✖
Climate inaction and delay: Conspiracy or cockup?
Why is it that action on climate change is so much less than what the science says is needed, if countries are to comply with their Paris Agreement commitments, and why has it recently slowed even more?
There is much concern in some parts of society about recent political decisions in the US and elsewhere, described in terms such as "an assault on science".
There have been similar concerns for some time that effective climate action has been held up by the fossil fuel industry, or by the very rich.
But is it simply a matter of 'the bad guys' versus 'the good guys'?
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.
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, that there is widespread promotion of inadequate policies, and that the process of science can falter when its implications are unpopular with the wider population.
The response should be to strengthen the whole process of rational policy making, and make it more science-based.
The 'assault on science'
Kit Yates et al [1] have published an article Standing up for science in an age of political interference. They are right to be concerned about many recent developments in the US and elsewhere that are often described in terms such as- undermining of expertise
- vilification of scientists
- political interference by popularist politicians
- a rise in conspiracy theories and disinformation.
There have been similar concerns for some time that effective climate action has been held up by the fossil fuel industry or by the very rich.
Is it just a problem of 'the bad guys' versus 'the good guys'?
One assessment of the situation [1] is that the established norm is for policy making to be 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 us).Or is science struggling to cope with the implications of the changes needed?
Is it really the case that there are 'good guys' and 'bad guys' and the 'bad guys' are gaining ground? Is this the whole story, or is this (at least in part) just another conspiracy theory, meaning that we need to look further?An alternative explanation (that might be at least partly responsible) is that the aberrant political decisions are genuinely felt by the decision makers to be for the best, due to misthinking. A possibility to be considered is whether this is part of a wider problem where we are all 'bad guys' to varying degrees in not behaving rationally when deciding on policies in contentious areas.
What is the evidence in climate change?
Action on climate change is clearly a key battleground, so it is worth looking at what action is being advocated - 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, or at least is there a bimodal distribution of action advocated?A bimodal distribution is not what we see - instead there is a spectrum of climate denial, e.g.
- 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
- 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
- a climate science briefing for MPs by Patrick Vallence and other Government scientists was seriously misleading - see the assessment at document 190
- the UK House of Commons Library reports on climate change are seriously misleading MPs - see the assessment at document 186
- 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 in e.g. Japan and South America that require flying via its travel section
- 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
- 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 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 telling 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. For example
- 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].
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.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: Science-based decision making
What we think are the reasons for climate inaction and delay should govern how we respond.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 will be referred to here 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
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) - see document 175 |
First published: 4 Apr 2025