The House passed legislation on Tuesday that would sanction the international criminal court after its chief prosecutor requested arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials.

The 247-155 vote amounts to Congress’s first legislative rebuke of the war-crimes court since prosecutor Karim Khan’s decision last month to seek arrest warrants for the leaders of Israel and Hamas. The move was widely denounced in Washington, creating a rare moment of unity on Israel even as partisan divisions over the war with Hamas intensified.

While the House bill was expected to pass Tuesday, it was not likely to attract significant Democratic support, dulling its chances in the Senate. The White House opposes the legislation, calling it overreach.

Both the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House foreign affairs committee acknowledged the bill is unlikely to become law and left the door open to further negotiation with the White House. They said it would be better for Congress to be united against the Hague-based court.

“We’re always strongest, particularly on this committee, when we speak with one voice as one nation, in this case to the ICC and to the judges,” GOP representative Mike McCaul, chair of the foreign affairs Committee, said during House debate. “A partisan messaging bill was not my intention here but that is where we are.”

State department spokesperson Matt Miller reiterated the administration’s opposition to the sanctions bill.

“We have made clear that while we oppose the decision taken by the prosecutor of the ICC, we don’t think it is appropriate, especially while there are ongoing investigations inside Israel looking at somebody’s very same questions, and we were willing to work with Congress on what a response might look like, but we don’t support sanctions,” Miller said.

The House bill would apply sweeping economic sanctions and visa restrictions to individuals and judges associated with the ICC, including their family members. Democrats labeled the approach as “overly broad”, warning it could ensnare Americans and US companies that do important work with the court.

“This bill would have a chilling effect on the ICC as an institution, which could hamper the court’s efforts to prosecute the dubious atrocities that have been perpetrated in many places around the world, from Ukraine to Uganda,” said representative Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the foreign affairs committee.

The legislation reprimanding the ICC was just the latest show of support from House Republicans for Israel since Hamas killed around 1,200 people in an attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 and abducted at least an additional 250 people. Republicans have held several votes related to Israel in recent months, highlighting divisions among Democrats over support for the US ally.

Congressional leaders have invited Netanyahu to address a joint meeting of Congress this summer, which is likely to further inflame tensions over Israel’s handling of the war. Many Democrats are expected to boycott the speech.

Both the ICC and the United Nations’ highest court, the International Court of Justice, have begun to investigate allegations that both Israel and Hamas have committed genocide during the seven-month war.

Last month, prosecutor Khan accused Netanyahu; his defense minister, Yoav Gallant; and three Hamas leaders, Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif and Ismail Haniyeh of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza Strip and Israel.

Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders condemned the ICC’s move as disgraceful and antisemitic. President Joe Biden and members of Congress also lambasted the prosecutor and supported Israel’s right to defend itself.

“Failing to act here in the Congress would make us complicit with the ICC’s illegitimate actions and we must not stay silent,” McCaul said. “We must stand with our allies.”

Last week, an investigation by the Guardian, the Israeli-Palestinian publication +972 Magazine and the Hebrew-language outlet Local Call revealed a covert Israeli campaign to derail the ICC’s inquiry into war crimes committed in the occupied Palestinian territories.

The investigation detailed how, for close to a decade, Israel deployed its intelligence agencies to surveil and pressure senior ICC staff in an effort to thwart the court’s work, going so far as to deploy the head of the Mossad, Israel’s foreign intelligence agency, to allegedly threaten the court’s former chief prosecutor.

A row has broken out over falling sperm counts after a new study suggested fears of a “spermageddon” may have been exaggerated.

Recent research has suggested a global reproductive crisis could be in the offing, with researchers in Israel suggesting average sperm counts may have more than halved in the past 40 years.

But seeds of discord have been sown after an analysis of sperm counts from would-be donors in Denmark revealed no significant changes over a six-year period.

“I can’t comment on whether this is representative of the world, but in this population, at this location, there isn’t really evidence of a decline,” said co-author Prof Allan Pacey, of the University of Manchester.

