Delay is the new denial
Climate denial has somewhat fallen out of fashion, but another trend has taken the world by storm. Instead of pretending climate change is not real, many have resorted to arguing that we cannot be too brash, that recycling will curb emissions in a significant way, or that we must trust the power of innovative solutions to produce clean energy [1]. These are examples of climate delay discourses that focus on the impact that individual actions or ineffective technologies can have. To an extent, these discourses make the climate crisis seem less pressing [2].
It is not just world leaders who partake in discourses of climate denial. NGOs, corporations, and citizens also rely on these discourses, either with the intent of purposefully delaying climate action, or unaware of the detrimental impact that such discourses may have on broader policy. Identifying and countering these narratives is paramount to mobilizing action on climate change [3].
Reduce your footprint, trust technology, surrender.
Researchers have identified four main types of climate delay discourse, each serving a distinct function: redirecting responsibility, pushing non-transformative solutions, emphasizing the downsides (of taking action), and surrendering [2]. The use of these discourses often leads to a sense that taking action for climate change is equivalent to attempting the impossible [2].
Redirecting responsibility involves assigning the responsibility for mitigating the effects of the climate crisis elsewhere. Individualistic solutions would fall into this category, such as the calculation of personal carbon footprints. In fact, the concept of an individual carbon footprint was coined by British Petroleum (BP) to promote the idea that one’s individual actions were the true culprit of the climate crisis (and not the result of the extraction of fossil fuels) [4]. By locating blame at the level of the consumer, this narrative downplays the major role of fossil fuel actors in driving systemic change.
Secondly, pushing non-transformative solutions promotes ineffective solutions that distract from the larger, more systemic changes that need to be made to tackle the climate crisis. Placing excessive trust in technological fixes such as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCUS), whose potential has not been fully realised, is an example of this. As Marcos expresses, these technologies do not address the structural changes needed to change the fossil fuel economy that has led to the climate crisis [5].
Thirdly, emphasizing the downside of taking action implies that the downsides will impact society more negatively than the consequences of inaction [2]. Uses of this discourse are incredibly common and effective, as they mobilize concern for other aspects of well-being, like economic prosperity, employment or personal freedoms such as flying somewhere on holiday [2]. In March of 2025, the U.S. Energy Secretary stated that the “[Biden administration] was focused myopically on climate change, with people as simply collateral damage” [6]. While we may agree that climate action must take people into account, his statements went hand in hand with promising a “180 pivot” in climate policy [6]. These concerns lead to a highly conservative approach to policymaking: policy perfectionism [2].
Ultimately, narratives that emphasize the downsides of implementing climate policy quickly become narratives of delay; the advocate deflects attention from the consequences of the climate crisis, while simultaneously ignoring the potential upsides of implementing inclusive, social policies [2].
Lastly, surrender narratives are fatalistic arguments that convince us there is nothing we can do. By overemphasising the challenges of tackling climate change, one is made to feel that change is simply not possible [2]. Caving to the conclusion that the 1.5º Paris Agreement target is no longer feasible, the European Union has rolled back their environmental policies, from deforestation to pollution targets, under the guise of “lightening the regulatory load” on people and businesses [7,8]. However, mitigation efforts are not futile and, in fact, surrendering undermines the development of effective solutions and the importance of building climate engagement [2].
From people to policy
Actors that aim to counter climate action use discourses of delay in strategic ways to stall measures and policies aimed at reducing emissions [9]. Corporations often have both the incentive and the means to do so, employing marketing tactics that can shape public opinion. This impact on public opinion can, in turn, negatively influence the support for strong climate policy.
Ultimately, discourses of delay are a thin veil for justifying inaction. It’s important that we, as individuals, do not reproduce these discourses in our day-to-day.
