The politics of climate change results from different perspectives on how to respond to climate

change. Global warming is driven largely by the emissions of greenhouse gases due to human
economic activity, especially the burning of fossil fuels, certain industries like cement and steel
production, and land use for agriculture and forestry. Since the Industrial Revolution, fossil fuels
have provided the main source of energy for economic and technological development. The
centrality of fossil fuels and other carbon-intensive industries has resulted in much resistance to
climate friendly policy, despite widespread scientific consensus that such policy is necessary.
Climate change first emerged as a political issue in the 1970s. Efforts to mitigate climate
change have been prominent on the international political agenda since the 1990s, and are also
increasingly addressed at national and local level. Climate change is a complex global problem.
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions contribute to global warming across the world, regardless of
where the emissions originate. Yet the impact of global warming varies widely depending on
how vulnerable a location or economy is to its effects. Global warming is on the whole having
negative impact, which is predicted to worsen as heating increases. Ability to benefit from both fossil
fuels and renewable energy sources vary substantially from nation to nation.
Different responsibilities, benefits and climate related threats faced by the world's nations contributed
to early climate change conferences producing little beyond general statements of intent to address
the problem, and non-binding commitments from the developed countries to reduce emissions. In
the 21st century, there has been increased attention to mechanisms like climate finance in order for
vulnerable nations to adapt to climate change. In some nations and local jurisdictions, climate
friendly policies have been adopted that go well beyond what was committed to at international level.
Yet local reductions in GHG emission that such policies achieve will not slow global warming unless
the overall volume of GHG emission declines across the planet.
Since entering the 2020s, the feasibility of replacing energy from fossil fuel with renewable
energy sources significantly increased, with some countries now generating almost all their
electricity from renewables. Public awareness of the climate change threat has risen, in larger part
due to social movement led by youth and visibility of the impacts of climate change, such as extreme
weather events and flooding caused by sea level rise. Many surveys show a growing proportion of
voters support tackling climate change as a high priority, making it easier for politicians to commit to
policies that include climate action. The COVID-19 pandemic and economic recession lead to
widespread calls for a "green recovery", with some political contexts like the European
Union successfully integrating climate action into policy change. Outright climate change denial had
become a much less influential force by 2019, where opposition has pivoted to strategies of
encouraging delay or inaction.

Policy debate
Like all policy debates, the political debate on climate change is fundamentally about
action.[1] Various distinct arguments underpin the politics of climate change - such as different
assessments of the urgency of the threat, and on the feasibility, advantages and disadvantages of
various responses. But essentially, these all relate to potential responses to climate change. [1]
The statements that form political arguments can be divided into two types: positive and normative
statements. Positive statements can generally be clarified or refuted by careful definition of terms,
and scientific evidence. Whereas normative statements about what one "ought" to do often relate at
least partly to morality, and are essentially a matter of judgement. Experience has indicated that
better progress is often made at debates if participants attempt to disentangle the positive and
normative parts of their arguments, reaching agreement on the positive statements first. In the early
stages of a debate, the normative positions of participants can be strongly influenced by perceptions
of the best interests of whatever constituency they represent. In achieving exceptional progress at
the 2015 Paris conference, Christiana Figueres and others noted it was helpful that key participants
were able to move beyond a competitive mindset concerning competing interests, to normative
statements that reflected a shared abundance based collaborative mindset. [2][note 1]
Actions in response to climate change can be divided into three classes: mitigation – actions to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to enhance carbon sinks, adaptation – actions to defend
against the negative results of global warming, and solar radiation management (a type of climate
engineering) – a technology in which sunlight (solar radiation) would be reflected back to outer
space.[3]
Most 20th century international debate on climate change focused almost entirely on mitigation. It
was sometimes considered defeatist to pay much attention to adaptation. Also, compared to
mitigation, adaptation is more a local matter, with different parts of the world facing vastly different
threats and opportunities from climate change. By the early 21st century, while mitigation still
receives most attention in political debates, it is no longer the sole focus. Some degree of adaptation
is now widely considered essential, and is discussed internationally at least at high level, though
which specific actions to take remain mostly a local matter. A commitment to provide $100 billion per
year worth of funding to developing countries was made at the 2009 Copenhagen Summit. At Paris,
it was clarified that allocation of the funding should involve a balanced split between adaptation and
mitigation, though as of December 2020, not all funding had been provided, and what had been
delivered was going mainly to mitigation projects.[4][5] By 2019, possibilities for geoengineering were
also increasingly being discussed, and were expected to become more prominent in future
debates.[3][6]
Political debate concerning which specific courses of action for achieving effective mitigation tends
to vary depending on the scale of governance concerned. Different considerations apply for
international debate, compared with national and municipal level discussion. In the 1990s, when
climate change first became prominent on the political agenda, there was optimism that the problem
could be successfully tackled. The then recent signing of the 1987 Montreal Protocol to protect
the ozone layer had indicated that the world was able to act collectively to address a threat warned
about by scientists, even when it was not yet causing significant harm to humans. Yet by the early
2000s, GHG emissions had continued to rise, with little sign of agreement to penalise emitters or
reward climate friendly behaviour. It had become clear that achieving global agreement for effective
action to limit global warming would be much more challenging. [note 2][3][7] Some politicians, such
as Arnold Schwarzenegger with his slogan "terminate pollution", say that activists should generate
optimism by focusing on the health co-benefits of climate action.[8]

Multilateral
Further information: Timeline of international climate politics

Global carbon dioxide emissions by jurisdiction (as of 2015)