Writing in the journal Human Reproduction, researchers at the University of Manchester, Queen’s University in Kingston, Canada, and the sperm bank Cryos International in Denmark, analysed data collected between early 2017 and late 2022 from samples of 6,758 prospective sperm donors in Denmark.

All of the men were aged between 18 and 45, with the samples analysed using computer systems.

The results suggest that, while average sperm concentration and total sperm count varied over the six-year period, there were no clear patterns.

However, the team found a decline in sperm quality between 2019 and 2022, with the average concentration of motile sperm – those able to swim – and total numbers declining by 16% and 22% respectively.

A decline in quality was confirmed when the team looked only at samples from men who were accepted as donors, including those who made at least eight donations between 2019 and 2022.

“Some of them went up in [sperm] quality, some of them went down in quality over that time, but more of them went down than up,” said Pacey.

The team suggested the Covid pandemic might have played a role in the decline, noting lockdowns might have led to changes in working patterns, diet and levels of physical activity – factors that can affect sperm motility.

But Pacey said the decline was unlikely to be down to the virus itself as infection rates were not high in Denmark and Covid only affects sperm quality temporarily.

“What [the Israeli team is modelling] is average data taken from papers that were never designed to answer the question,” he said. A separate review and meta analysis published last year by a team in Italy showed no significant trends in sperm concentration in the US and selected western European countries.

Prof Hagai Levine, of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, pushed back against criticisms of his team’s work.

“We conducted two systematic reviews and meta analyses to study global long-term trends in sperm concentration and total sperm count. The current study is simply irrelevant for this question,” he said. “It was conducted in one country, over a short period of time and among a potentially biased population.”

Richard Sharpe, an expert in male reproductive health and professor at the University of Edinburgh, who was not involved in any of the studies, said the new study covered too short a period to shine any meaningful light on sperm counts.

An earlier study by Danish researchers showing no evidence of a decline in semen quality between 1996 and 2010 did not assuage concerns.

“The interpretation of [that work] was that the damage was already done and Danish men’s sperm counts were at an all-time low, reflected in their increasing resort to assisted reproduction,” Sharpe said, adding the new finding of a decline in motile sperm count – a key metric for male fertility – only added to concerns.

Prof Tina Kold Jensen of Syddansk University in Denmark, who was involved in that work, said both meta-analyses and the new work had potential drawbacks.

“I think we’re never going to come up with the complete truth,” she said. “But we have to keep on trying, because it’s so important.”

Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer tore into each other’s election promises on tax and immigration in a fiery first TV debate of the campaign.

The pair exchanged barbs in an ill-tempered session before an ITV studio audience in Salford, where Starmer accused Sunak of being “the most liberal prime minister we’ve ever had on immigration” and pledged to keep the UK in the European convention on human rights.

As the leaders sought to draw dividing lines between the parties the Labour leader hammered the Conservative record after 14 years in government and accused Sunak of failing to take personal responsibility for his failures, including the cost of living and NHS waiting times.

Sunak sought to present Starmer as an unreliable politician who was pursuing power for power’s sake. He claimed repeatedly that Labour’s policies would lead to a £2,000 tax rise for families, an attack the Conservatives are planning to deploy repeatedly over this campaign.

“Labour will raise your taxes. It’s in their DNA. Your work, your car, your pension – Labour will tax it,” the prime minister said. In response Starmer said the Tories had “put pretend Labour policies to the Treasury” to produce a fantasy figure.

Starmer said the prime minister’s decision to call an election now demonstrated that he didn’t think his plans for the economy or illegal immigration would have any effect.

“If he thinks things are going to get better towards the second half of this year, why has he called it now? He’s called it now because he knows, and I’ll ask him this, he knows inflation is going to go back up, he knows energy prices are going to go back up in the autumn,” Starmer said. “That’s what he’s not telling you.”

Both leaders committed not to raise income tax, national insurance or VAT. Starmer defended his policy to introduce VAT to private schools, saying it was a “tough choice” but necessary, to applause from the audience.

The prime minister appeared to suggest he was willing to take the UK out of the European Convention of Human Rights if it blocked his controversial policy to send asylum seekers who cross the Channel to Rwanda.

