Historical political attempts to agree on policies to limit global warming have largely failed to mitigate climate change. 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. According to Torsten Lichtenau, leading expert in global carbon transition, there was a huge peak on corporate climate action in 2021 – 2022 at the time of
COP26, but in 2024 "it's dropped back to 2019 levels." As for 2024 issues like geopolitics, inflation and artificial intelligence became more important for corporations even though the number of climate concerned consumers rose. 2024 was the first year in which the amount of money given to
ESG declined.
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. In 2019, the secretary general of
OPEC recognized 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. 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.
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 program seeking to raise uncertainty about climate science. Studies show that conservatives and liberals are not significantly different in their support for climate solutions; however, the way these solutions are framed can greatly influence their effectiveness. For example, conservatives respond more positively to messages about actions like tree planting when the language avoids explicit references to climate change.
Growth of renewable energy 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. In the wake of the Paris Agreement, adopted by 196 Parties, 194 of these Parties have submitted their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), i.e., climate pledges, as of November 2021. 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 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). 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. Some scientists, politicians, and activist say that not enough was 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." 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.
Green recovery 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.
Urgency As of 2021, 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. While clean energy can sometimes be cheaper, provisioning large amounts of renewable energy in a short period of time tends to be challenging. 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.
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.
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. 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. The five largest Big Oil corporations spent hundreds of millions of euros to lobby for its agenda in Brussels. Big Oil companies often adopt "sustainability principles" that are at odds with the policy agenda their lobbyists advocate, which often entails sowing 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." and outspending many-fold political contributions from
renewable energy advocates. 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.
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. Fossil fuel industry-funded
think tanks harassed climate scientists who were publicly discussing the dire threat of climate change. 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. Other U.S. administrations have silenced climate scientists and muzzled government
whistleblowers.
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.
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. 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. 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.
Doomism 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.
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.
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. Thus the problem is difficult, as it needs to be addressed at multiple scales with diverse actors involved in the complex
governance process.
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.
Wars and tensions "Conflict sensitivity and peacebuilding" are a "key for climate policy-making." Wars and geopolitical tensions harm climate action, including by preventing just distribution of needed resources. Climate change can increase conflicts, creating a vicious cycle. The
war in Ukraine seriously disturbed climate action. Military forces are responsible for 5.5% of global emissions and wars diverte resources from climate action. On the other hand, climate policy itself can also function as an arena for positive competition among states engaged in a race to the top.
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 removal. But some are skeptical that it will be ever be able to remove enough 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. ==Just transition==