banner
logo
black cross ✖



All sections of society have been failing

All sections of society should have been working together to overcome the biggest threat that mankind has ever faced.
Instead, the evidence is that they have all been failing.
There have been widespread failures by
  • climate scientists and other professionals
  • government scientists and other parts of government
  • national governments and local administrations
  • the media
  • economists, businesses and other organisations
  • campaigning and protest groups
  • the legal system
  • citizens
The evidence is that all groups have failed. It is a general failure, not a small number of isolated failures.
The implications are that there is a system failure, and that the remedy is to improve the system of policy making.

The obligations

There is an obligation to cut greenhouse gas emissions radically and urgently, both according to international agreements, and according to the moral obligation to avoid causing harm to others - see document 100.
The key elements in any climate change strategy are
  1. it is emergency (not routine) action that is needed and a very high priority because the harm is enormous, cumulative and irreversible
  2. a limit to global warming of 1.5°C or similar
  3. an explanation of the science of achieving this objective: staying within the appropriate carbon budget
  4. including the commitment in the Paris and other agreements to equity between nations
  5. using a fair accounting system, i.e. including all CO2 emissions
  6. stating clearly the required speed of change, i.e. double digit percentage annual emission cuts
  7. detailing credibly compliant policies
  8. including the need for quality control measures, e.g. avoiding false solutions.
All parts of society should have cooperated in this, but the evidence is of a general failure across all sections of society.

Climate scientists and other professionals

Climate scientists and other professionals should have explained the key points of the scientific consensus, and the implications for policy making, but there have been failures in
  • trusting governments to act appropriately on the evidence
  • not speaking up about government errors
  • self-censoring [1]
  • rogue individuals promoting alternative views without attempting to work towards a scientific consensus.

Government scientists

There have been widespread failures in not faithfully reporting the science, as follows.
  • UK Government scientists on the Government's Climate Change Committee are advocating a Net Zero 2050 strategy, which is not in line with the Paris Agreement - see the assessment in Document 86.
  • UK Government departmental Chief Scientists have advocated a timescale of emission cuts that is not in line with the Paris Agreement - see see the assessment in Document 133.

National and local governments: politicians and officials

Governments should have
  • listened carefully to the science
  • implemented effective policies

But there are failures in
  • pretence and deceit
  • lack of tranparency
  • not taking actions that should be obvious
  • taking wrong actions
  • a paternalistic style of decision making
  • not engaging with criticism or with the demands of protesters
  • acting as if the priority is to preserve the privileged lifestyle of the richest people in the world, and ignore the needs of the poorest.
It seems that there have been many instances of the offence of Misconduct in Public Office [2].

Failures include the following.
  • UK Government official Chris Stark claimed that effective climate action did not mean radical change, and that flying for holidays and driving could continue as present [3]. Chris Stark was speaking as he left his post as Chief Executive of the Climate Change Committee. He went on to take up a senior role in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. He failed to respond properly to criticism from climate scientist Kevin Anderson [4].
  • The UK House of Commons Library reports on climate change are seriously misleading MPs by focusing on the UK Government's policies, without explaining the criticisms in enough detail so that MPs can decide for themselves whether criticisms and protests are justified- see the assessment at Document 186.

The media

The media should have conveyed the situation accurately to the general population, but there have been failures in
  • failing to seek out and report on the scientific consensus
  • failing to scrutinise governments
  • repetition of fallacies
  • not dealing well with competing points of view.

Examples include the following.
  • The BBC reports on climate change are in line with the UK Government's Net Zero 2050 strategy rather than the IPCC and the Paris Agreement.
  • The Guardian newspaper claims to prioritise the environment in its news coverage, but it 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 critically scrutinises UK Government claims - 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.

Economists

Economists should have disseminated information relevant to emergency transformation of the economy, and the implications for key sectors such as the banking system, pension funds, employment and taxation.

There had been a general failure to do this.

Businesses and other organisations

Businesses and other organisations should have implemented change in line with the science, but there have been failures in
  • not reducing emissions
  • lobbying governments to avoid taking effective action
  • repetition of fallacies
  • deliberate deceit.

Climate campaigning and protest groups

There have been failures in
  • not clearly explaining the errors in government decision making
  • fragmented efforts
  • inconsistent and contradictory messaging
  • self censoring [1]
  • repetition of fallacies.

Examples include the following.
  • Friends of the Earth (the UK's largest grassroots environmental organisation) is endorsing the UK Government's 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 campaigning group Zero Hour has promoted the Climate and Nature Bills despite them being out of line with the Paris Agreement - see Document 174.
  • 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.

Other campaigning and protest groups

There are many other campaigning groups that do not have climate change as their main topic but who still would be expected to be enthusiastic or at least sympathetic towards appropriate climate action.

Examples are groups campaigning
  • for better or safer facilities for walking and/or cycling
  • for better air quality
  • against carbon capture and storage
  • for a sustainable society, e.g. the National Trust
  • for better health, e.g. the British Medical Journal.

These groups have also failed to align their campaigning with the recommendations from the IPCC for radical change.

The legal system

Protesters have been sentenced to long prison terms without any proper assessment of whether their protests were justified, i.e. whether they should have been treated as whistle blowers.

Citizens

Individuals should have implemented change and ensured good decision making, but there have been failures in
  • being subservient and too trusting of governments
  • not listening to campaigners and protesters
  • repetition of fallacies
  • not reducing emissions.

Quality control measures

Quality control measures should have worked - so errors in decision making should have been corrected due to scrutiny by
  • media
  • commentators
  • advocacy groups, campaigners and protesters
  • the legal system.

But this has not happened.

Who is the most responsible for the failures

It is hard to say who is most culpable because the failures are so interlinked, but those who are in paid roles should attract the most criticism.

The situation is a general failure, not a small number of isolated failures.

The implications are that there is a system failure, and that the remedy is to improve the system of policy making.


References

[1]Turning delusion into climate action - Prof Kevin Anderson, an interview (2020) Responsible Science https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/turning-delusion-climate-action-prof-kevin-anderson-interview
[2]Cown Prosecution Service Misconduct in Public Office https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/misconduct-public-office
[3]Net zero doesn't mean cutting out steaks and flights, top climate adviser says (2024) https://www.itv.com/news/2024-04-26/net-zero-doesnt-mean-cutting-out-steaks-and-flights-top-climate-adviser-says
[4]https://x.com/KevinClimate/status/1786019655989301464


First published: 16 Jan 2022
Last updated: 14 Apr 2026     Page No: 37