“I’m crystal clear, I believe all our plans are compliant with our international obligations, but if I am forced to choose between securing our borders and our country’s security, or a foreign court, I’m going to choose our country’s security every single time,” he said.

The Labour leader defended the UK’s membership of the ECHR. “We will not pull out of international agreements and international law which is respected the world over,” he said.

“Because I want the UK to be a respected player on the global stage, not a pariah who doesn’t agree with international law.”

Both leaders said they would work with Donald Trump if he were re-elected US president in November.

On the cost of living, Starmer accused Sunak of being out of touch and living “in a different world”. Referring to his own childhood in response to a question from a member of the audience, the Labour leader said: “I do know the anguish of worrying, when the postman comes with a bill, what is that bill going to be, can I pay it? I don’t think the prime minister quite understands the position that you and other people are in.”

He ruled out a return to austerity if he became prime minister, which Sunak did not. Sunak insisted that voters were “starting to see the benefits” of his economic policies.

Sunak said he would use private healthcare if a loved one was on a long waiting list for an operation. Starmer said he would not and would rely on the NHS alone.

In his closing statement, Starmer said re-electing the Tories would be like “the arsonists handed back the matches”.

“I don’t offer you the gimmicks or unfunded promises that Rishi Sunak does,” he said. “I don’t pretend there’s a magic wand that will fix everything overnight. Instead, I offer a practical commonsense plan to change Britain.”

He continued: “Imagine how you would feel waking up on July 5 to five more years of the Conservatives. Five more years of decline and division. The arsonists handed back the matches.

“Now imagine turning the page with a Labour government that rolls up its sleeves and gets on with the job that puts the country back in your service.”

Sunak told voters “if you think Labour are going to win, start saving”, while defending his record on climate. He denied having broken his promises on the environment, saying: “No, we’re going to stick to the targets we put in place but we’re going to do it in a way that saves you all money.

“I’m not going to impose thousands of pounds of costs on you to arbitrarily rip out your boiler, change your car, convert your home.”

With the second week of campaigning drawing to a close, the Conservatives appear no closer to making a dent Labour’s 20-point poll lead.

Sunak has come under heavy pressure from his party to find a way to turn around his flailing campaign. A decision by Nigel Farage to return to the political frontline this week has eroded Tory morale further.

While Labour has been running a cautious, safety-first campaign, the Conservatives have spent the first two weeks making a flurry of policy announcements in the hope that some of them will be appealing to voters.

So far Sunak has announced plans to introduce compulsory national service for 18-year olds, punish fly-tippers with points on their driving licence and introduce an annual cap on visas for migrants. His national service proposal was met with derisory laughter from the ITV studio audience.

Labour has unveiled a “triple lock” commitment to the UK’s nuclear weapons, pledged to reduce migration and carry out a review of the security threats facing the UK within the first 100 days of government.

Responding to Sunak’s claim that Labour’s policy would mean a £2,000 tax rise for families, Labour’s national campaign coordinator, Pat McFadden, said: “Rishi Sunak’s claims about Labour and tax are categorically untrue. Labour will not put up taxes on working people.”

Snap YouGov polling showed 51% of people thought Rishi Sunak performed best overall in the live debate, with 49% voting for Sir Keir Starmer.

A Michigan man who recently went viral for allegedly driving with a suspended license during a virtual hearing on the matter should have had his license reinstated long beforehand, according to clerical records.

The latest update, as first reported by 7 News Detroit, highlights the kind of behind-the-scenes clerical issues that can carry significant implications for people down the line. Corey Harris, 44, ended up in jail through no fault of his own because of the error about his license.

Harris made news headlines and gained unflattering social media fame after a clip of his court session spread widely online.

During the 15 May virtual hearing, the presiding judge, Cedric Simpson, noticed that Harris was driving despite the hearing being about Harris’s suspended license.

“Mr Harris,” said Simpson. “Are you driving?”

“Actually, I’m pulling into my doctor’s office actually, so just give me a second,” Harris said, appearing to look for a parking spot.

