Climate urgency denial
There has been a scientific consensus for years that urgent radical cuts in CO
2 emissions are needed to tackle climate change in line with the Paris Agreement. But wider society is not acting on this consensus.
The problem is not simply a lack of awareness, but active promotion of an alternative view that gradual decorbonisation is all that is needed.
The problem seems to be a kind of denial of the implications of the facts (implicatory denial).
This can be termed "climate urgency denial".
The causes seem to include self-interest, and groupthink and other cognitive biases.
Climate urgency denial can be described in terms of a number of interlinked fallacies which are being widely repeated, even by people campaigning for action on climate change and in related areas.
To be effective, campaigners should ensure that their campaigns are consistent with the scientific consensus.
The scientific consensus on urgency
There has been a scientific consensus for years that urgent radical cuts in CO
2 emissions are needed to tackle climate change in line with the Paris Agreement. This has been a consistent message from mainstream science that has not been seriously challenged. For example,
- The 2018 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (the SR15 report [1]) pointed out that "limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require 'rapid and far-reaching' transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities.", with total global CO2 emissions being halved by 2030.
- The 2019 Tyndall Centre (Manchester University) reports for UK local authorities [2] showed that the local CO2 budget for 1.5°C with global equity would typically run out in 7 years at the existing emission rates, with annual cuts of 13% being needed to stay within budget.
- At the launch of the 2021 IPCC report (the AR6 WG1 report [3]), the Secretary of the IPCC, Abdalah Mokssit, said "unless there are immediate rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, limiting global warming to 1.5C will be beyond reach" [4].
- After publication of the AR6 WG1 report, published calculations showed that that the UK's per capita share of the residual global CO2 budget for 1.5°C would run out in 2024 [5] [6] [7].
- In April 2022, at the launch of the AR6 WG3 IPCC report, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said "This is a climate emergency" [8].
Society's failure to act urgently and radically
While there is a scientific consensus on three points:
- Climate change is largely caused by mankind's burning of fossil fuels
- Phasing out of fossil fuels is required
- Urgent radical action is needed
it is only the first two of these that seem to have been widely accepted throughout democratic societies. The third has not yet been generally accepted, with most people acting as if gradual change will be sufficient.
Climate urgency denial
The lack of acceptance that urgent radical change is needed has been identified as a problem by academics who are working in the field, e.g.
- Prof Kevin Anderson (e.g. in an interview [9])
- Prof Julia Steinberger and Dr Stuart Capstick (e.g. in the article: "Delay is the new denial" [10])
- The group, Scientists for Global Responsibility, has launched its Science Oath for the Climate: Text and Signing [11], which has had over 500 signatories (at October 2022). It includes pledges to
- explain honestly, clearly and without compromise, what scientific evidence tells us about the seriousness of the climate emergency.
- not second-guess what might seem politically or economically pragmatic when describing the scale and timeframe of action needed to deliver the 1.5°C and 2°C commitments, specified in the Paris Climate Agreement.
The problem seems to be due not to complete ignorance, but to a psychological state of denial, resulting in several interlinked fallacies about the speed of cuts in CO
2 emissions needed to meet international commitments.
The problem has been referred to as "climate urgency denial" by Prof. Simon Richter [12]:
"It's not climate change denial, but it's climate urgency denial."
In a psychological sense, dictionary definitions of denial are
- The New Oxford Dictionary of English [13]:
refusal to acknowledge an unacceptable truth or emotion or to admit it into consciousness, used as a defence mechanism
- The American Psychological Association [14]:
A defense mechanism in which unpleasant thoughts, feelings, wishes, or events are ignored or excluded from conscious awareness. It may take such forms as refusal to acknowledge the reality of a terminal illness, a financial problem, an addiction, or a partner's infidelity. Denial is an unconscious process that functions to resolve emotional conflict or reduce anxiety.
Since the problem seems to be not merely a lack of awareness but a strongly held alternative belief that gradual decarbonisation is sufficient, which resists efforts to correct it, use of the term "denial" seems to be appropriate.
So "climate urgency denial" seems to be a convenient term for "acting as if there is no need for urgent radical action on climate change".
It is denial of the implications of the facts and how we interpret them, i.e. it is a form of implicatory denial - see
document 147.
Types of climate urgency fallacy
The most important fallacies are
- "Gradual decarbonisation is sufficient"
- "The net zero 2050 timescales are suficient"
- "Developed countries need to halve CO2 emissions by 2030"
- "An emission reduction strategy can be judged by its Net Zero date"
Read more in
document 142.
Climate urgency denial is widespread
Almost everyone is engaging in denial
- governments
- companies
- the media
- campaiging groups - see next section
- wider society.
Climate urgency denial in campaiging groups
It might be expected that groups campaigning for climate action would be at the forefont of publicising the scientific consensus on urgent radical change and the implications for policy decisions, but most groups are repeating the fallacies, and campaigning within their government's timescale of emission cuts, e.g. Friends of the Earth (UK) is endorsing the UK Government's timescale of emission cuts - see
document 139.
Some exceptions are
- Scientists for Global Responsibility (as above)
- Greta Thunberg and the Fridays for Future youth protest groups e.g. "What's needed is drastic annual emission cuts unlike anything the world has ever seen" [15]
- Extinction Rebellion in its second demand: "Every part of society must act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025..." [16]
Campaigning groups in related areas such as advocating for cycling, walking, and better air quality are also failing to convey the scientific consensus accurately.
This is an extraordinary situation as the climate urgency denial is holding up the change that is needed.
How might climate urgency denial be combatted?
- people should aim to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth
- fallacies should be politely challenged - people should be asked why they are ignoring the climate emergency and contradicting the IPCC
- via 360° feedback: everyone should be willing to give feedback to others and accept feedback from others
- malpractice should be challenged
- via an agreed checklist of (a) facts that should not be contradicted, together with (b) fallacies that should not be repeated - see document 138.
References
| [13] | The New Oxford Dictionary of English* (1998) Clarendon Press, Oxford |
First published: 27 Jun 2022
Last updated: 24 Jan 2023
✖