Climate change became a fixture on the global political agenda in the early 1990s, with United
Nations Climate Change conferences set to run yearly. These annual events are also called
Conferences of the Parties (COPs). Major landmark COPs were the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the
2009 Copenhagen Summit and the 2015 Paris conference. Kyoto was initially considered promising,
yet by the early 2000s its results had proved disappointing. Copenhagen saw a major attempt to
move beyond Kyoto with a much stronger package of commitments, yet largely failed. Paris was
widely considered successful, yet how effective it will be at reducing long term global warming
remains to be seen.[3]

Environment ministers from BASIC countries meet to discuss

climate policy after COP15.
At international level, there are three broad approaches to emissions reduction that nations can
attempt to negotiate. Firstly, the adoption of emissions reductions targets. Secondly, setting a carbon
price. Lastly, creating largely voluntary set of processes to encourage emission reduction, which
include the sharing of information and progress reviews. These approaches are largely
complementary, though at various conferences much of the focus has often been on a single
approach. Until about 2010, international negotiations focused largely on emissions targets. The
success of the Montreal treaty in reducing emissions that damaged the ozone layer suggested that
targets could be effective. Yet in the case of greenhouse gas reductions, targets have not in general
led to substantial cuts in emissions. Ambitious targets have usually not been met. Attempts to
impose severe penalties that would incentivise more determined efforts to meet challenging targets,
have always been blocked by at least one or two nations.[9]
In the 21st century, there is widespread agreement that a carbon price is the most effective way to
reduce emissions, at least in theory.[10] Generally though, nations have been reluctant to adopt a high
carbon price, or in most cases any price at all. One of the main reasons for this reluctance is the
problem of carbon leakage – the phenomena where activities producing GHG emissions are moved
out of the jurisdiction that imposes the carbon price thus depriving the jurisdiction of jobs & revenue,
and to no benefit, as the emissions will be released elsewhere. Nonetheless, the percentage of the
worlds' emissions that are covered by a carbon price rose from 5% in 2005, to 15% by 2019, and
should reach over 40% once China's carbon price comes fully into force. Existing carbon price
regimes have been implemented mostly independently by the European Union, nations and sub
national jurisdictions acting autonomously.[11]
The largely voluntary pledge and review system where states make their own plans for emissions
reduction was introduced in 1991, but abandoned before the 1997 Kyoto treaty, where the focus was
on securing agreement for "top down" emissions targets. The approach was revived at Copenhagen,
and gained further prominence with the 2015 Paris Agreement, though pledges came to be
called nationally determined contributions (NDCs). These are meant to be re-submitted in enhanced
form every 5 years. How effective this approach is remains to be seen. [12] Some countries submitted
elevated NDCs in 2021, around the time of the Glasgow conference. Accounting rules for carbon
trading were agreed at the 2021 Glasgow COP meeting.[13]

Regional, National and sub national

 The Climate Change Performance Index ranks
countries by greenhouse gas emissions (40% of score), renewable energy (20%), energy use
(20%), and climate policy (20%).
High Medium Low Very Low
Policies to reduce GHG emissions are set by either national or sub national jurisdictions, or at
regional level in the case of the European Union. Much of the emission reduction policies that have
been put into place have been beyond those required by international agreements. Examples
include the introduction of a carbon price by some individual US states, or Costa Rica reaching 99%
electrical power generation by renewables in the 2010s.
Actual decisions to reduce emissions or deploy clean technologies are mostly not made by
governments themselves, but by individuals, businesses and other organisations. Yet it is national
and local governments that set policies to encourage climate friendly activity. Broadly these policies
can be divided into four types: firstly, the implementation of a carbon price mechanism and other
financial incentives; secondly prescriptive regulations, for example mandating that a certain
percentage of electricity generation must be from renewables; thirdly, direct government spending
on climate friendly activity or research; and fourthly, approaches based on information sharing,
education and encouraging voluntary climate friendly behaviour. [3] Local politics is sometimes
combined with air pollution, for example the politics of creating low emission zones in cities may also
aim to reduce carbon emissions from road transport.[14]

Non-governmental actors
Individuals, businesses and NGOs can affect the politics of climate change both directly and
indirectly. Mechanisms include individual rhetoric, aggregate expression of opinion by means of
polls, and mass protests. Historically, a significant proportion of these protests have been against
climate friendly policies. Since the 2000 UK fuel protests there have been dozens of protests across
the world against fuel taxes or the ending of fuel subsidies. Since 2019 and the advent of the school
strike and Extinction Rebellion, pro climate protests have become more prominent. Indirect channels
for apolitical actors to effect the politics of climate change include funding or working on green
technologies, and the fossil fuel divestment movement.[3]
Special interests and lobbying by non-country actors

Global warming has attracted the attention of left-wing groups,

as here with the Democratic Socialists of America.
There are numerous special interest groups, organizations, and corporations who have public and
private positions on the multifaceted topic of global warming. The following is a partial list of the
types of special interest parties that have shown an interest in the politics of global warming:

 Fossil fuel companies: Traditional fossil fuel corporations stand to lose from stricter
global warming regulations, though there are exceptions. The fact fossil fuel companies
are engaged in energy trading might mean that their participation in trading schemes and
other such mechanisms could give them a unique advantage, so it is unclear whether
every traditional fossil fuel companies would always be against stricter global warming
policies.[15] As an example, Enron, a traditional gas pipeline company with a large trading
desk heavily lobbied the United States government to regulate CO 2: they thought that
they would dominate the energy industry if they could be at the center of energy
trading.[16][17][18]
 Farmers and agribusiness are an important lobby but vary in their views on effects of
climate change on agriculture[19] and greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture[20] and,
for example, the role of the EU Common Agricultural Policy.[21]
 Financial Institutions: Financial institutions generally support policies against global
warming, particularly the implementation of carbon trading schemes and the creation of
market mechanisms that associate a price with carbon. These new markets require
trading infrastructures, which banking institutions can provide. Financial institutions are
also well positioned to invest, trade and develop various financial instruments that they
could profit from through speculative positions on carbon prices and the use of
brokerage and other financial functions like insurance and derivative instruments. [22]
 Environmental groups: Environmental advocacy groups generally favor strict
restrictions on CO2 emissions. Environmental groups, as activists, engage in raising
awareness.[23]
 Renewable energy and energy efficiency companies: companies in wind, solar and
energy efficiency generally support stricter global warming policies. They expect their
share of the energy market to expand as fossil fuels are made more expensive through
trading schemes or taxes.[24]
 Nuclear power companies: support and benefit from carbon pricing or subsidies of low-
carbon energy production, as nuclear power produces minimal greenhouse gas
emissions.[25]
 Electricity distribution companies: may lose from solar panels but benefit from electric
vehicles.[26]
 Traditional retailers and marketers: traditional retailers, marketers, and the general
corporations respond by adopting policies that resonate with their customers. If "being
green" provides customer appeal, then they could undertake modest programs to please
and better align with their customers. However, since the general corporation does not
make a profit from their particular position, it is unlikely that they would strongly lobby
either for or against a stricter global warming policy position. [27]
 Medics: often say that climate change and air pollution can be tackled together and so
save millions of lives.[28]
 Information and communications technology companies: say their products help
others combat climate change, tend to benefit from reductions in travel, and many
purchase green electricity.[29]
The various interested parties sometimes align with one another to reinforce their message, for
example electricity companies fund the purchase of electric school buses to benefit medics by
reducing the load on the health service whilst at the same time selling more electricity. Sometimes
industries will fund specialty nonprofit organizations to raise awareness and lobby on their
behest.[30][31]
Collective action
Main article: Climate movement
Current climate politics are influenced by a number of social and political movements focused on
different parts of building political will for climate action. This includes the climate justice movement,
youth climate movement and movements to divest from fossil fuel industries.

Divestment movement
This section is an excerpt from Fossil fuel divestment.[edit]

As of 2021, 1,300 institutions possessing 14.6

trillion dollars divested from the fossil fuel industry.[32]
Fossil fuel divestment or fossil fuel divestment and investment in climate solutions is an attempt to
reduce climate change by exerting social, political, and economic pressure for the
institutional divestment of assets including stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments connected
to companies involved in extracting fossil fuels.
Fossil fuel divestment campaigns emerged on campuses in the United States in 2011 with students
urging their administrations to turn endowment investments in the fossil fuel industry into
investments in clean energy and communities most impacted by climate change.[33] In 2012, Unity
College in Maine became the first institution of higher learning to divest[34] its endowment from fossil
fuels.
By 2015, fossil fuel divestment was reportedly the fastest growing divestment movement in
history.[35] As of July 2023, more than 1593 institutions with assets totalling more than $40.5 trillion in
assets worldwide had begun or committed some form of divestment of fossil fuels.[36]
Youth movement
This section is an excerpt from School Strike for Climate.[edit]

Maximum number of school strikers per country:

1000
1000+
10000+
100000+
1000000+

School Strike for Climate (Swedish: Skolstrejk för klimatet), also known variously as Fridays for
Future (FFF), Youth for Climate, Climate Strike or Youth Strike for Climate, is an international
movement of school students who skip Friday classes to participate in demonstrations to
demand action from political leaders to prevent climate change and for the fossil fuel industry to
transition to renewable energy.
Publicity and widespread organising began after Swedish pupil Greta Thunberg staged a protest in
August 2018 outside of the Swedish Riksdag (parliament), holding a sign that read "Skolstrejk för
klimatet" ("School strike for climate").[37][38]
A global strike on 15 March 2019 gathered more than one million strikers in 2,200 strikes organised
in 125 countries.[39][40][41][42] On 24 May 2019, in the second global strike, 1,600 protests across 150
countries drew hundreds of thousands of strikers. The May protests were timed to coincide with
the 2019 European Parliament election.[41][43][44][45]
The 2019 Global Week for Future was a series of 4,500 strikes across over 150 countries, focused
around Friday 20 September and Friday 27 September. Likely the largest climate strikes in world
history, the 20 September strikes gathered roughly 4 million protesters, many of them
schoolchildren, including 1.4 million in Germany.[46] On 27 September, an estimated two million
people participated in demonstrations worldwide, including over one million protesters in Italy and
several hundred thousand protesters in Canada.[47][48][49]

Current outlook

Greta Thunberg's Fridays for Future movement, begun in

August 2018, has been influential in raising public awareness of the threat from global warming.
Historical political attempts to agree on policies to limit global warming have largely failed.
Commentators have expressed optimism that the 2020s can be more successful, due to various
recent developments and opportunities that were not present during earlier periods. Other
commentators have expressed warnings that there is now very little time to act in order to have any
chance of keeping warming below 1.5 °C, or even to have a good chance of keeping global heating
under 2 °C.[3][50][51][52]

