Climate obstruction: Intentional actions and efforts to slow or block policies on climate change that are commensurate with the current scientific consensus of what is necessary to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

Climate Obstruction
Across Europe

Climate Obstruction Across Europe, coordinated by the Climate Social Science Network (CSSN) and published via Oxford University Press, reveals extensive networks impeding climate action within the region and surrounding states. In Italy and Germany, far-right networks spread misinformation by questioning climate science’s validity, while in Spain and the UK, blame-shifting and deflecting responsibility for climate action are common. European-based fossil fuel industries, like Shell, engage in greenwashing, by framing gas as a ‘bridging technology crucial for the energy transition’, delaying genuine progress.

Download full book

Download book summary

Explore climate obstruction across European countries

Explore climate across European countries

This obstruction isn’t just anti-climate-action; it’s anti-democratic as it obstructs transparent decision-making, distorts public discourse, and undermines the public’s right to accurate information. Shedding light on these actors and tactics is crucial for informed climate policy decisions, particularly in light of the upcoming EU elections.

Discover the key players behind this obstruction, their methods, and the main messages they use to delay climate action by clicking the cards below.

UK

Fuelled by fossil interests, thousands of climate obstructionists deploy numerous tactics to stifle progress, blocking green investment opportunities and tarnishing the EU’s stature as a global climate leader.

EU Key Actors:

Fossil fuel companies and energy utilities, automotive manufacturers, big agriculture companies, think tanks and industry associations (e.g. BusinessEurope, Eurofer).

EU Key Tactics:

Lobbying and political influence: These groups utilise their substantial financial resources to influence MEPs, the European Commission, and other policymakers through direct lobbying, policy briefs, and participation in public consultations.
Promoting market-based mechanisms: like emissions trading procedures that can be manipulated to benefit the industries involved without significantly impacting emissions.

EU Key Messages:

‘Necessity of fossil fuels’: Framing fossil fuels as essential for energy security and as ‘bridge technologies’ necessary for transitioning to renewable energies.
Economic cost: Emphasising costs of cleaner alternatives, neglecting the impact of rising fossil fuel prices impacting billions of consumers worldwide.

Scotland

In Scotland, key industry and political figures use deceptive tactics to promote oil and gas and delay critical climate action, framing these as ‘essential for energy security’ and ‘necessary bridging’ fuels.

Scotland Key Actors:

Fossil fuel companies (e.g., BP, Shell, INEOS), trade unions like UKOOG, business and trade associations, and political figures linked to the oil and gas sectors.

Scotland Key Tactics:

Policy lobbying: Directly engaging with policymakers to maintain favourable conditions for oil and gas exploration despite scientific consensus against new fossil fuel developments. For example, the fossil fuel industry using the Scottish Parliament’s cross-party group to lobby for favourable policies.
Public relations (PR) campaigns: Conducting PR campaigns that promote fossil fuels as essential to the economy while failing to communicate the more significant costs of runaway global heating compared to emission reduction.

Scotland Key Messages:

Energy security: Claiming that continued oil and gas exploration is crucial for Scotland’s energy security, despite evidence showing reliance on these commodities leads to greater volatility due to global markets and conflicts.
A ‘bridging’ fuel: Advocating for gas as a necessary ‘bridging’ fuel to sustainable energy, positioning it as a more immediate solution than renewables, despite many renewables being more cost-effective and deployable than fossil fuels.

Ireland

In Ireland, high carbon sectors like agriculture leverage cultural and lobbying power to divert concern from livestock emissions, delaying climate action and protecting their interests.

Ireland Key Actors:

Irish agri-food sector, lobbyists (e.g., Irish Farmers Association and Irish Business and Employers Confederation), and historically, high-profile climate contrarians.

Ireland Key Tactics:

Lobbying and political influence: Extensive dairy industry and fossil fuel lobbying and influence efforts to protect their interests and delay climate measures.
Media campaigns: Historically, media platforms were used to undermine climate efforts like RTE including climate sceptic Ray Bates in a prime-time policy debate.

Ireland Key Messages:

Economic costs: Claiming that climate policies threaten Ireland’s economy, ignoring the alternatives and the more significant financial costs from inaction.

Sweden

Despite Sweden’s high public consensus for more significant climate measures and amidst intensifying climate threats, climate obstructionists, increasingly intertwined with the far-right, are thwarting progress through undemocratic tactics.

Sweden Key Actors:

The Sweden Democrats, a far-right political party, corporate interests (e.g. Confederation of Swedish Enterprise (SAF)), think tanks (e.g. Timbro), and industrial sectors.