Once Harris confirmed he was behind the wheel, Simpson ordered Harris to turn himself into the county jail that night for violating the law.

“I don’t even know why he would do that,” said Simpson, shaking his head in disbelief while Harris also had a stunned facial expression.

But according to Saginaw county court records viewed by 7 News, Harris’s driver’s license was supposed to have been reinstated in January 2022.

The Michigan secretary of state’s office reportedly never received clearance from Saginaw county’s Friend of the Court office to restore Harris’s driver’s license even though he had paid off all required fees.

As a result of the clerical error, Harris’s driver’s license was never officially reinstated, setting the stage for the notorious court hearing.

The Guardian could not reach a representative of the Michigan secretary of state’s office or Saginaw county’s Friend of the Court office.

While the initial video of Harris’s hearing inspired many humorous reactions online, the ordeal was no laughing matter for Harris.

After his arrest, Harris told 7 News Detroit in a 30 May interview that he was initially driving during the virtual hearing because he was “getting my wife medical help”. “I wasn’t thinking about the fact that I got a suspended license,” he added. “I don’t care about all that.”

Harris spent two days in jail and said the entire process was “embarrassing”. He also said that officials were “supposed to have … lifted [the suspension] two years ago, but they didn’t”.

Young people with internet addiction experience changes in their brain chemistry which could lead to more addictive behaviours, research suggests.

The study, published in PLOS Mental Health, reviewed previous research using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to examine how regions of the brain interact in people with internet addiction.

They found that the effects were evident throughout multiple neural networks in the brains of young people, and that there was increased activity in parts of the brain when participants were resting.

At the same time, there was an overall decrease in the functional connectivity in parts of the brain involved in active thinking, which is the executive control network of the brain responsible for memory and decision-making.

The research found that these changes resulted in addictive behaviours and tendencies in adolescents, as well as behavioural changes linked to mental health, development, intellectual ability and physical coordination.

The researchers reviewed 12 previous studies involving 237 10- to 19-year-olds with a formal diagnosis of internet addiction between 2013 and 2023.

Almost half of British teenagers have said they feel addicted to social media, according to a survey this year.

Max Chang, the study’s lead author and an MSc student at the UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health (GOS ICH), said: “Adolescence is a crucial developmental stage during which people go through significant changes in their biology, cognition and personalities.

“As a result, the brain is particularly vulnerable to internet addiction-related urges during this time, such as compulsive internet usage, cravings towards usage of the mouse or keyboard and consuming media.

“The findings from our study show that this can lead to potentially negative behavioural and developmental changes that could impact the lives of adolescents. For example, they may struggle to maintain relationships and social activities, lie about online activity and experience irregular eating and disrupted sleep.”

Chang added that he hoped the findings demonstrated “how internet addiction alters the connection between the brain networks in adolescence”, which would then allow early signs of internet addiction to be treated effectively.

He added: “Clinicians could potentially prescribe treatment to aim at certain brain regions or suggest psychotherapy or family therapy targeting key symptoms of internet addiction.

“Importantly, parental education on internet addiction is another possible avenue of prevention from a public health standpoint. Parents who are aware of the early signs and onset of internet addiction will more effectively handle screen time, impulsivity, and minimise the risk factors surrounding internet addiction.”

Irene Lee, a senior author of the research paper also based at GOS ICH, said: “There is no doubt that the internet has certain advantages. However, when it begins to affect our day-to-day lives, it is a problem.

“We would advise that young people enforce sensible time limits for their daily internet usage and ensure that they are aware of the psychological and social implications of spending too much time online.”

Joe Biden has said that there is “every reason” to draw the conclusion that Benjamin Netanyahu is prolonging the war in Gaza for his own political self-preservation.

Biden made the remarks about the Israeli prime minister in an interview with Time magazine published on Tuesday morning, drawing a sharp response from the Israeli government, which accused the US president of straying from diplomatic norms.

Netanyahu’s popularity plummeted after the 7 October attack by Hamas, which exposed serious flaws in Israeli security. Most political observers say Netanyahu would lose elections if they were held now, and would be forced into opposition, facing court hearings on corruption charges. But elections have been put off until the war is over, or at least until major military operations are deemed to have been completed.