Opportunities
In the late 2010s, various developments conducive to climate friendly politics saw commentators
express optimism that the 2020s might see good progress in addressing the threat of global
heating.[3][50][51]
Tipping point in public opinion
 In most countries in this 2022 Pew survey, a majority said
climate change is a major threat to their country, with respondents from almost half the countries
ranking climate change highest of five threats in the survey. [53]
The year 2019 has been described as "the year the world woke up to climate change", driven by
factors such growing recognition of the global warming threat resulting from recent extreme
weather events, the Greta effect and the IPPC 1.5 °C report[54][55]
In 2019, the secretary general of OPEC recognised the school strike movement as the greatest
threat faced by the fossil fuel industry. According to Christiana Figueres, once about 3.5% of a
population start participating in non violent protest, they are always successful in sparking political
change, with the success of Greta Thunberg's Fridays for Future movement suggesting that
reaching this threshold may be obtainable.[56]
A 2023 review study published in One Earth stated that opinion polls show that most people
perceive climate change as occurring now and close by.[57] The study concluded that seeing climate
change as more distant does not necessarily result in less climate action, and reducing
psychological distancing does not reliably increase climate action. [57]
Reduced influence of climate change denial
By 2019, outright climate change denial had become a much less influential force than it had been in
previous years. Reasons for this include the increasing frequency of extreme weather events, more
effective communication on the part of climate scientists, and the Greta effect. As an example, in
2019 the Cato Institute closed down its climate shop.[58][59][60][61][62]
Growth of renewable energy
See also: Green New Deal and European Green Deal
Renewable energy is an inexhaustible source of naturally replenishing energy. The major renewable
energy sources are wind, hydropower, solar, geothermal, and biomass. In 2020, renewable energy
generated 29% of world electricity.[63]
In the wake of the Paris Agreement, 168 countries have adopted national renewable energy targets
and 115 counties as well, have national renewable energy targets. There are many different efforts
used by these countries to help include renewable energy investments such as 102 countries have
implemented tax credits, 101 countries include some sort of public investment, and 100 countries
currently use tax reductions. The largest CO2 emitters tend to be industrialized countries like the US,
China, UK, and India. These countries aren't implementing enough industrial policies (188)
compared to deployment policies (more than 1,000). It's clear that these policies must be created in
a way where they build upon each other, so they are most effective.[64]
 A group of women world leaders at the COP26 in Glasgow
In November 2021, the 26th United Nation Conference of the Parties (COP26) took place in
Glasgow, Scotland. Almost 200 nations agreed to accelerate the fight against climate change and
commit to more effective climate pledges. Some of the new pledges included reforms on methane
gas pollution, deforestation, and coal financing. Surprisingly, the US and China (the two largest
carbon emitters) also both agreed to work together on efforts to prevent global warming from
surpassing 1.5 degrees Celsius.[65] Some scientists, politicians, and activist are arguing that enough
hasn't been done at this summit and that we will still reach that 1.5 degree tipping point. An
Independent report by Climate Action Tracker said the commitments were "lip service" and "we will
emit roughly twice as much in 2030 as required for 1.5 degrees." [66]
As of 2020, the feasibility of replacing energy from fossil fuel with nuclear and especially renewable
energy has much increased, with dozens of countries now generating more than half of their
electricity from renewable sources.[67][68]
Green recovery
This section is an excerpt from Green recovery.[edit]
Green recovery packages are proposed environmental, regulatory, and fiscal reforms to rebuild
prosperity in the wake of an economic crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Global
Financial Crisis (GFC). They pertain to fiscal measures that intend to recover economic growth while
also positively benefitting the environment, including measures for renewable energy, efficient
energy use, nature-based solutions, sustainable transport, green innovation and green jobs,
amongst others.[69][70][71][72]
Support for a green recovery in response to the COVID-19 pandemic has come from multiple
political parties, governments, activists, and academia across the globe. [73][74][75] Following similar
measures in response to the GFC,[76] a key goal of the packages is to ensure that actions to combat
recession also combat climate change. These actions include the reduction of coal, oil, and gas use,
clean transport, renewable energy, eco-friendly buildings, and sustainable corporate or financial
practices. Green recovery initiatives are supported by the United Nations (UN) and the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).[77] Several global initiatives have provided live
tracking of national fiscal responses, including the Global Recovery Observatory (from Oxford
University, the UN, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)),[78] the Energy Policy Tracker,[79] and
the OECD's Green Recovery Tracker.[80]
Delineating between rescue and recovery investment, in March 2021 analysis by the Global
Recovery Observatory found that 18% of recovery investment and 2.5% of total spending was
expected to enhance sustainability.[69] In July 2021, the International Energy Agency supported that
analysis, noting that only around 2% of economic bailout money worldwide was going to clean
energy.[81] According to a 2022 analysis of the $14tn that G20 countries spent as economic stimulus,
only about 6% of pandemic recovery spending was allocated to areas that will also cut greenhouse-
gas emissions, including electrifying vehicles, making buildings more energy efficient and installing
renewables.[82]
Challenges
Despite various promising conditions, commentators tend to warn that several difficult challenges
remain, which need to be overcome if climate change politics is to result in a substantial reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions.[3][50][51] For example, increasing tax on meat can be politically difficult. [83]
Urgency
See also: Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C
As of 2021, CO2 levels have already increased by about 50% since the pre-industrial era, with
billions of tons more being released each year. Global warming has already passed the point where
it is beginning to have a catastrophic impact in some localities. So major policy changes need to be
implemented very soon if the risk of escalating environmental impact is to be avoided.[3][50][51]
Centrality of fossil fuel
Main article: Fossil fuel phase-out
Energy from fossil fuels remains central to the worlds economy, accounting for about 80% of its
energy generation as of 2019. Suddenly removing fossil fuel subsidies from consumers has often
been found to cause riots.[84] While clean energy can sometimes be cheaper,[85][note 3] provisioning large
amounts of renewable energy in a short period of time tends to be challenging. [3][6][7] According to a
2023 report by the International Energy Agency, coal emissions grew 243 Mt to a new all-time high
