Addressing Climate Action Denial

Considering the importance and urgency of this problem, addressing climate action denial is a bit of an understatement. Climate science denial is one way that attempts to discourage action on dealing with the build up of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere that is having a detrimental effect on our environment. There are, however, other factors that prevent us from effectively dealing with climate action. If we are to move forward and address climate change and remove the obstacles causing procrastination it is important first that we identify as many factors as possible on action denial. The purpose of tackling denial is not just to get people to agree that humans are causing climate change but to also get them to do something about it.

Climate action denial.

(This is part 1 of a series of posts on addressing climate action denial)

Humans have known about the science of greenhouse gases and climate change associated with the burning of fossil fuels and land use for many decades. World leaders all agreed recently at the 2015 Paris COP 21 talks on climate change that we need to cut global emissions to ensure the planet does not exceed 2 degrees centigrade of global warming on average from pre industrial levels and preferably not exceeding 1.5⁰C. This agreement does not make the necessary steps happen.

In essence we must effectively reduce our present accelerating human induced emissions that currently stand around 35Gigatonnes of CO2 per year.  This must be reduced to a net zero in the coming decades if we are to limit serious climate impacts that will remain for many millennia. The task is daunting requiring not only technological revolutions in energy management but also the change in mindset by individuals, businesses and governments to make it happen.

It is perhaps the most serious problem facing mankind but it is not a problem that has sneaked up on us. As I previously stated humans have been aware of this for considerable time and yet here we are, globally, leaving appropriate action until it is too late to be sure of avoiding some of the serious impacts. While we see politician’s frequently signing worthwhile agreements on intentions of dealing with climate change we also see countries around the world racing to get as much fossil fuels out of the ground. This often involves countries flexing their muscles in strategic locations associated with the energy reserves. With what appears to be little commitment to the agreements we are presently risking future generations to be committed to as yet untested global engineering solutions such as carbon capture and storage, CCS.

So how have we reached a crisis point without adequate action having taken place? With political leaders around the world agreeing with the consensus of scientists that imminent and far reaching action is required, the answer cannot be simply due to lack of awareness or even simply due to denial of the relevant science.  Although the issue of climate science denial and lack of general awareness are important issues (that need to be continually confronted) there must be other very pervasive forms of denying the need for action that have allowed us to procrastinate.

Whatever the underlying causes of denial that prevent actions there are different ways that this can be rationalized or expressed by some. One method is to deny that the problem exists or that the problem is caused by humans. (Another way that is outwardly expressed, which I will describe later, is to deny that technological solutions to the problem can be effective).

Essential as it is to deal with the relevant science denial it is worth realizing that only some outwardly express denial in this way.

Although this is a complex subject I will propose that there are four separate areas of denial that can help us explain the unfortunate situation that we have reached. These can be seen at an individual level but also result in this collective denial.

Clearly there is the outspoken denial of the relevant climate science that describes and explains the problem of human induced climate change in the first place. This is essentially a denial of the science behind what is generally known as the greenhouse effect. See part 2 of this series.

There is also the denial that there is a technological solution to this problem or that we can presently use technology to gradually but urgently decarbonise our energy usage. Part 3.

There is denial of the political ways that can be used to address the problem. Part 4.

Finally, on denial, there are the underlying issues concerning our outlook on economic growth. Part 5.

Each area may include more people and explains the dilemma we face at the present time. On identifying these forces of denial we are in a better position of achieving meaningful solutions. Our future depends on how well we establish technological decarbonisation with the possibility of success by this century or otherwise. Wishful thinking leaving this to sort itself or alternately that we have an easy technological fix that we will get around to doing sometime in the future is incredulous irresponsible behaviour that should not be an option. . I will also make the claim that the underlying, hidden but more pervasive forms of denial can be several times more damaging than the science denial and that we will have to address all these areas of denial if we are to ensure adequate action.

Next:-

 Denial of the scienceof the greenhouse effect and the resulting climate change.