The Greens’ decline is indicative of a larger disconnect between the movement’s ambitions and the lived realities of its potential supporters. In the Brussels election, voters were particularly frustrated by measures that made life more expensive, without offering sufficient support to those who struggle the most. Energy prices have soared, and the suggestion that everyone can easily transition to solar panels, heat pumps or electric vehicles ignores the financial strain many households are under.
The message is clear: Even when people recognize the importance of climate action, they aren’t willing to shoulder the burden alone — particularly when it seems the wealthy can easily sidestep the sacrifices. And right-wing, populist parties have been exploiting this gap, portraying themselves as defenders of the “common people” against such “elite” policies.
So, if the Green movement wants to convince voters and win, it will have to focus on one thing: making the rich pay. Proposals for climate action need to include a fairer distribution of costs and ensure that those with the most resources bear the brunt.
We all know what will happen when governments decide that heating with gas is no longer an option: People won’t invest in heat pumps, they’ll freeze. And “just” raising the cost of heating to use the surplus fees for green policies? It will lead to the same outcome. People will freeze — and die.
The idea of collective responsibility only works if it’s perceived as genuinely fair. The current approach, however, often feels like a call for the poor to sacrifice, while the rich sit back and enjoy the perks of their greener lifestyle. For example, wealthy homeowners might receive incentives for installing solar panels, but renters in older apartments are simply left with higher heating bills and no solution.
The resulting perception that climate policies favor those already better off then feeds resentment, undermining broader support for necessary changes.
