banner
logo
black cross ✖



Climate inaction and delay: Conspiracy or shambles?

Why is climate action so inadequate?
Why is action on climate change so much less than what the science says is needed for countries to comply with their commitments in the Paris and other agreements, and why has it recently slowed?
If we wish to understand the problem and respond appropriately, we need to take a rational approach, look at the evidence, and reach an evidence-based consensus conclusion.
Is it a conspiracy?
There have been concerns for some time that effective climate action has been held up by the actions of the fossil fuel industry or by the very rich.
More recently, there has been much concern about political decisions in the US and elsewhere, described in terms such as "an assault on science".
Or is there a general failure in policy making?
But is it simply a matter of 'the bad guys' versus 'the good guys'? What alternative explanations are there? Is there in fact a general failure in policy making?
The evidence is a general failure in policy making
In fact, the evidence indicates the recent political changes are part of a larger problem where we are all 'bad guys' to varying degrees, that there is widespread understating of the urgency of climate action and promotion of inadequate policies, and that the process of good policy making can falter when its implications are unpopular with the wider population.
The conclusion is that policy making needs to improve
The response should be to strengthen the whole process of rational policy making, and make it more science-based.

What effective climate action should have been like

Following the Paris and other international agreements on climate change, the end result should have been a good response by all sections of society, so that
  • a limit to global warming was set
  • a global CO2 budget was calculated
  • the global CO2 budget was divided in a fair manner between countries
  • in each country, a timescale of emission cuts was agreed so that emissions would stay within the CO2 budget for that country
  • accounting procedures were carried out with integrity
  • plans were made that would lead to the emission cuts agreed
  • the plans were adhered to
  • the problem was resolved
- see Document 100: What should have been done by governments and wider society in response to climate change.

Very little of this has happened.

Furthermore, it seems that few people would have expected this to happen, given other actions by governments.

Climate action has been inadequate

  • The global total of CO2 emissions is still increasing.
  • In developed countries, CO2 emissions are not falling fast enough.
  • The world will soon pass the 1.5°C target - in about 2030 at current emission levels.

Is the problem the fossil fuel industry, or the very rich, or 'the assault on science'?

There have been concerns for some time that effective climate action has been held up by actions of the fossil fuel industry or by the very rich.

More recently, Kit Yates et al [1] have published an article Standing up for science in an age of political interference, expressing concerns about the many developments in the US and elsewhere that are described in terms such as
  • an assault on science
  • undermining of expertise
  • vilification of scientists
  • political interference by popularist politicians
  • a rise in conspiracy theories and disinformation.
This assessment of the situation assumes that the established norm is for policy making to be rational and evidence-based, but coordinated political forces are deliberately disrupting this - i.e. it is a question of 'the bad guys' acting in their own interests against 'the good guys' (the rest of the population).

Alternative explanation: generally poor decision making and policy making

Is it really the case that there are 'good guys' and 'bad guys', and that the 'bad guys' are gaining ground?

An alternative explanation is that the high profile aberrant policy decisions are just part of a general problem of poor decision making and policy making - where we are all 'bad guys' to varying degrees in not behaving rationally when making policy decisions in contentious areas.

What is the evidence in climate change in the UK?

It is worth looking at what action is being advocated in different areas of UK society - is there a dichotomy between the 'good guys' attempting to organise action in line with the IPCC, and the 'bad guys' denying any need for action?

What is seen is not a dichotomy, but a spectrum of climate denial, as in the following examples.