Sweden Key Tactics:

Disregarding urgency: Neoliberal think tanks and business organisations have continually downplayed the urgency of addressing the climate crisis, delimiting the range of actions possible for policymakers and legislators.
Bolstering a far-right media network: Obstructionists use alternative media platforms like SwebbTV to spread disinformation about climate science, including cherry-picking data.

Sweden Key Messages:

Populist protectionism: Conservative and corporate anti-regulation rhetoric have aligned with far-right populism, arguing that climate action is driven by a political and societal elite and that climate policy disfavours domestic industry and the average person.
Nostalgic appeals: Obstructionists, particularly within far-right movements, frame climate action as a threat to traditional values and national identity, invoking nostalgia for bygone eras to resist change.

Germany

Germany’s ambition for a cleaner future is under siege by a climate obstructionist network, skillfully delaying decarbonisation efforts. Unrestrained, it threatens to compromise a safer and more prosperous future and diminish Germany’s position as a global Greentech leader.

Germany Key Actors:

Fossil fuel producers (e.g. RWE, Vattenfall), industrial corporations (e.g. Aurubis AG), business associations (e.g. Association of the German Automotive Industry), and think tanks (e.g. EIKE).

Germany Key Tactics:

Media campaigns and greenwashing: Obstructionists deploy media campaigns to spread misinformation about the costs and effectiveness of renewable energy policies, often supported by industry-funded research.
Right-wing extremist mobilisation: Right-wing extremist organisations target climate protection efforts as part of their broader ideological agenda, organising counter-demonstrations and promoting violence against climate activists.

Germany Key Messages:

Lowering ambitions on climate targets: Downplaying the urgency of climate action by lowering the bar for emissions reductions needed, referencing the 2°C target instead of the legally binding 1.5°C Paris Agreement target.
Criticism of climate regulatory approaches: New Social Market Economy (INSM) think tank misleadingly presents regulatory measures like the Renewable Energy Sources Act (RESA) as an obstacle to climate protection.

Netherlands

In the Netherlands, climate obstructionists linked to fossil fuels use doubt and delay tactics while emphasising corporate responsibility and questioning climate science.

Netherlands Key Actors:

Climate denialists with former connections to the fossil fuel industry (e.g. Frits Böttcher and Guus Berkhout), Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy (a government body that has consistently opposed stricter climate regulations), employer’s organisations (VNO-NCW), lobby groups (ABDUP, PHAUSD), Shell.

Netherlands Key Tactics:

Denial and doubt: Böttcher and organisations like the Climate Intelligence Foundation promote doubt about climate science and discredit climate policies for example by cherry-picking data that supports their scepticism.
Delay and technological solutionism: Corporations shift the narrative from denial to delay, emphasising consumer responsibility and silver-bullet solutionism. Shell’s activities in education and public relations exemplify this approach.
Gradual transition as a delay tactic: Advocating for gradual changes to protect historically strong economic sectors (domestic and imperial oil sectors) while neglecting transformative measures that would significantly cut emissions and improve livelihoods.

Netherlands Key Messages:

Corporate responsibility: Framing corporations as proactive and part of the solution, often through greenwashing tactics, to maintain a socially acceptable image.
Casting doubt on scientific consensus: Questioning the impact of human activity on climate change, exaggerating the benefits of CO2, or offering alternative explanations.

Poland

Poland’s significant potential to benefit from becoming a key player in the global green economy is thwarted by a network of powerful, fossil-fuelled climate obstructionists.

Poland Key Actors:

Governmental institutions (Ministry of Climate and the Environment, the Ministry of State Assets), state-owned energy companies (e.g. Orlen and PGG), political figures (e.g. Janusz Kowalski), think tanks and media.

Poland Key Tactics:

Technological solutionism: Emphasis on technologies such as carbon capture (expensive, energy-intensive and unproven at scale) as primary solutions.
Manipulation of nationalistic and security discourses: Framing renewable energy as ‘foreign’ and emphasising energy sovereignty to justify reliance on fossil fuels.
Control over the pace of transition: Advocating for a slower transition to ‘match national capacities and resources’, aligning with state-owned enterprises’ interests.

Poland Key Messages:

Denial and delay: Doubting the urgency of climate action, with claims that Poland’s impact is minimal and arguing for extended timelines well beyond 2050.
Just transition as a delay tactic: Advocating for gradual changes to protect jobs under the guise of a just transition while neglecting transformative measures that would significantly cut emissions and improve livelihoods.

