The Five Corrupt Pillars of Climate Change Denial: Decoded

Here’s how you can identify and understand different type of climate change denial.

For the past three decades, the fossil fuel industry, political lobbyists, media moguls, and individuals have orchestrated a web of deception to sow doubt about the reality of climate change. Their manipulative efforts, fueled by an estimated annual expenditure of $200 million on lobbying, have aimed to control, delay, or block binding climate policies.

However, the tides are turning, and the public’s perception is shifting.

RELEVANT SUSTAINABLE GOALS

Yet, the tactics employed by climate change deniers have evolved, adopting subtler and more malicious approaches labeled as “climate sadism.” Young climate activists participating in protests, such as Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old woman with Asperger’s syndrome, have become targets of mockery, simply for speaking the scientific truth. In this critical juncture, it is crucial to recognize the various forms of denial used to persuade us to delay action on climate change.

1. Science Denial

The familiar tactic of disputing the settled science of climate change persists. Deniers propagate falsehoods such as climate change being a natural cycle or climate models being unreliable and overly sensitive to carbon dioxide. Some even argue that CO₂, being a minuscule component of the atmosphere, cannot have a significant warming effect. Additionally, conspiracy theories about climate scientists manipulating data abound. It is important to note that all these arguments are baseless, as there is a strong scientific consensus on the causes of climate change. Climate models have consistently projected global temperature increases over the past three decades, despite increasing complexity.

2. Economic Denial

Deniers now adopt a more nuanced form of climate denial by claiming that addressing climate change is economically unfeasible. However, economists argue that we could combat climate change by investing just 1% of global GDP, or even less when considering the cost savings from improved human health and the expansion of the green economy. Failing to take action now could cost us over 20% of global GDP by 2050. It is worth highlighting that in 2018 alone, the world generated a staggering $86 trillion in GDP, with an annual growth rate of 3.5%. Allocating a mere 1% to tackle climate change would yield substantial benefits and save a significant amount of money. Deniers conveniently overlook the fact that the fossil fuel industry receives $5.2 trillion in annual subsidies, which accounts for 6% of world GDP. Efficient pricing of fossil fuels, as estimated by the International Monetary Fund, would lead to a 28% reduction in global carbon emissions, a 46% decrease in fossil fuel air pollution deaths, and a 3.8% increase in government revenue.

3. Humanitarian Denial

Some climate change deniers contend that climate change brings positive outcomes, suggesting that longer, warmer summers will enhance agricultural productivity in temperate regions. However, these potential gains are often offset by the adverse effects of drier summers and more frequent heatwaves. The 2010 “Moscow” heatwave serves as a sobering reminder, claiming the lives of 11,000 people, devastating the Russian wheat harvest, and triggering a surge in global food prices.

4. Political Denial

Climate change deniers argue against taking action by pointing to other countries’ lack of commitment. While it is true that not all countries are equally responsible for current climate change, developed nations, responsible for a significant portion of human-produced CO₂ emissions (e.g., the US and EU), bear an ethical responsibility to lead the way in emissions reduction. However, it is essential for all countries to act collectively, as achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 is crucial for minimizing the effects of climate change. Deniers may also divert attention to local issues, disregarding the fact that many climate change solutions are mutually beneficial, improving lives on multiple fronts. Transitioning to renewable energy and electric vehicles, for instance, reduces air pollution and enhances public health. Developing a green economy yields economic benefits and job opportunities, while environmental conservation and reforestation offer protection against extreme weather events, bolstering food and water security.

5. Crisis Denial

Lastly, climate change deniers argue against swift action, capitalizing on the uncertainty fostered by the aforementioned forms of denial. They claim that climate change is not as dire as scientists suggest and that future prosperity will provide us with the means to tackle it effectively. Emotionally, this argument resonates with individuals who may perceive their current circumstances as favorable, especially if they possess wealth or influence. However, similar hollow arguments have been employed in the past to impede progress on crucial issues such as ending slavery, granting women the right to vote, decolonization, ending segregation, and more. The central question we must ask ourselves is why we allow those with privilege and power to persuade us to postpone saving our planet from the ravages of climate change.

You may also be interested in :

A Climate-Smart Regenerative And Nature-Based Agriculture Framework in Southeast Asia

Nanda Anggraini

An advertising copywriter and an avid novelist. Currently mastering the art of gardening. Her dream is to build her own permaculture farm for sustainable future in her hometown, Bandung, West Java Indonesia.