth. Environmental charities experienced frequent audits by the federal government which resulted in less productivity and being at risk of losing their charitable status. Harper also repealed a significant environmental policy which had previously been in place; the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Later, a new version of the act was created. In 2015, with the election of Justin Trudeau, the environment became one of Canada's main concerns, with Trudeau eventually signing the Paris Agreement in 2016, and has been aggressive at curtailing the oil and gas industry.

United States

Former President Barack Obama promised to make the United States more environmentally conscious, and implemented the Clean Power Plan, invested significantly in clean energy, and improved standards for fuel economy of vehicles; this reduced pollution and was also economical. Obama also made a joint agreement with China to reduce the emissions of both countries, and to reduce emissions in the United States by 27% by 2025. The state of environmental affairs in the United States changed drastically under the Donald Trump administration. Trump had been open about his plans to alter or withdraw entirely from many climate change and environmental agreements the United States was then involved in, such as the Paris Agreement. As this agreement is voluntary, the United States faced no penalty for declining to participate. However, as the United States is the second largest emitter of carbon after China, their lack of participation in the agreement would greatly impact global efforts to reduce carbon emissions. While in 1999, President Bill Clinton announced that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would enforce the toughest standards to date, Trump's administration instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to remove the climate change page from its website. EPA employees stated at the time that if the page were to be taken down, years of research on global warming would be gone, as well as detailed data on emissions and links to scientific global warming research. On June 1, 2017, Trump announced that the U.S. would cease all participation in the Paris Agreement on climate change mitigation. Trump stated that "The Paris accord will undermine (the U.S.) economy," and "puts (the U.S.) at a permanent disadvantage."

China

In China, the city of Maoming became the focus of an environmental dispute in 2014, relating to the municipal government-sponsored Para-Xylene (PX) industry - a chemical used in manufacturing plastics, such as those in water bottles and polyesters. The industry has been promoted in Maoming for its economic benefits due to the jobs provided by the factories. Despite the industry's economic benefits, citizens organized PX protest in 2014 as there was increasing concern for the chemical's environmental and health risks to the citizens of the city. To counteract the environmentalist social movement, the government took action by creating an agreement that all civilians must sign stating they will not engage in protests or speak of the industry negatively, which high school students had to sign in order to graduate, as well as implementing an education campaign by providing lectures to the citizens on PX project.

France

In June 2023, Minister of the Interior Gérald Darmanin announced that the French government would be forcibly dissolving the Les Soulèvements de la Terre. The announcement came following a series of raids by anti-terrorist police against the group, resulting in 18 arrests.

Human Rights Watch stated that the dissolution was "wholly disproportionate" and was part of "a growing trend of stigmatization and criminalization of individuals and civil society organizations raising awareness about the consequences of climate change" in France under Emmanuel Macron.