Time asked Biden whether he believed Netanyahu was “prolonging the war for his own political self-preservation”.

“I’m not going to comment on that,” the president said in response, but added: “There is every reason for people to draw that conclusion.”

He went to discuss some of the internal political problems Netanyahu was facing before the war.

Asked if he wanted to clarify Biden’s response, the US national security council spokesperson, John Kirby, said: “I think the president was very clear in his answer on that, and we’ll let the prime minister speak to his own politics. The president was referencing what many critics have said.”

In response, the Israeli government spokesperson, David Mencer, said Biden’s remarks about Netanyahu and Israeli politics were “outside the diplomatic norms of every right-thinking country”.

Over the course of a wide-ranging interview, Biden was also asked about the allegations, under investigation by the international criminal court (ICC) and the international court of justice (ICJ), that Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza. The president gave an ambivalent response.

“The answer is it’s uncertain and has been investigated by the Israelis themselves,” he said. “The ICC is something that we don’t recognise. But one thing is certain: the people in Gaza, the Palestinians, have suffered greatly, for lack of food, water, medicine, etc. And a lot of innocent people have been killed.”

Biden pointed out that Hamas also held responsibility for the bloodshed in Israel and Gaza.

Asked specifically if Israel was using “starvation of civilians as a method of warfare”, a charge being pursued by the ICC prosecutor, Karim Khan.

“No, I don’t think that,” Biden said. But he then said: “I think they’ve engaged in activity that is inappropriate.”

Biden said that when he visited Israel in the wake of the 7 October attack, he told Netanyahu’s government: “Don’t make the same mistake we did going after [Osama] bin Laden. The idea of occupying Afghanistan, the idea that you had nuclear arsenals in Iraq, that were … simply not true. And it led to endless wars. Don’t make the mistakes we made.”

But Biden concluded by saying the Israelis were indeed “making that mistake”.

Wisconsin’s attorney general, Josh Kaul, filed felony charges against three men who played a key role in the effort to appoint fake electors in the state as part of Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the election.

Kenneth Chesebro, Jim Troupis, and Michael Roman were each charged with one felony count of forgery, according to court documents. The crime is a class H felony punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 and up to six years in prison.

Chesebro was the architect of the fake elector plan. Five days after the election, he emailed Troupis, a retired judge who was leading the Trump campaign’s legal efforts in Wisconsin, to muse about the possibility of throwing out Joe Biden’s win in Wisconsin and appointing a Trump slate of electors. The two developed the scheme over the next few months. Chesebro would later work with Roman to coordinate the efforts across states and to get the slates of fake electors to Washington.

Chesebro pleaded guilty to conspiracy to filing false documents for his role in the scheme in a separate case in Georgia earlier this year. Roman faces charges in Georgia and is also a defendant in an Arizona case.

This is the first time Troupis, who sits on a judicial ethics panel in Wisconsin, has been charged.

Parts of California, Nevada and Arizona are expected to bake this week as the first heatwave of the season arrives with triple-digit temperatures forecast for areas including Phoenix, which last summer saw a record 31 straight days of at least 110F (43.3C).

By Wednesday, most of an area stretching from south-east California to central Arizona will see “easily their hottest” weather since last September, and record daily highs could be seen from Las Vegas to Phoenix, the National Weather Service said late on Monday.

Excessive heat warnings have been issued from 10am Wednesday to 8pm Friday due to the “dangerously hot conditions”, the weather service said.

Fire crews will be on high alert especially in Arizona, where fire restrictions went into effect before Memorial Day in some areas and will be ordered by Thursday across most of the western and south-central parts of the state, authorities said.

Fire forecasters at the Southwest Coordination Center in Albuquerque, New Mexico, said weather in the region does not typically become so hot until mid- or late June.

“It does seem like Mother Nature is turning up the heat on us a little sooner than usual,” Tiffany Davila, spokesperson for the Arizona department of forestry and fire management, said on Monday evening.

