Context - Climate Engagement: Opposition

Contents:

Introduction
Why some people oppose climate action
Sources of hope
Deliberate obstruction groups
Recent Update Posts and News Links

(Article Note – All source references are highlighted and linked in the Article. Direct quotations are presented in italics .)

1. Introduction

In the Context article, Climate Engagement – the Supporters, we looked at the need identified by Climate Outreach to reduce polarisation and to motivate people who currently do not support strong climate action to participate in and support meaningful carbon emission reductions. Currently reluctance or resistance is widespread and consistent across a range of climate measures, such as the mandates to end the sale of new fossil fuel car engines by 2030 in the UK and 2035 in the EU; regulation requirement to install air or ground source heat pumps instead of gas boiler heating systems in new houses or a range of any other climate measures. That negative impulse is often supported or indeed led by right-leaning media such as the Daily Mail or the Telegraph in the UK or Fox News in the USA.

This article considers some of the reasons that people use to oppose climate action. This is primarily based on a denial of its reality or diminishing its significance despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and indeed the nearest consensus possible from the scientific community on the causes and disastrous consequences of climate change. It considers how this denialism became primarily a theme of more conservative, right wing politics and perspectives. It focuses on the analysis of Kirsti Jylha and colleagues underlying this phenomenon of climate change denial as pointers towards possible solutions. It then turns to those groups who do not simply deny climate change or its urgency, but have actively sought to spread disinformation, fear and short term self-interest to obscure and blunt the clear messaging of science and the imperative for action. It is important to understand their techniques which have successfully stalled substantial climate action particularly in the United States (up until President Biden’s term in office but now reverting to a virulent form of denialism on President Trump’s return). This mix of populism, seeking simplistic and easy answers to complex problems, and outright denial is also threatening Europe as seen in recent elections so the understanding of the agendas and techniques of the groups promoting this denialism becomes doubly relevant.

2. Why some people oppose climate action

Origins of Polarisation –

In order to understand if it is possible to reduce the polarisation around climate action it is necessary to understand a little more the nature of the polarisation and in particular those that currently oppose or are at least sceptical of the dangers of climate change and the need for urgent action to eliminate carbon emissions.

It is a truism to say that climate action is predominantly led by advocates on the left of the political spectrum as Climate Outreach characterises in its report the Theory of Change. This highlights that climate change science which is by definition neutral in its discipline has become tainted by politics and polarised to varying degrees by politics and climate action is likely viewed with a negative bias by right leaning population with literally disastrous consequences.

But what is it that drives this left right divide on climate action? Margaret Thatcher’s famous quote probably best encapsulates the difference in her 2003 book ‘Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World’; ‘Climate Change’ she states, ‘creates a marvellous excuse for worldwide, supra national socialism’. The use of the word ‘socialism’ triggers a reflexive reaction in conservative circles and societies especially in the United States where it is one of the worst things that can a person or point of view can be labelled with! But as a trained chemical scientist, the shift in Margaret Thatcher’s viewpoint is instructive of the overall polarisation that developed over time on the issue of climate change.

From her famous 1988 speech to the Royal Society when she stated that the change in future resulting from the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere is likely to be more fundamental than anything we have hitherto known in human history. To the deep scepticism bordering contempt, in her 2003 book when she accused activists of seeking personal aggrandisement and stated that the climate science is ‘extremely obscure’ and open to any interpretation. This last statement is patently untrue as the enormous consensus in science has consistently demonstrated but it has become a leading flagship of the climate change denialists. The combination of contemptuous sneering and wilfully incorrect characterisation of the science have become hallmarks of that denialist attitudes.

But it is also worth noting that it is not inherent or inevitable that conservatives must behave or think in this manner – it was Richard Nixon who created the US Environmental Protection Agency that Donald Trump is now trying so desperately to neuter as well as the Clean Air Acts and the Clean Water Acts in 1970. Republican John McCain co-sponsored the first carbon cap and trade legislation in US Congress (though unsuccessful) and Republican President George GW Bush endorsed the founding UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1988. So what happened since to cause this disastrous polarisation on the fundamentals of climate change? It is important to note that question of how climate change denialism came about is separate entirely to the question of how climate change may be effectively addressed, on which there will be a range of valid viewpoints and approaches.