of almost 15.5 Gt. This 1.6% increase was faster than the 0.4% annual average growth over the past
decade.[86] In 2022 the European Central Bank argued that high energy prices were accelerating the
energy transition away from fossil fuel, but that governments should take steps to prevent energy
poverty without hindering the move to low carbon energy.[87]
Inactivism
While outright denial of climate change is much less prevalent in the 2020s compared to the
preceding decades, many arguments continue to be made against taking action to limit GHG
emissions. Such arguments include the view that there are better ways to spend available funds
(such as adaptation), that it would be better to wait until new technology is developed as that would
make mitigation cheaper, that technology and innovation will render climate change moot or resolve
certain aspects, and that the future negative effects of climate change should be
heavily discounted compared to current needs.[88][89]
Fossil fuel lobby and political spending
The largest oil and gas corporations that comprise Big Oil and their industry lobbyist arm,
the American Petroleum Institute (API), spend large amounts of money on lobbying and political
campaigns, and employ hundreds of lobbyists, to obstruct and delay government action to address
climate change. The fossil fuel lobby has considerable clout in Washington, D.C. and in other
political centers, including the European Union and the United Kingdom.[90][91][92][93][94][95] Fossil fuel
industry interests spend many times as much on advancing their agenda in the halls of power than
do ordinary citizens and environmental activists, with the former spending $2 billion in the years
2000–2016 on climate change lobbying in the United States. [96][97] The five largest Big Oil corporations
spent hundreds of millions of euros to lobby for its agenda in Brussels. [98] Big Oil companies often
adopt "sustainability principles" that are at odds with the policy agenda their lobbyists advocate,
which often entails sewing doubt about the reality and impacts of climate change and forestalling
government efforts to address them. API launched a public relations disinformation campaign with
the aim of creating doubt in the public mind so that "climate change becomes a non-issue."[90][97] This
industry also spends lavishly on American political campaigns, with approximately 2/3 of its political
contributions over the past several decades fueling Republican Party politicians,[99] and outspending
many fold political contributions from renewable energy advocates.[100] Fossil fuel industry political
contributions reward politicians who vote against environmental protections. According to a study
published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
as voting by a member of United States Congress turned more anti-environment, as measured by
his/her voting record as scored by the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), the fossil fuel industry
contributions that this member of Congress received increased. On average, a 10% decrease in the
LCV score was correlated with an increase of $1,700 in campaign contributions from the fossil fuel
industry for the campaign following the Congressional term. [101][102]
Suppression of climate science
Big Oil companies, starting as early as the 1970s, suppressed their own scientists' reports of major
climate impacts of the combustion of fossil fuels. ExxonMobil launched a corporate
propaganda campaign promoting false information about the issue of climate change, a tactic that
has been compared to Big Tobacco's public relations efforts to hoodwink the public about the
dangers of smoking.[103] Fossil fuel industry-funded think tanks harassed climate scientists who were
publicly discussing the dire threat of climate change.[104] As early as the 1980s when larger segments
of the American public began to become aware of the climate change issue, the administrations of
some United States presidents scorned scientists who spoke publicly of the threat fossil fuels posed
for the climate.[105] Other U.S. administrations have silenced climate scientists and muzzled
government whistleblowers.[106] Political appointees at a number of federal agencies prevented
scientists from reporting their findings regarding aspects of the climate crisis, changed data modeling
to arrive at conclusions they had set out a prior to prove, and shut out the input of career scientists of
the agencies.[107][108][109]
Targeting of climate activists
Climate and environmental activists, including, increasingly, those defending woodlands against
the logging industry, have been killed in several countries, such as Colombia, Brazil and
the Philippines. The perpetrators of most such killings have not been punished. A record number of
such killings was recorded for the year 2019. Indigenous environmental activists are
disproportionately targeted, comprising as many as 40% of fatalities worldwide.[110][111][112] Domestic
intelligence services of several governments, such as those of the U.S. government, have targeted
environmental activists and climate change organizations as "domestic terrorists," surveilling them,
investigating them, questioning them, and placing them on national "watchlists" that could make it
more difficult for them to board airplanes and could instigate local law enforcement
monitoring.[113][114][115] Other U.S. tactics have included preventing media coverage of American citizen
assemblies and protests against climate change, and partnering with private security companies to
monitor activists.[116]
Doomism
Main article: Doomer
In the context of climate change politics, doomism refers to pessimistic narratives that claim that it is
now too late to do anything about climate change. Doomism can include exaggeration of the
probability of cascading climate tipping points, and their likelihood in triggering runaway global
heating beyond human ability to control, even if humanity was able to immediately stop all burning of
fossil fuels. In the US, polls found that for people who did not support further action to limit global
warming, a belief that it is too late to do so was given as a more common reason than skepticism
about man made climate change.[117][118]
Lack of compromise
Several climate friendly policies have been blocked in the legislative process by environmental
and/or left leaning pressure groups and parties. For example, in 2009, the Australian green party
voted against the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, as they felt it did not impose a high enough
carbon price. In the US, the Sierra Club helped defeat a 2016 climate tax bill which they saw as
lacking in social justice. Some of the attempts to impose a carbon price in US states have been
blocked by left wing politicians because they were to be implemented by a cap and trade
mechanism, rather than a tax.[119]
Multi-sector governance
The issue of climate change usually fits into various sectors, which means that the integration of
climate change policies into other policy areas is frequently called for. [120] Thus the problem is
difficult, as it needs to be addressed at multiple scales with diverse actors involved in the
complex governance process.[121]
Maladaptation
Successful adaptation to climate change requires balancing competing economic, social, and
political interests. In the absence of such balancing, harmful unintended consequences can undo the
benefits of adaptation initiatives. For example, efforts to protect coral reefs in Tanzania forced local
villagers to shift from traditional fishing activities to farming that produced higher greenhouse gas
emissions.[122]