Highs on Monday reached 110F (43.3C) at Death Valley national park in California near the Nevada border, 103F (39.4C) in Phoenix and 105F (40.5C) in Needles, California.

Slightly above normal temperatures are forecast for the region on Tuesday before they start heating up on Wednesday.

In Las Vegas, where the high topped out at 103F (39.4C) on Monday, temperatures will soar to 10 to 15 degrees above normal during the second half of the week – peaking at 111F (43.8C) on Thursday.

A high of 120F (48.8C) is forecast for Thursday at Furnace Creek in Death Valley.

The current forecasted high of 113F (45C) for Phoenix on Thursday would break the daily record high of 111F (43.8C) set in 2016. Last summer, the high there reached 110F (43.3C) or higher from the last day of June through the entire month of July. At least 400 of the 645 heat-related deaths that occurred last year were during that month-long period.

Phoenix, Maricopa county and Arizona state officials this year are striving to better protect people from ever higher temperatures. Those most in danger from the heat are people outdoors, especially homeless people in downtown areas who often do not have access to sufficient shade, air conditioning and cold water.

Governments this year are setting aside more money so some cooling stations can stay open longer and on the weekends, including two that will keep their doors open overnight.

Meanwhile, California’s largest wildfire so far this year was significantly surrounded on Monday after blackening a swath of hilly grasslands between San Francisco Bay and the Central Valley.

The California department of forestry and fire protection said the Corral fire was 75% contained after scorching more than 22 sq miles (57 sq km).

One home was destroyed and two firefighters were injured. The wind-driven fire erupted on Saturday afternoon and at one point thousands of people were under evacuation orders.

Badger cull licences have been issued by the government despite its own scientific adviser saying there is “no justification” for doing so.

Leaked documents seen by the Guardian show the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs this month issued 17 new licences to continue culling badgers, overruling Dr Peter Brotherton, the director of science at Natural England, the government’s adviser for the natural environment in England.

Badgers are culled to the point of local extinction because they spread bovine tuberculosis (bTB) to cattle, and the disease can wipe out entire herds. Last year, figures released by Defra revealed more than 210,000 badgers had been killed since the cull began in 2013. However, scientific reports have shown that killing badgers is not the most effective way to end the disease.

Brotherton told Defra that while in previous years a cull could be justified, “based on the evidence, I can find no justification for authorising further supplementary badger culls in 2024 for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease and recommend against doing so”.

Defra officials said that in response they were pushing ahead with the cull because farmers who were most affected by bTB would lose confidence in the government if it was ended abruptly.

Sally Randall, Defra’s director general for biosecurity, food and trade, said in a letter to Natural England: “Those most affected by the disease must have confidence in both the process and the trajectory. Changes need to be carefully timed and communicated, whilst balancing a range of potentially opposing views. Any abrupt changes to policy would seriously undermine our ability to engage constructively with the industry on future disease control interventions.”

Brotherton said the badger population was likely to remain low for at least seven years, during which time vaccinations could be deployed to stop the spread of the disease.

He told Defra: “The balance of evidence has shifted. In my opinion it is now clear that badger vaccination can provide an effective alternative to [culls].”

He added that farmers could also take effective cattle-based measures as an alternative to badger vaccinations, including enhanced testing regimes, more sensitive tests, movement controls and cattle vaccination, to stop the disease.

Tom Langton, an ecologist and badger expert who has long collected data to support the end of the cull, said: “All badger culling should stop immediately until the chaos of wasted public funds and cruel badger killing methods are properly investigated.”

He added that the leaked documents “underline a need for a reset and fresh review of bovine TB cattle testing and movement control in the coming months with fresh eyes on the issues”.

Peter Hambly, the executive director of the Badger Trust, added: “Defra must follow the scientific advice and call an immediate stop to the badger cull. Every day it delays means the slaughter of more badgers and their cubs.

“Badger Trust can see only one reason for this decision [issuing the cull licences] – that it would upset the farming industry if they did not cull badgers. This seems to point to a politically based decision rather than a scientific one, contradicting the principles of evidence-based decision-making.”

