top of page
  • Writer's pictureDurham Pro Bono Blog

Eco-fascism: The dark side to environmentalism

By Holly Downes
A discussion on the unspoken dangers associated with a minority of environmentalists who blame the demise of the environment on overpopulation, immigration and over industrialization.

When the word environmentalism gets thrown around, it comes with many positive undertones. Progress. Protection. A strive for some good in this world that seems preoccupied with doses of negativity. Environmentalists automatically become the epitome of goodness. The self-sacrificial figures we all admire. They dedicate long hours of their day marching through capital cities with their vibrant banners, make passionate speeches fueled with anger and try to plant as many trees as humanly possible - actions that should all be commemorated. Raising awareness for issues that are detrimental to our future cannot be anything but positive, right?

Yet, this is a naive generalization. Whilst an environmentalist is plausibly the antithesis of an axe-murderer, it is not all sunshine and rainbows in the world of environmentalism. A dark side underlies the rather positive associations of the movement. Behold eco-fascism.

Ecofascists blame the demise of our planet on humans, believing that because our anthropocentricism is the largest contributor to the ecological crisis, the only way to stop the crisis is to eradicate all of humanity. With ecofascists specifically targeting those who contribute to overpopulation, immigration, and overindustrialisation, as many of these issues are central in poverty-stricken areas, they directly target the poor and vulnerable.

Take this radical and overly nonsensical belief. With consumerism producing an accumulation of plastic waste, all of which contributes to the plastic pollution crisis, ecofascists directly blame the poor for such pollution. Premised on the idea that they cannot afford the more expensive alternative non-plastic options, it follows that because the impoverished are the main contributors to plastic pollution, they should be murdered to stop further pollution. Justifying the killing of the poor through circumstances they cannot control is far from the positivity environmentalism seems to connote.

Rather than educating those who are unaware of how to shop sustainably or making alternative non-plastic options cheaper and more widely available, they would rather resort to genocide to prevent further pollution. If anything, this morally questionable method rather exacerbates socioeconomic inequalities than solving climate issues. Working at local levels to educate, enforce and promote change is the only beneficial way to raise awareness about the climate crisis – it is the little and frequent events that force populations to take credibility for their small but detrimental contributions to environmental issues. Promoting violence is never the way forward because if anything, it has the opposite effect as it leads to a stubbornness to change, resilience and anger.

Being pro-planet but anti-immigration seems somewhat contradictory, but I guess that aligns perfectly with the eco-fascist movement – a movement that is logically unsound. A movement that thrives on vile genocidal language. A movement that promotes the mass-murder of innocent civilians to save a planet which is designed to be inhabited. Their undying love for the planet has been taken to an extreme – one that is willing to sacrifice the human population for the preservation of the planet. One must ask when environmentalism has gone too far, and undeniably, this is a prime example.

121 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page