Technology
The promise of technology is seen as both a threat and a potential boon. New technologies can
open up possibilities for new and more effective climate policies. Most models that indicate a path to
limiting warming to 2 °C have a big role for carbon dioxide removal, one of the approaches of climate
change mitigation. Commentators from across the political spectrum tend to welcome CO 2 removal.
But some are sceptical that it will be ever be able to remove enough CO 2 to slow global warming
without there also being rapid cuts in emissions, and they warn that too much optimism about such
technology may make it harder for mitigation policies to be enacted. [3][50]
Solar radiation management is another technology aiming to reduce global warming. At least with
the sulphur based aerosol variant, there is broad agreement that it would be effective in bringing
down average global temperatures. Yet the prospect is considered unwelcome by many climate
scientists. They warn that side effects would include possible reductions in agricultural yields due to
reduced sunlight and rainfall, and possible localised temperature rises and other weather
disruptions. According to Michael Mann, the prospect of using solar management to reduce
temperatures is another argument used to reduce willingness to enact emissions reduction
policy.[123][50][124]

Just transition
Main article: Just transition
Economic disruption due to phaseout of carbon-intensive activities, such as coal mining, cattle
farming[125] or bottom trawling,[126] can be politically sensitive due to the high political profile of coal
miners,[127] farmers[128] and fishers[129] in some countries. Many labor and environmental groups
advocate for a just transition that minimizes the harm and maximizes the benefits associated with
climate-related changes to society, for example by providing job training.

Different responses on the political spectrum

See also: Climate communication and Public opinion on climate change

Democrats (blue) and Republicans (red) differ in views of the seriousness of addressing climate
change,[130] with the gap widening since the late 2010s mainly through Democrats' share increasing.[131]
The sharp divide over the existence of and responsibility for global warming and climate change falls largely
along political lines.[132] Overall, 60% of Americans surveyed said oil and gas companies were "completely or
mostly responsible" for climate change.[132]

Opinion about human causation of climate change increased substantially with education among Democrats,
but not among Republicans.[133] Conversely, opinions favoring becoming carbon neutral declined substantially
with age among Republicans, but not among Democrats.[133]

A broad range of policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has been proposed, but public support differs
consistently along party lines.[134]

National political divides on the seriousness of climate change consistently correlate with political ideology, with
right-wing opinion being more negative.[135]

Climate friendly policies are generally supported across the political spectrum. Though there have
been many exceptions among voters and politicians leaning towards the right, and even politicians
on the left have rarely made addressing climate change a top priority. Some nations and individuals
are unwilling to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or enforce laws because in doing so, they would
only suffer in paying the full price of abatement.[136][better source needed] In the 20th century, right wing
politicians led much significant action against climate change, both internationally and domestically,
with Richard Nixon and Margaret Thatcher being prominent examples.[137][138] Yet by the 1990s,
especially in some English speaking countries and most especially in the US, the issue began to be
polarised.[7][3] Right wing media started arguing that climate change was being invented or at least
exaggerated by the left to justify an expansion in the size of government. [note 4] As of 2020, some right
wing governments have enacted increased climate friendly policies. Various surveys indicated a
slight trend for even U.S. right wing voters to become less sceptical of global warming, and groups
like American Conservation Coalition indicate young Republican voters embrace climate as a central
policy field. Though in the view of Anatol Lieven, for some right wing US voters, being sceptical of
climate change has become part of their identity, so their position on the matter can not easily be
shifted by rational argument.[139][140][61] [141]
A 2014 study from the University of Dortmund concluded that countries with centre and left-wing
governments had higher emission reductions than right-wing governments in OECD countries for the
time period 1992–2008.[142] Historically, nationalist governments have been among the worst
performers in enacting policies. Though according to Lieven, as climate change is increasingly seen
as a threat to the ongoing existence of nation states, nationalism is likely to become one of the most
effective forces to drive determined mitigation efforts. The growing trend to securitize the climate
change threat may be especially effective for increasing support among nationalist and
conservatives.[139][131][3]

Effects of climate change

Some climate change effects, clockwise from top left: Wildfire caused by heat and dryness, bleached
coral caused by ocean acidification and heating, coastal flooding caused by storms and sea level rise,
and environmental migration caused by desertification

This section is an excerpt from Effects of climate change.[edit]

Climate change affects the physical environment, ecosystems and human societies. Changes in
the climate system include an overall warming trend, more extreme weather and rising sea levels.
These in turn impact nature and wildlife, as well as human settlements and societies.[143] The effects
of human-caused climate change are broad and far-reaching, especially if significant climate
action is not taken. The projected and observed negative impacts of climate change are sometimes
referred to as the climate crisis.
The changes in climate are not uniform across the Earth. In particular, most land areas have
warmed faster than most ocean areas, and the Arctic is warming faster than most other
regions.[144] Among the effects of climate change on oceans are an increase of ocean temperatures,
a rise in sea level from ocean warming and ice sheet melting, increased ocean stratification, and
changes to ocean currents including a weakening of the Atlantic meridional overturning
circulation.[145]: 10  Carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is acidifiying the ocean.[146]
Recent warming has strongly affected natural biological systems.[147] It has degraded land by raising
temperatures, drying soils and increasing wildfire risk.[148]: 9  Species worldwide are migrating poleward
to colder areas. On land, many species move to higher ground, whereas marine species seek colder
water at greater depths.[149] At 2 °C (3.6 °F) of warming, around 10% of species on land would
become critically endangered.[150]: 259 
Food security and access to fresh water are at risk due to rising temperatures. Climate change has
profound impacts on human health, directly via heat stress and indirectly via the spread of infectious
diseases. The vulnerability and exposure of humans to climate change varies by economic
sector and by country. Wealthy industrialised countries, which have emitted the most CO 2, have
more resources and so are the least vulnerable to global warming.[151] Economic sectors
affected include agriculture, fisheries, forestry, energy, insurance, and tourism. Some groups may be
particularly at risk from climate change, such as the poor, women, children and indigenous
peoples.[152][153] Climate change can lead to displacement and changes in migration flows.[154]

