Abstract
Non-technical summary ‘Discourses of climate delay’ pervade current debates on climate action. These discourses accept the existence of climate change, but justify inaction or inadequate efforts. 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. They focus attention on the negative social effects of climate policies and raise doubt that mitigation is possible. Here, we outline the common features of climate delay discourses and provide a guide to identifying them.
Generated Summary
This research article, published in Global Sustainability, presents a study of “climate delay discourses.” The authors, through collective observations as social scientists studying climate change, describe 12 climate delay discourses and develop a typology based on their underlying logic. The study employs a deductive approach, drawing initial lists of discourses from expert elicitation and refining them using a wide range of sources, including written testimony, news articles, and media content. The core objective is to identify and categorize these discourses, understanding their common features and shared underlying logic to facilitate their recognition and challenge by scientists, climate advocates, and policymakers. The study is focused on understanding the prevalence and impact of these discourses in order to develop inoculation strategies that can protect the public from their intended effects. The research aims to provide a guide to identifying these discourses and to encourage action to address these common misrepresentations of the climate crisis, highlighting the dramatic pace of global warming and the possibility of effective mitigation policies.
Key Findings & Statistics
- The UK produces 1.8 per cent of global carbon dioxide (as stated by a UK politician).
- The American Petroleum Institute funds tens of millions of dollars worth of advertisements promoting ‘cleaner’ fossil fuels.
Other Important Findings
- The study identifies and categorizes 12 climate delay discourses, grouping them into four main categories: redirecting responsibility, pushing non-transformative solutions, emphasizing the downsides of climate policies, and surrendering to climate change.
- Individualism, a prominent discourse, shifts responsibility from systemic solutions to individual actions.
- Whataboutism is another discourse, often used by countries or states to downplay their emissions.
- Technological optimism is identified as a key non-transformative solution.
- The study highlights the use of “no sticks, just carrots” approach, which refrains from restrictive measures, and focuses on voluntary policies.
- The article emphasizes the need for public deliberation and strong climate action to overcome the challenges posed by climate delay discourses.
Limitations Noted in the Document
- The study’s initial list of discourses was derived from expert elicitation, potentially introducing a subjective element in the selection process.
- The study acknowledges that the identified list of discourses is not necessarily exhaustive.
- The study does not reveal the adverse effects of climate delay discourses on climate politics at all levels.
- The study does not reveal how often these discourses are used or by whom.
- The study’s conclusions are limited to the identified discourses and do not provide concrete methods or tools for practical application by climate advocates and policymakers.
Conclusion
The article concludes that discourses of climate delay are compelling because they build on legitimate concerns, often misrepresenting information and discouraging action. The study emphasizes the importance of recognizing these discourses to facilitate meaningful climate action. The authors suggest that overcoming climate delay requires strengthened public deliberation processes, highlighting responsibility, and identifying appropriate solutions. The study underscores that addressing climate change is both possible and desirable, and the sophistication of delay discourses should not be understated, new strategies are developing all the time. The authors suggest that pre-emptively warning the public about misinformation can help build resistance. The final thoughts of this article indicate that climate delay discourses can be overcome by addressing the underlying concerns, raising awareness, and developing effective solutions. The study emphasizes the importance of understanding the logic and discursive structure of climate delay arguments. The authors urge the need to build a consensus, and create more ambitious solutions.