More people are becoming aware of the tactics used by climate deniers to stop real action to fight the climate crisis. But with growing recognition of the overwhelming evidence of the science and every day impact of global warming, the battleground has shifted and opposition to action now resides with “climate delayers.”
A new study in the journal Global Sustainability lays out the game plan and tactics that climate delayers use to avoid, derail or stop action to address the climate crisis. The study says that climate delayers “are those who accept the existence of climate change but justify inaction or inadequate efforts.” Their tactics are called the “discourses of climate delay.”
“In contemporary discussions on what actions should be taken, by whom and how fast, proponents of climate delay would argue for minimal action or action taken by others,” said Dr. William Lamb, lead author of the study, from the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change in Berlin. “They focus attention on the negative social effects of climate policies and raise doubt that mitigation is possible.” The study shows that climate delayers can be individuals afraid of change, those not well informed of the urgency of the challenge/benefits of mitigation or powerful vested interests seeking to defend their economic positions.
The chart below shows the 12 discourses of climate delay, grouped into four overarching strategies: “redirect responsibility”; “push non-transformative solutions”; “emphasize the downsides”; and “surrender”.
For example, in a commentary in Carbon Brief, researchers explain how many politicians and industry leaders promote “whataboutism”, arguing that because their jurisdiction represents only a small proportion of global emissions, it will make little difference if they take action or not. As in “what about emissions in China?” The authors argue that the science is clear that we must act collectively to reach net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050 to have any chance of avoiding more than 1.5C of global warming.
Other examples include arguments that propose relatively trivial solutions to climate change and draw attention away from more effective measures. These include relying on uncertain technologies and potential future breakthroughs (“technological optimism”), making vague claims that fossil fuels are part of the solution (“fossil-fuel solutionism”), or calling for voluntary measures as opposed to restrictive policies, such as a carbon tax (“no sticks, just carrots”).
These discourses “can be compelling and build on legitimate concerns and fears as societies move closer to addressing climate change,” Dr. Lamb said. “They become delay arguments when they misrepresent rather than clarify, raise adversity rather than consensus or imply that taking action is an impossible challenge.”
Dr. Lamb argues that by being aware of these tactics, we can address and refute doubts that stand in the way of taking the significant action required to solve the climate crisis.