History
This section is an excerpt from History of climate change policy and politics.[edit]

Part of a series on

Climate change and

society

 Effects
 Mitigation
 Adaptation

show

Economics
 show

Social issues

show

Health and psychology

show

 Communication

show

Adaptation

hide

Politics
 History
 Political economy
 Climate governance
 Climate movement
 Denial
 Global warming controversy
 Litigation
 Individual actions
 UNFCCC
 UN conferences
 Kyoto Protocol
 Paris Agreement

 Portal
 Glossary
 Index

 v
 t
 e

The history of climate change policy and politics refers to the continuing history of political actions,
policies, trends, controversies and activist efforts as they pertain to the issue of global warming and
other environmental anomalies. Dryzek, Norgaard, and Schlosberg suggest that critical reflection on
the history of climate policy is necessary because it provides 'ways to think about one of the most
difficult issues we human beings have brought upon ourselves in our short life on the planet’. [155]
Climate change emerged as a political issue in the 1970s, where activist and formal efforts were
taken to ensure environmental crises were addressed on a global scale. [156] International policy
regarding climate change has focused on cooperation and the establishment of international
guidelines to address global warming. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) is a largely accepted international agreement that has continuously developed to
meet new challenges.
Domestic policy on climate change has focused on both establishing internal measures to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and incorporating international guidelines into domestic law.
In the 21st century there has been a shift towards vulnerability based policy for those most impacted
by environmental anomalies.[157] Over the history of climate policy, concerns have been raised about
the treatment of developing nations and a lack of gender specific action.

Relationship to climate science

Further information: Global warming controversy, Politicization of science, and Knowledge policy
In the scientific literature, there is an overwhelming consensus that global surface temperatures
have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced
emissions of greenhouse gases. [158][159][160]

The public substantially underestimates the degree

of scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change. [161] Studies from 2019 to
2021[162][163][164] found scientific consensus to range from 98.7 to 100%.
The politicization of science in the sense of a manipulation of science for political gains is a part of
the political process. It is part of the controversies about intelligent design[165][166] (compare the Wedge
strategy) or Merchants of Doubt, scientists that are under suspicion to willingly obscure findings. e.g.
about issues like tobacco smoke, ozone depletion, global warming or acid rain. [167][168] However, e.g.
in case of ozone depletion, global regulation based on the Montreal Protocol was successful, in a
climate of high uncertainty and against strong resistance[169] while in case of climate change,
the Kyoto Protocol failed.[170]
While the IPCC process tries to find and orchestrate the findings of global climate change research
to shape a worldwide consensus on the matter [171] it has itself been the object of a strong
politicization.[172] Anthropogenic climate change evolved from a mere science issue to a top global
policy topic.[172]
The IPCC process having built a broad science consensus does not stop governments following
different, if not opposing goals.[172][173] In case of the ozone depletion challenge, global regulation was
already being put into place before a scientific consensus was established. [169] So a linear model of
policy-making, based on a the more knowledge we have, the better the political response will
be view is not necessarily accurate. Instead knowledge policy,[172] successfully managing knowledge
and uncertainties as a foundation for political decision making; requires a better understanding of the
relation between science, public (lack of) understanding and policy.[170][173][174][175]
Most of the policy debate concerning climate change mitigation has been framed by projections for
the twenty-first century. Academics have criticised this as short term thinking, as decisions made in
the next few decades will have environmental consequences that will last for many millennia. [176]
It has been estimated that only 0.12% of all funding for climate-related research is spent on the
social science of climate change mitigation.[177] Vastly more funding is spent on natural science
studies of climate change and considerable sums are also spent on studies of the impact of and
adaptation to climate change.[177] It has been argued that this is a misallocation of resources, as the
most urgent puzzle at the current juncture is to work out how to change human behavior to mitigate
climate change, whereas the natural science of climate change is already well established and there
will be decades and centuries to handle adaptation. [177]
Political violence risk is driven by various factors including availability of weapons, ethnic and
religious tensions, wealth inequality, institutional resilience and a high level of distrust vis-à-vis of the
authorities. Climate change has increasingly been influencing many factors that contribute to political
violence. Extreme weather events can undermine economic livelihood (e.g. destruction of crops,
machinery and homes, reduction in quality of grazing lands) and increase poverty and wealth
inequality between groups that are affected by the extreme weather events and those that are not. In
all regions, poverty and wealth inequality have a significant influence on political violence.
Desertification has also been regularly linked with increasing political violence, for example in the
Sahel region of Africa. In Mali, in recent decades, drought periods have occurred more frequently,
placing greater stress on a country with weak political institutions as well as religious and ethnic
tensions. Moreover, the link between political violence and inequality is even stronger if the situation
deteriorates rapidly (such as after a natural disaster). The impact will be most acute in low-
income countries where food still accounts for a large share of the population income, but also in
middle-income countries, notably due to income inequality.