Basis of right wing climate scepticism –

If the degree of polarisation did not exist on the issue of climate change, it is reasonable to expect that there would be a far greater consensus for strong climate action so that this fact alone has been a major stumbling block to stronger, earlier and broader climate action measures. Joe Comer in The Climate News asks the key question, ‘why are the far right climate sceptical’ His answer lies at the heart of what it means to be conservative – ‘those that desire to maintain their country’s traditional economic, political and cultural status quos’.

Leaving aside the further negative portrayals common on the far right (such as maintenance of white heterosexual, Christian, Western traditions and ethnicities), this emphasises the maintenance of a capitalist and economic model most especially in the United States where the consumerist model has been developed in its most vigorous form.

Climate Change action challenges the maintenance of this model in terms of both practical policy of strong state regulation of what were previously ‘free’ market activities and more fundamentally in the direct challenge and demand to end fossil fuel exploitation which as a cheap form of power formed the bedrock of this capitalist consumerist model.

It is no surprise then that the fossil fuel and motor vehicle industries ranked as the largest corporations in the world by capital until digital technologies superseded them in recent years. The largest global non-technology corporation is Aramco the Saudi oil and gas multi-national. As will be discussed in the next section, the oil and gas majors, as they are referred to, were among the first in the world to recognise the threat of climate change to society and to their business models and systematically advanced climate denialism over several decades. However if they did, it was to receptive ears from an already distrustful section right leaning audience.

Science Denial –

Kirsti Jylha and her co-writers in their academic analysis of current studies titled ‘Science Denial’ consider the factors which leads people to deny even the strongest scientific evidence for climate change, akin to the proverbial flat earthers, and how do are they able to successfully maintain that stance.

The paper highlights the key role of ‘motivated reasoning’ where the conclusion is predetermined and the individual or group work backwards to provide support for that position rejecting other viewpoints that conflict no matter how little actual evidence they have to support their position or how much solid proof exists for the contrary position. It explains how people selectively process information discarding what is deemed threatening or undesirable in order to maintain, protect and express their socio-political identity.

They highlight how populists are dismissive of their targets who they label as ‘elites’ against the virtuous sensible ‘people’ which is aimed against (often labelled ‘so called’) experts along with supporting beliefs in various conspiracies. They regard climate science as a manipulation of the truth by the elite to promote their own agendas and enrich their causes and themselves.

The paper reports that anti-egalitarian attitudes, institutional distrust and anti-establishment attitudes are often correlated with climate change denial aligning to two particular aspects of right wing ideology; social dominance orientation (SDO) and right wing authoritarianism (RWA). The paper cited a study in Finland on climate change ‘denialism which were motivated by counter-knowledge (i.e. an alternative framing of known facts provided by alternative epistemic authorities who were considered more reliable knowledge sources than the established ones).’ All done to protect their outlooks and values from the onslaught of a threatening reality posed by the dangers of climate change and need to urgently establish new social and economic models in replacement of the traditional ones based on rampant fossil fuel exploitation and its related power structures.

Being in denial –

The Jylha article also explores the role of emotions as a basic human defence system (often at a pre-conscious level) to cope with the treat/risk of a world contrary to a persons worldview, particularly where the threat is such a large and existential as climate change – commonly referred to as ‘being in denial’ It states:

Denial of the science around a threat could also be related to trying to find hope, that is, a less constructive way to cope with difficult feelings. Indeed, Ojala (2012) discovered that climate hope could sometimes be based on de-emphasizing the threat in various ways, such as by arguing that scientists exaggerate the problem. This denial-based hope is negatively associated with different kinds of climate engagement in different countries (Marlon et al., 2019; Ojala, 2015b).

Could this be what happened in part in the recent election in the US where an unexpectedly large portion of young Gen Z men voted for Trump? Of course it is probably too simplistic to say definitively but climate change denying position of Trump would eliminate a major worry for this younger generation that will be most affected by simply de-emphasising or indeed denying the issue altogether.

Real Sources of Hope –

But within the framing of the problem in this way or rather for those persons that this description applies to (as distinct from those that are more ideologically motivated) there is some basis for solutions. The article highlights that the opposite is also true; that hope based not in denial but in trust in oneself and trust in others willingness and ability to fight climate change is positively correlated with climate engagement. In a sea of negativity this is an important insight. Rather than cling blindly (often subconsciously) to shallow information and simplistic slanted answers that distort scientific observations; answers which actually face directly the scale of the climate challenge and seek real solutions and change for the future can empower the individual.