The Labour party has previously said it would end the badger cull if it wins power. Daniel Zeichner, the shadow farming minister, said last year: “The 2018 Godfray review, the last piece of work done by the government, found that badger culling is not the answer. We’re going to make England bovine TB free by 2038, but with a range of measures that do not include culling.”

Although the former Defra secretary George Eustice promised to phase out the cull by 2025, the government last year U-turned on this, calling it an “artificial deadline” and vowing to “keep culling”.

A Defra spokesperson said: “Bovine TB is one of the most difficult and intractable animal health challenges the livestock sector in England faces today, causing considerable trauma for farmers and costing taxpayers over £100 million every year.

“We have followed a holistic approach with badger vaccination, improved cattle testing, helping farmers improve biosecurity, and working towards deployment of a cattle vaccine, alongside the current badger control policy.”

Voters may deal Green parties a blow that costs them up to one-third of their seats, if polls before this week’s European elections prove correct, in a shift that could lead to a rollback of climate policies with the effects rippling far beyond the continent.

At first glance, the projected slump in support – which follows months of protests from farmers against environmental rules – reads like a backlash against climate policies set by politicians who tried to move too far, too fast.

But political scientists are unconvinced by that narrative. There is little data to support fears of a societal “greenlash” from voters unhappy with the costs of the transition, according to the authors of a recent survey of 15,000 voters in France, Germany and Poland.

While local evidence from the Netherlands shows how a specific climate policy can push people away from the Greens and towards the far right, on a broader level researchers have found support for climate policies falls mostly along ideological lines.

So what explains the poor polling numbers?

The most straightforward explanation is that the last European elections in 2019 may have been an outlier in terms of climate engagement – one that served Green parties particularly well. Coming off the back of widespread student protests inspired by Greta Thunberg, which boosted parties promising strong climate action, and accompanied by a global flurry of pledges to cut pollution, the elections took place when the climate crisis was riding high on the political agenda.

“Voters have other priorities in 2024,” said António Valentim, a political scientist at Yale University who studies voting behaviour around climate. “Europeans today are more concerned about other issues,” he added, pointing to inflation and the war in Ukraine. “These are likely to be the kind of things that will be in a lot of people’s minds when deciding whom to vote for.”

Some research hints that the environment may be a “luxury goods issue” – one that has a bigger influence on voting decisions in times of plenty. A study in 2017 found voters punish governing parties they associate with environmental policies more severely when they perceive the economy as “weak”, but reward them for a green reputation when it booms.

Recent studies suggest Green parties’ success is closely tied to economic conditions, says Jessica Haak, a political scientist at the University of Hamburg. “Taken together, economic concerns overshadowing environmental issues might be a contributing factor to a potential decline in Green party votes.”

Germany, where the Greens are in government and also run the climate and economy ministry, is where the biggest losses are likely. Polls suggest sizeable losses will also hit the Greens in France and Italy, with smaller dips in Nordic countries. There will also be new parties that have joined the Green grouping in the European parliament since the last elections in 2019, such as Croatia and Lithuania.

High polling numbers for radical rightwing parties could even help swing centrist voters toward the Greens. In their campaigns, their politicians have pushed the message that a vote for the Greens will protect Europe not just from extreme weather, but also from the far right.

“We are going to need a strong Green group to keep Europe a stronghold of freedom and climate action,” said Bas Eickhout, a Dutch MEP and the Green party’s joint lead candidate for the European elections. “In 2019, the polls didn’t predict our record-breaking success, but we went from 52 to 74 seats in the European parliament. We have good hopes that through strong mobilisation, we will defy the polls once more.”

But even if their optimism is misplaced, it does not automatically mean that fast climate action will be axed.

Since the last elections, “many other parties have incorporated much more ambitious climate and environmental targets in their platforms”, said Silvia Pianta from the European Institute on Economics and the Environment, pointing to the left party grouping as well as the centre-left Socialist and Democrats and the pro-European Renew. “This suggests that lower Green vote shares in the upcoming elections might not necessarily imply that the new parliament will be considerably less progressive on climate action.”