Climate change affects food security and water availability

Climate change can also cause political unrest because of higher food inflation and food insecurity.
For example, huge droughts in South and North America in 2021 have led to sharply rising sugar,
wheat and oat prices (see graph 2). In the past two decades higher food prices have been clearly
linked with unrest, as illustrated by large food protests in Sub-Saharan Africa (e.g. food riots in a
dozen countries in 2007-08), Latin America (tortilla protests in Mexico in 2007) and the Middle East.
In many low-income countries with mostly poor populations, social protests have increased the
pressure on governments, sometimes led to political changes and even contributed to some extent –
together with other factors – to fuelling civil conflict (e.g. the Arab Spring). Lower yields and higher
prices could cause food insecurity in less resilient, food import-dependent countries, triggering
political violence. Looking ahead, besides Africa and the Middle East, climate-related social risks
fuelled by food insecurity and inflation are also expected to be high in Latin America, where
agriculture – which is under threat – is a major source of income and income inequality is very high.
Climate change will also create scarcity of resources such as water. Fresh water is increasingly in
short supply, with nearly two thirds of the global population living in water-stressed conditions.
Climate security risks can already be observed in several countries and regions, primarily in Sub-
Saharan Africa (e.g. terrorism in the Sahel, violence between farmers and herders in Nigeria, ethnic
conflicts in Kenya) and in the Middle East. They occur in those regions because the populations are
poor, land fertility is decreasing and water stress rising. As a matter of fact, and as has often been
seen in history, declining water supply promises to be the number one factor driving future conflicts
within a country and between countries. The Middle East region (e.g. Iraq, Syria, Jordan) is
emblematic of such a risk, as its water supply will become more instable and could even decrease in
many areas to levels where human life is no longer possible. Other well-known examples of conflict
risks come from the ongoing dispute between Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia over the Grand Ethiopian
Renaissance Dam, claimed ownership by China of Tibet’s waters (meaning that it would be the
upstream controller of most of South Asia’s biggest rivers), and Turkish dams on the Tigris and
Euphrates rivers creating tensions with Iraq and Syria.

Climate change will trigger mass migration

Conflict and social instability risks will also be fuelled by mass internal and external migration flows
of historic scale, triggered by climate change. The rising sea level is threatening people’s living in the
medium term in atoll islands in the Pacific ocean. Furthermore, research has shown that humans
have been living in a narrow temperature span (11°C-15°C) for over a thousand years. Hence,
global warming is leading to more and more land and areas becoming almost or completely
unliveable for humans. Therefore, the World Bank predicts that at least 200 million refugees (a figure
probably much underestimated as research shows that for every degree by which the earth warms
up, about a billion people will come to live in unliveable land), principally from poor regions – nearly
half in Africa, followed by East and South Asia – will be forced to migrate by 2050. Those mass
population movements will put a lot of stress on societies and create huge social and political
tensions within them. Struggles between hosts and newcomers can erupt especially when there are
scarce resources in the host region or country. Migration in a context where many potential conflict
factors already exist (e.g. high poverty, weak institutions) in the host country or region can especially
act as a trigger for political violence. Syria is a good illustration. Between 2006 and 2010, a drought
transformed almost 60% of the country into desert and, by 2009, may have killed as much as 80% of
cattle. A mass movement of farmers to the cities, in combination with the inability of institutions to
handle the migration flow and existing ethnic tensions, were the catalyst for the civil war. Moreover,
given the gradual rise of the far right, increase in autocracies and populism in Europe – a top
destination for cross-border migrants, especially given that the region is expected to be
proportionally the least affected by climate change – political and social tensions will rise. Besides
social and conflict risks, mass migration threatens to cause health crises in transit and destination
countries.

Climate change will impact the geopolitical powerplay

Climate-related conflict risks will also take the form of geopolitical risks. In association with rising
climate risks in a currently emerging new global order with scarcer natural resources, geopolitical
risks are likely to increase between superpowers and with or between emerging powers. Those risks
will also hit many countries that are strategically (e.g. Pakistan) or involuntarily involved in the
geopolitical games. When it comes to energy transition, geopolitical competition will certainly be
fierce in the future (e.g. in the Arctic), will probably reshape the global order and will favour
economies producing and exporting those precious commodities. However, because of the stress it
will place – together with the demographic burden – on resource scarcity, climate change will also
trigger a race (that has already started) for vital natural resources such as fish and land on which to
grow cereals, rice, etc. While China is ahead in this race to ensure food security and internal
stability, Russia as well as emerging powers such as India, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are already
very active, notably in Africa.

Risks will materialise worldwide, with country and regional disparities

Political violence is thus likely to be a growing threat boosted by the acceleration of climate change.
Social unrest is likely to be more frequent, with more competition for natural resources, leading to
greater political instability and uncertain government policies. When climate risks are assessed, it is
important to remember not only that climate change will affect all countries in the world, but also that
reaching climate tipping points2 will exacerbate climate and country risks worldwide. There is
nevertheless great scientific uncertainty about the size of their natural and economic impact and
about the interactions of those natural upheavals. That being said, the impact of climate change will
be felt unevenly and in different ways, due to geographical factors and just as importantly because of
economic, political, social and ethnic dimensions. In general, developing countries are often
associated with high poverty levels and low incomes, meaning that resilience to climate change
disaster is and will be structurally constrained and will facilitate socio-political and conflict risks. At
regional level, Africa, followed by Asia, the Middle East and Central America, are seen as the
regions most vulnerable to climate change disaster.

Analysts: Jolyn Debuysscher – j.debuysscher@credendo.com; Raphaël Cecchi

– r.cecchi@credendo.com

1 Transition risks related to the shift to a decarbonised economy

(particularly acute for fossil fuel-dependent countries) are other types
of climate risks that will be assessed in a future publication.
2 Such as shifts in atmospheric circulation, thawing permafrost, weakening
carbon sinks (forests and oceans), ice sheet disintegration and Amazon
forest switching from rainforest to savannah, which will bring about
irreversible changes.