More than 100 researchers spent two years cataloging the strategies they say are slowing down the fight against global warming. The results are published in the book Climate Obstruction: a Global Assessment, published by Oxford University Press.
The authors define climate sabotage as “a set of deliberate actions that delay or prevent policies that are consistent with the scientific consensus about what needs to be done to prevent humans from interfering with the Earth’s climate.”
This study assessed the available academic work on the topic and was inspired by the methodology of the IPCC report, the United Nations-affiliated Scientific Committee on Climate Change.
The book was written and peer-reviewed by 110 researchers from around the world and is available for free. A presentation event will be held in Belém during COP30.
The analysis focused on articles published since 2015, when 195 countries adopted the Paris Agreement. The Climate and Social Science Network at Brown University in the US led the preparation of this book.
This book addresses obstruction at the United Nations and identifies the following strategies to block progress on the climate change treaty, the UNFCCC.
-
Exclude certain topics from the agenda and limit your approach to the subject.
-
Manipulating the wording of the contract with ambiguous sentences.
-
and facilitate additional discussion and defer deeper decisions.
Annual COP meetings like the one held in Belem require consensus to verify final documents, a step researchers say can end up fostering obstruction.
“Research indicates that agreements can promote least common denominator outcomes and encourage uncooperative behavior. Obstructionist countries in the Global North and Global South have historically held inflexible positions and disproportionately used veto power to slow progress, delay or block agreements,” the researchers say.
According to the researchers, there is evidence that the oil and gas industry has implemented three sabotage strategies over the years:
-
Denying the scientific consensus on climate change.
-
Use economic blackmail tactics to delay government action.
-
and use discourses and policies that favor the sector itself.
The book says explicit denial of the problem by oil companies has diminished since the 1990s, replaced by more subtle opposition with plans to expand production.
The sheet We requested a position with the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP). There was no response until publication.
“Drilling new oil wells doesn’t come without obstacles, because we’re at the point scientifically where we understand that we can’t take any more carbon out of the ground,” Jennifer Jacquet, a professor of science and environmental policy at the University of Miami and one of the book’s editors, said of Petrobras’ drilling in the Foz do Amazonas Basin. The company did not respond to reports.
The book states that despite the oil and gas industry’s talk of an energy transition, “extensive academic research has found no convincing evidence that the industry is broadly transitioning away from fossil fuels after the Paris Agreement.”
When it comes to agribusiness, scientists argue that some actors in the sector are influencing public understanding of livestock’s role in global warming and obstructing political responses.
“Agriculture’s impact on the climate is well established scientifically, but the industry continues to dispute the scale, severity, and very existence of this problem,” they say. The sheet We approached the World Farmers Organization (WFO). There was nothing in return.
“It is unclear how these companies will deliver on their climate change commitments, and a lack of comprehensive data on their emissions and mitigation strategies makes accountability and independent verification difficult,” the book said, citing companies such as Danone, Danish Crown, Nestlé, Tyson Foods and JBS.
The sheet I searched everything mentioned. Nestlé said in a statement that it will reduce emissions by 20.3% in 2024 compared to 2018 levels and that its progress on climate change targets is transparent.
Danish Crown said it publishes information about its emissions but does not agree with the claim that the data is unverifiable.
Danone said it is committed to decarbonizing its operations and has an ambition to reduce methane emissions in milk production by 30% by 2030. The company says its sustainability report is transparent.
Tyson Foods and JBS did not respond to media inquiries.
Scientists say the social changes needed to combat the climate crisis were never thought to be easy, but obstructionist tactics are making them increasingly difficult.
“The success of future climate action will largely depend on the level of understanding and the ability to overcome this opposition,” they say.
For Timmons Roberts, a professor of climate and social science at Brown University and the book’s coordinator, this opposition helps explain the moment when the Earth enters a situation where the 1.5 degree global warming threshold is thought to have been lost. “The systematic obstruction of climate action was highly strategic and effective in causing negotiations to fail.”
Understanding how this phenomenon works and what to do to overcome it can help bring hope to the fight against global warming, Roberts says. “This means that our failure to act on climate change is not inevitable or simply due to human nature; it is systematically planned.”
Carlos Milani, a professor of international relations at Huerzi (Rio de Janeiro State University) and the only Brazilian editor of this work, says that the main discourse related to climate change is the postponement of greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
“It’s not necessarily a set of literal denialist strategies, but one that separates cause and effect, dilutes responsibility, and says technology will magically create a solution and we just have to be patient,” he says.
About The Author