Russia

In Russia, a network of climate obstructionists are using tactics to downplay climate urgency. These include for example leveraging media control and geopolitical narratives.

Russia Key Actors:

A minority of scientists (with ideological reasons for denialism), government and political leaders, state-controlled media, and industry (particularly Gazprom, Rosneft).

Russia Key Tactics:

Controlled media ecosystem: The media frequently minimises the urgency of addressing climate change or outright dismisses it, aligning with government interests tied to the country’s dependency on fossil fuels.
Fossil fuel regulatory capture: The fossil fuel industry’s influence over governmental policies ensures that climate policies are diluted or postponed.

Russia Key Messages:

‘Climate policy as Western dominance’: Framing international climate agreements as tools of Western hegemony that threaten Russian sovereignty.
‘Russia as an ecological donor’: Overstating its global ecological impact due to its vast forests, arguing that it has already contributed significantly to carbon absorption.

Czech Republic

In the Czech Republic, political figures, parties, and think tanks fuel climate disinformation, employing media and other tactics to shape public perception and maintain the status quo.

Czech Republic Key Actors:

Key actors: Mainstream politicians, political parties (e.g. Civic Democratic Party (ODS), ANO 2011 Party), think tanks (e.g. Václav Klaus Institute), and media.

Czech Republic Key Tactics:

Denial and doubt: Through political discourse and think tank publications that question the legitimacy and science of climate change.
Media campaigns: Addressing and framing climate change in ways that align with business and political interests rather than scientific consensus.

Czech Republic Key Messages:

‘Climate change as an ideology’: Portraying climate action as akin to political or religious beliefs, recasting it from a scientific imperative to a debatable ideology.
Misrepresenting economic risks: Claiming that climate policies threaten CR’s economy, ignoring the more significant financial costs to the public that result from slow progress on climate action and the economic benefits.

Italy

Dominated by fossil fuel companies, with Eni at the forefront, alongside think tanks, media outlets, politicians, political parties, financial institutions, and banks, a network employs a range of tactics to thwart critical climate progress in Italy.

Italy Key Actors:

Fossil fuel companies and industry groups (e.g. Eni, Snam, Confindustria), politicians and political parties (particularly right-wing, e.g. Brothers of Italy), think tanks (e.g. Istituto Bruno Leoni), individual climate deniers, media, financial institutions (Banks like Unicredit and Intesa Sanpaolo).

Italy Key Tactics:

Lobbying and political influence: Fossil fuel companies lobby intensively to shape government and EU policies favouring oil and gas.
Misleading advertising and greenwashing: Misleading advertising, greenwashing and sponsorships: Deploying misleading ads that claim company fossil fuel products are “green” or “eco-friendly,” and sponsoring intra- and international events, initiatives and projects to maintain a social licence.

Italy Key Messages:

Denial and delay in the political and media “echo chamber”: Politicians are minimising the urgency to act on climate by spreading disinformation, and reporters often promote these obstructionist messages and fail to investigate the underlying causes and responsible actors of climate change.
Promoting gas as a ‘clean’ energy: Gas is frequently praised as a clean alternative to other fossil fuels, a ‘transition fuel’ that can help decarbonisation despite its significant greenhouse gas emissions.

Spain

The fossil fuel sector and its network of climate obstructionists have strategically blocked Spain’s progress towards decarbonisation, particularly in expanding renewable energy use. Should this coalition remain unchecked, Spain will continue to miss the boat on opportunities for green economic growth, face escalating energy bills, and confront an increasingly uncertain future.

Spain Key Actors:

Politicians (e.g. Conservative PP, Vox), the energy sector (e.g. AELEC, the Nuclear Forum, Sedigás, Carbunión), big agriculture (e.g. Interporc and ANICE), think tanks (e.g. FAES and the Juan de Mariana Institute), and the media.

Spain Key Tactics:

Lobbying and political influence: A combination of direct (engaging with policymakers), external (hiring external PR firms), and coalition lobbying (companies forming alliances) to influence legislation.
Legal action: Using a combination of preventative (using the threat of legal action) and reactive litigation (industries suing to block implementation) to prevent climate-friendly policies. The Big Ag industry primarily uses this.

Spain Key Messages:

Cultural and nationalist appeals: Especially in the context of animal agriculture, obstructionists argue that meat consumption is part of Spain’s cultural heritage, framing attempts to reduce it as attacks on Spanish traditions and lifestyle.
Wait for ‘perfect solutions’: The message is often to delay action until ‘perfect solutions’ are available, which avoids immediate action while seeming reasonable.

EU