Post date 12 Jul 2025 (original LinkedIn date)
Original LinkedIn version· 1,157 words
In a recent Project Syndicate piece by Mazzucato and Kattelhe (’Turning Populism’s Tools Against Populism’: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/populist-messaging-exploits-progressive-democratic-failings-by-mariana-mazzucato-and-rainer-kattel-2025-07), the authors make the convincing argument that populist messaging gains traction by exploiting the disconnect between progressive democratic promises and their often intangible or distant outcomes. They emphasise that people crave policies that deliver visible, immediate improvements in their lives, which resonates with the idea that democracy must produce concrete, local results to maintain legitimacy.
Nature restoration fits this framework beautifully for several reasons:
Tangible outcomes: restoring local ecosystems, whether it’s planting trees, cleaning up rivers, or creating community green spaces, produces visible changes. People can see a neglected favoured walking path revitalised or a polluted stream cleared, offering a direct sense of progress. These projects counter the ‘all talk, no action’ critique that populists exploit, as the article notes.
Local legitimacy: nature restoration is inherently place-based, rooted in the specific landscapes and needs of a community. This grounds it in local identity and fosters trust, as people participate in or witness efforts that reflect their values and surroundings. The article highlights how populist narratives thrive on distrust in distant elites; local restoration projects, by contrast, should be a bottom-up, community-driven, and hard to dismiss as out-of-touch.
Community engagement: these initiatives often involve volunteers, schools, or local groups, creating opportunities for collective action. This not only strengthens social bonds but also demonstrates democracy in action - people working together for a shared goal. It is often the small, observable things that matter, as residents can point to a restored wetland or urban garden as evidence of their agency.
Broader impact: beyond local benefits, nature restoration ties into global issues like climate change and biodiversity loss, giving communities a sense of contributing to something larger without feeling abstract. This bridges the gap Mazzucato and Kattel identify, where progressive policies often fail to connect lofty goals with everyday realities.
However, it’s not all plain sailing and there are some challenges to consider:
Resource constraints: local projects need funding and expertise, which can be hard to secure without broader governmental or institutional support. The article critiques the lack of state capacity in delivering progressive promises, and this could hinder restoration efforts if not addressed. Where state contribution is monetarily limited, there is clearly a greater role for private capital.
Scepticism: some communities, especially those swayed by populist rhetoric, might view environmental projects as secondary to economic concerns. Framing restoration as a source of local jobs (e.g. green infrastructure) could help align it with immediate needs.
Scale and visibility: while local, these projects must be visible enough to counter populist narratives. Regular communication, through community events or media, can amplify their impact.
As ever, much of the resistance stems from money. The scepticism around the ‘cost’ of climate and nature initiatives often arises from a narrow view that ignores the massive economic and social costs of inaction. Do not be fooled, business as usual is long-term far more expensive, so instead we should take time to connect the economic argument to nature restoration and referencing the seminal findings of the Dasgupta Review (2021). The latter fundamentally reframes this by arguing that nature is not a free resource but a critical asset providing ecosystem services (clean air, water, pollination, flood protection, etc) that underpin economic stability. Valuing these services non-zero is crucial to shifting the narrative and aligns perfectly with making democracy deliver tangible benefits, as the Mazzucato-Kattel article implies.
Think of the economic angle for nature restoration as the game-changer:
Reframing costs as investments: the Dasgupta Review stresses that biodiversity loss erodes economic productivity (e.g. collapsing fisheries destroy coastal communities or degraded soils cost billions and hurt our food security). Local restoration projects, like rewilding a floodplain to prevent costly flood damage or restoring pollinator habitats to boost crop yields, can be framed as investments with measurable returns and wider social benefits. This counters the sceptic’s focus on upfront costs by showing long-term savings and benefits.
Job creation and local economies: nature restoration can generate jobs, from ecological surveying to landscaping to community education. For example, the UK’s Green Jobs Taskforce (2021) estimated that nature-based solutions could create thousands of jobs in rural and urban areas. Highlighting these opportunities makes restoration resonate with communities prioritising economic security, addressing the populist appeal Mazzucato and Kattel critique.
Quantifying ecosystem services: historically, we’ve assigned zero value to nature’s services, leading to their overexploitation. The Dasgupta Review advocates for natural capital accounting, which assigns economic value to services like carbon sequestration or water purification. For instance, a restored wetland might save a town millions in water treatment costs. Local projects can pilot these valuations, making the benefits concrete and visible, key to the point about observable impact.
Countering inaction’s costs: the Review estimates that global GDP could shrink significantly by 2050 under a “business as usual” scenario due to biodiversity loss. Other studies have suggested that nature risk might lead to -12% GDP loss, more than the COVID pandemic and more than the Global Financial Crisis back in 2008. Locally, this translates to real risks, like reduced agricultural output or increased disaster recovery costs. By contrast, restoration projects offer immediate, visible wins (e.g. a cleaner river boosting tourism) that demonstrate proactive governance, undermining populist narratives of democratic failure.
Challenges to address:
Perception gaps: sceptics may dismiss ecosystem service valuations as abstract or ‘green-washing’. But we have at our finger tips clear, relatable metrics, like this forest saves £X in flood damage annually, which are essential and we should not be afraid to use.
Upfront funding: restoration requires initial investment, which can be a hard sell in cash-strapped communities. Leveraging public-private partnerships or green bonds, as suggested in the Dasgupta Review, could bridge this gap. Private investment from local authority pension schemes in local areas is ideally placed to benefit scheme members.
Community buy-In: economic arguments should be paired with cultural resonance. For example, restoring a local nature site tied to community history can blend economic and emotional appeal. Pride in local works is an untapped ally in the fight across business as usual.
To make this work, how about we start with nature projects that combine quick wins with clear, local economic benefits - they could be urban tree planting to reduce heatwave effects or community-led river cleanups that boost local tourism. These can be tied back to Dasgupta’s call for integrating natural capital into local planning. For example, a project in the UK’s Peatland Restoration Initiative has shown how restoring bogs cuts carbon emissions (saving climate costs) while creating rural jobs. We can focus on projects with quick, visible wins, like community gardens or small park cleanups, while tying them to broader economic or social benefits (e.g. job training for youth in restoration work). This approach would embody the ‘mission-driven’ governance Mazzucato and Kattel advocate, showing democracy delivering for people’s daily lives.