Government scientists and other specialists:
  • The UK Government scientists on the Government's Climate Change Committee are advocating a Net Zero 2050 strategy that is not in line with the Paris Agreement - see the assessment in Document 86.
  • The UK Government departmental Chief Scientists are advocating a timescale of emission cuts that is not in line with the Paris Agreement - see see the assessment in Document 133.
The media:
  • The BBC reports on climate change are in line with the UK Government's Net Zero 2050 strategy rather than the Paris Agreement.
  • The Guardian newspaper claims to prioritise the environment in its news coverage, but is still promoting long distance holidays that require flying via its travel section, e.g. holidays in Japan and South America.
  • The Which? magazine generally takes a sceptical approach and scrutinises UK Government claims critically - but it takes a different approach on climate change and accepts uncritically the UK Government's Net Zero 2050 timescale of emission cuts as if it is adequate.
Campaigning groups:
  • Friends of the Earth (the UK's largest grassroots environmental organisation) is endorsing the Net Zero 2050 timescale of action even though they know it to be flawed - see Document 139.
  • The two campaigning organisations Good Law Project and Client Earth are similarly spreading misinformation by supporting the High Court case brought by Friends of the Earth - see Document 149.
  • The UKHACC (the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change) is promoting a Net Zero 2040 timescale of emission cuts for the health service, even though they know this to be inconsistent with the UK's commitment to a 1.5°C limit to global warming - see the correspondence published in Document 175.
  • Climate Emergency UK is assessing action by UK local authorities using an inadequate check list of actions - see Document 145.
  • Extinction Rebellion was founded with a Demand of Net Zero 2025, but has recently watered down its aim to 50% cuts in emissions by 2030, claiming incorrectly that this is fair and effective climate action.

It might be expected that these groups would all be communicating the truth on climate action, but instead, there is understating of the urgency of action, and promotion of inadequate policies.

The evidence is that not only is the messaging inconsistent with the Paris Agreement and the IPCC, but there is also active denial, as in the following examples.
  • When Friends of the Earth were challenged over their policy being inconsistent with the IPCC, the response was that if they told the truth, they would not be believed [2].
  • When the UKHACC were challenged over their Net Zero 2040 timescale being inconsistent with the Paris Agreement, the response was that "the radical changes you point out would be necessary will be politically impossible" [3].
It seems that many groups are understating the gravity of the situation in order to be believed and have influence, and have in mind that they are competing with other groups for funding and support, and so are tempted to say what people want to hear.



In summary, there is a spectrum of climate denial

In summary, there is a spectrum of climate denial and even the groups that should be setting an example of high quality evidence-based policy making are instead part of the spectrum of climate denial - not telling the truth, and not speaking up in support of those groups that are, such as Climate Uncensored and Just Stop Oil, with the consequence that Just Stop Oil activists are treated by the legal system as fanatics rather than whistle blowers.

Walker and Leviston consider that climate denial, in one form or another, is near-universal [4].

When the problems are so widespread, it is best to conclude that it is a systematic problem, rather than many individual failures.

What is to be done: Improve decision making

People talk of evidence-based policy making, as if that is adequate, but it is easy for decision makers to find some piece of evidence that fits with their preferred course of action and ignore the rest .

Instead we need the application of the full rigour of science - which could be referred to as science-based decision making.


This is characterised by
  • honesty and transparency
  • pooling of evidence
  • a reasoned explanation of any decision
  • enough detail included or referenced to ensure that any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion (reproducibility)
  • aiming for a consensus of reasonable people by
    • checking for consistency with others
    • working with others to resolve any inconsistencies
    • challenging anything inconsistent or misleading.

Practical implications

There needs to be
  • a programme of education to avoid errors (c.f. books on common statistical errors) such as
    • common interpretation problems:
      • mistaking association for causation
      • inadequate sample sizes
      • not comparing like with like
    • inadequate sourcing - not being able to find a source within a few seconds
    • logical errors
      • thin end of the wedge arguments etc
  • advocacy of high standards, use of checklists, and guidance for contributors to journals
  • books and courses
i.e. development of the subject as a scientific discipline.

References

[1]Kit Yates et al (2025) Standing up for science in an age of political interference BMJ 2025;388:r638 http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.r638
[2]Q and A at an online briefing (2023)
[3]Correspondence with UKHACC (2024) (Document 175) https://www.carbonindependent.org/175.html
[4]Iain Walker and Zoe Leviston (2019) There are three types of climate change denier - and most of us are at least one The Conversation https://theconversation.com/there-are-three-types-of-climate-change-denier-and-most-of-us-are-at-least-one-124574



First published: 4 Apr 2025
Last updated: 11 Apr 2026     Page No: 189