Why focusing on “climate change denial” is counterproductive
Bretter, Christian and Schulz, Felix LU
(2023)
In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
120(10).
- Abstract
- At the end of September, David Malpass, the president of the World Bank, was heavily criticized after failing to acknowledge anthropogenic climate change [henceforth called climate change (1)]. Although he later apologized for and revised his remarks, they sparked a renewed public debate on the existence of climate change
deniers and their impact on our transition toward a more sustainable future (2).
We believe that the dichotomous view of climate change “deniers” and climate change “accepters” is not helpful. This way of framing the debate only stymies our path to a zero-carbon future. It does so for three primary reasons. First, it creates an inaccurate picture by overstating the share and importance of climate change deniers... (More) - At the end of September, David Malpass, the president of the World Bank, was heavily criticized after failing to acknowledge anthropogenic climate change [henceforth called climate change (1)]. Although he later apologized for and revised his remarks, they sparked a renewed public debate on the existence of climate change
deniers and their impact on our transition toward a more sustainable future (2).
We believe that the dichotomous view of climate change “deniers” and climate change “accepters” is not helpful. This way of framing the debate only stymies our path to a zero-carbon future. It does so for three primary reasons. First, it creates an inaccurate picture by overstating the share and importance of climate change deniers for tackling climate change. Second, a focus on climate denialism divides and polarizes
society, further preventing constructive engagement with different opinions. Third, it distracts us from concentrating on the more pressing question: how we should
tackle climate change, not if. Once we focus on the how, we can begin to understand that support for different solutions to tackle climate change may be contingent on
people’s preference for individual freedom. With this understanding in mind, we can offer a constructive path forward. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/0bc436db-c91b-4137-8bf8-8805712e818c
- author
- Bretter, Christian
and Schulz, Felix
LU
- publishing date
- 2023-03-01
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- in
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- volume
- 120
- issue
- 10
- publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:85149154561
- ISSN
- 1091-6490
- DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.2217716120
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- no
- id
- 0bc436db-c91b-4137-8bf8-8805712e818c
- date added to LUP
- 2025-01-27 16:36:28
- date last changed
- 2025-04-22 10:05:22
@article{0bc436db-c91b-4137-8bf8-8805712e818c,
abstract = {{At the end of September, David Malpass, the president of the World Bank, was heavily criticized after failing to acknowledge anthropogenic climate change [henceforth called climate change (1)]. Although he later apologized for and revised his remarks, they sparked a renewed public debate on the existence of climate change<br/>deniers and their impact on our transition toward a more sustainable future (2).<br/>We believe that the dichotomous view of climate change “deniers” and climate change “accepters” is not helpful. This way of framing the debate only stymies our path to a zero-carbon future. It does so for three primary reasons. First, it creates an inaccurate picture by overstating the share and importance of climate change deniers for tackling climate change. Second, a focus on climate denialism divides and polarizes<br/>society, further preventing constructive engagement with different opinions. Third, it distracts us from concentrating on the more pressing question: how we should<br/>tackle climate change, not if. Once we focus on the how, we can begin to understand that support for different solutions to tackle climate change may be contingent on<br/>people’s preference for individual freedom. With this understanding in mind, we can offer a constructive path forward.}},
author = {{Bretter, Christian and Schulz, Felix}},
issn = {{1091-6490}},
language = {{eng}},
month = {{03}},
number = {{10}},
publisher = {{National Academy of Sciences}},
series = {{Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}},
title = {{Why focusing on “climate change denial” is counterproductive}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2217716120}},
doi = {{10.1073/pnas.2217716120}},
volume = {{120}},
year = {{2023}},
}