The article reports study findings on climate change denial in young people which links a sense of low self-efficacy regarding societal problems with climate denialism. Another key factor the article reports as influencing young people’s views is unsurprisingly the influence of friends an parents and teachers where it was shown that ‘perceiving parents to be skeptical regarding the seriousness of climate change predicted and increase in adolescents own skepticism over time’.

Here again the problem sets up at least in part potential answers – by empowering young people in small ways in their local environment (perhaps by participating in local conservation groups) or in their personal lifestyles (reducing the amount of meat they consume) to make the choices that are meaningful both to themselves and resonate in the wider world as positive climate and environmental actions.

It is also true as considered in the first Context Article on Engagement – the General Public Opinion that climate change issues are ‘scary’ for everyone but particularly for young people as polls have consistently demonstrated which means that all attempts to engage on climate change needs to be done in a way that is sympathetic to the impact it has on the person (as it can be devastating) and needs to be accompanied by some form of hope or at least self-efficacy engendering a positive and brave outlook in fact of the climate crisis.

But in a world in which much of social media and indeed mainstream media is aligned with the powerful interests of fossil fuel companies this messaging of hope in climate action is not simple or easy to deliver in the face of concerted opposition as we will consider in the next section.

Nevertheless, as noted in the first Context article on Engagement and the General Public it is true both that the majority of people believe in climate change and support strong action but also consistently underestimate how much other people are also willing to support effective climate action. Effectively communicating the reality of this shared social consensus is as good a place to fight back against climate misinformation as any and points to the foundation for a Social Mandate as argued for by Climate Outreach (linked above) . As the Jylha article indicates;

‘Those who are aware their peers mostly accept climate change are more accepting themselves, with perceived social consensus reducing the ideological divide on climate change (Goldberg et al., 2020) …..

However, it is difficult to persuade the small cohort heavily invested in denying a scientific issue. Therefore, while research continues to investigate the roots of science denial, we also suggest a greater focus on mobilizing and enabling the accepting majority to act.’

4. Deliberate Obstruction

The purpose of this section is to briefly look at the main actors that consistently fund and generate climate disinformation to weaken the consensus to act. These efforts have been devastatingly successful through decades in the blocking of US accession to the International climate agreement, the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 which purpose was to take the first globally coordinated steps to implement the1992 Rio UN Framework Convention on Climate Change by setting emission reduction targets. As a result of successful lobbying, the US never ratified the Kyoto Protocol.

The BBC 3 part documentary ‘Big Oil v the World describes in detail with recordings and interviews with some of the lead obstructionists the steps by the large US oil companies, featuring Exon Mobil, to deliberately supress climate evidence and deny climate change in the early days.

The series follows the successful lobbying tactics of the big oil companies in the US, often through proxy interest groups, to defeat President Obama’s ground breaking carbon cap and trade legislation in the early 2000s to the more subtle but effective switch from denial to delay tactics on climate action from 2010s to the present day. Unfortunately the series does not appear to be any longer available but will be posted on this site if that changes (enquiries will be made on this point).

Following is a table outlining the main actors, their methods and impacts as well as some counter strategies. The Table was prepared with AI (Chat GPT) assistance; article author reviewed and some revisions and additional details inserted, all related information links were separately researched and added:

Organization / Network	Focus and Objectives	Methods and Tactics	Impacts	Counter-Strategies
ExxonMobil https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/	Maintain oil and gas dominance; delay or weaken climate policy	Public denial campaigns; funding climate-skeptic think tanks; lobbying against climate bills Big oil firms knew of dire effects of fossil fuels as early as 1950s, memos show \| Fossil fuels \| The Guardian	Delayed U.S. climate legislation for decades; sowed public doubt despite internal climate research	Litigation (#ExxonKnew); shareholder activism (Engine No. 1); investigative journalism; public awareness campaigns
American Petroleum Institute (API) https://www.api.org/	Protect fossil fuel industry profits; prevent regulatory controls	Aggressive lobbying; PR campaigns; disinformation on policy impacts How a powerful US lobby group helps big oil to block climate action \| Oil \| The Guardian	Blocked or weakened major climate initiatives (e.g., cap-and-trade in 2010)	Lobbying transparency laws; support for clean energy lobby groups; watchdog journalism New Study Shows How Fossil Fuel Sectors Create a Climate Denial Echo Chamber on Social Media – DeSmog
American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) About ALEC – American Legislative Exchange Council	Promote pro-fossil fuel state legislation; oppose renewable mandates and climate regulation	Model bills; state-level lobbying; coordination with lawmakers and corporation Rightwing lobby group Alec driving laws to blacklist companies that boycott the oil industry \| Alec (American Legislative Exchange Council) \| The Guardian	Blocked or repealed state renewable energy standards; delayed climate policy adoption	Exposure campaigns; Watchdog and legislative counter-lobbying American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) – DeSmog
Koch Network (e.g., Americans for Prosperity) https://americansforprosperity.org/	Promote libertarian, anti-regulatory agenda; oppose climate action as overreach	Political donations; think tank funding; social media and campaign advertising	Fuelled climate skepticism; influenced U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement	Campaign finance reform; grassroots civic campaigns; education on climate economics Americans for Prosperity – DeSmog
Edelman (PR firm) https://www.edelman.com/	Greenwashing fossil clients; protect public image of polluting firms	PR campaigns; front groups; misleading advertisements Climate Action Against Disinformation \| An Untrustworthy Barometer: Edelman Polling Promotes Clients’ Standing in Society	Weakened public support for renewables; disguised fossil harms	Fund major Climate Change PR campaign on key issues Public exposure; ethical oversight for PR firms; consumer pressure campaigns Kemi Badenoch Made Anti-Net Zero Speech at Shell Ad Agency – DeSmog
Heartland Institute (U.S.) https://heartland.org/	Discredit climate science and policy	Dissemination of pseudo-scientific materials; targeting school curricula What is the Heartland Institute? Inside the climate change denying think tank supported by Nigel Farage \| The Independent	Entrenched climate misinformation in public and political spheres	Fact-checking; climate science education; legal limits on misinformation in schools Heartland Institute – DeSmog
Global Warming Policy Foundation (UK) https://www.thegwpf.org/	Undermine IPCC science; resist UK net-zero plans	Reports; media influence; political lobbying Climate denial charity to offload campaigning arm following investigation \| Good Law Project	Increased climate skepticism; shaped parliamentary debates	Disclosure of funding sources and membership; academic and media rebuttals; strengthening public science literacy Global Warming Policy Foundation – DeSmog Global Warming Policy Foundation – InfluenceWatch –
Tufton Street Network (UK)	Resist environmental regulation; promote deregulation	Think tanks; op-eds; private briefings to MPs MPs demand investigation into climate change denial group linked to Suella Braverman – Canary	Skewed climate discourse in UK media; influenced conservative policy	Watchdog journalism; ethics reforms; transparency in political consultancy 55 Tufton Street – DeSmog
Offshore Wind Opposition Coalitions	Block or delay renewable infrastructure citing environmental or aesthetic concerns	Legal challenges; misinformation; cross-border collaboration Insight: Offshore wind opponents in Australia, Europe lean on US groups for advice \| Reuters	Delayed wind project deployment in U.S., UK, Australia	Community benefit-sharing; early stakeholder engagement; myth-busting public campaigns
Centre for Policy Studies https://www.cps.org.uk/ Centre for Policy Studies – DeSmog				Centre for Policy Studies – DeSmog
AFD (Germany’s far-right party) https://www.afd.de/	Politicize and oppose climate action; frame it as elite overreach	Electoral campaigns; anti-green rhetoric; online disinformation How climate policies are becoming focus for far-right attacks in Germany \| Germany \| The Guardian	Strengthened climate resistance in European politics	Cross-party green coalitions; voter education; digital disinformation monitoring Denial and Dampening Ambition: Where do Europe’s Right-Wing Populist Parties Stand on Climate Change? – DeSmog

MCL – April 2025

(next update schedule: Spring 2028; more regular updates in the ‘Recent News section).

5. Recent Update Posts and News Links

Climate Junction – Update Posts:

Posts – Engagement – Opposition

Context – Climate Engagement: Opposition