Examples of misleading climate discourses

The climate debate is often messy, filled with a lot of well-intentioned but misguided ideas, inadequate solutions and outright misleading arguments. 

From deliberate misinformation campaigns to oversimplified narratives, these messages can confuse or mislead the public, obscure the urgency of the crisis and delay meaningful action. 

In this activity, you’ll investigate some of the hot topics in climate debate and confront some common misleading or ‘delay’ discourses. By recognising these problematic narratives, you can be better prepared to expose and address them in conversations and debates.
 
In this step, you’ll read a fictitious opinion piece on climate policy and action. The piece presents some of the most common and often problematic ways in which these issues are discussed in the media and in public debate.  

Read the opinion piece 

Carefully read the opinion piece below. It will serve as a central resource for several of the following steps. You’ll return to it throughout the week, applying your learning to analyse and counter some of the misleading claims or arguments it presents. We therefore recommend that you download it from the Downloads section below for ease of reference.

The content of the piece may seem somewhat reasonable at first glance, so it’s essential to read it with a critical eye, identifying the issues and misconceptions embedded within it. Some points may resonate with perspectives you’ve encountered before, while other points will feel contradictory to what you’ve learned so far.

Opinion piece: Don’t let climate action be more disruptive than climate change itself 

Paragraph 1

Yes, the climate is changing, and yes, human activity is a primary driver. We can all agree on that. But we should be careful not to let the cure be worse than the disease: our fear of climate change shouldn’t lead us to solutions that might be far more disruptive than a changing climate could ever be. No one wants more rain (or was it less rain?) or more storms, but let’s not wreak havoc on our economies over something that may or may not become a problem, somewhere, at some point in the future. After all, we still have time to mitigate and adapt.

Paragraph 2

And let’s not underestimate our capacity to adapt to changes in the weather, especially with the help of new technologies and improved warning systems. Sure, it may get hotter, but if we equip buildings with state-of-the-art air conditioning, it won’t be that bad. Underestimating the power of technological progress would be a mistake. Just think: in 1990, who would have thought that everyone would be carrying around a little device in their pockets -a “smartphone”- that enables us to find information on almost anything, anywhere, anytime? Technology has already transformed our lives multiple times over, and it’s hard to imagine what miracles we’ll come up with in the next 30 years. I have no doubt new inventions will make us capable of handling situations that may now look like challenges.

Paragraph 3

In fact, one such innovation already exists: “carbon capture and storage.” This technology allows us to keep burning fossil fuels while capturing the emissions they produce and putting them back in the ground. So, we don’t necessarily need to stop using fossil fuels; we just need to use new technology to make them green. Imagine the hassle this could save us if we just added this new technology to all our existing coal and gas power plants instead of covering our beautiful countryside in thousands of solar panels or wind turbines, all of which would have to be built from scratch.

Paragraph 4

Even without carbon capture and storage, fossil fuel production in our country is cleaner than almost anywhere else. If we’re serious about reducing pollution, we should actually produce more fossil fuels here and reduce production in places where it’s much dirtier and emissions are much higher. In the grand scheme of things, our country emits very little -less than 1% of global emissions- while China, for instance, generates almost a third of the world’s emissions. If we are genuinely committed to addressing climate change, surely, we should focus on the biggest emitters!

Paragraph 5

In fact, in our country, we’re already doing more than our part. While emissions in China keep rising, we’ve been reducing our emissions for over a decade, and we’ve managed to do this while growing our economy. We’ve effectively proven that economic growth can be green, thanks to technological advancements. It’s not about consuming less; it’s about using the right technology.

Paragraph 6

While some of the older technology we use now might harm the climate, if we switch to the right alternatives (with a little help from our friend technological progress), we can continue living pretty much as we are now without causing damage. Electric cars and planes are examples of this approach: they allow us to drive and fly without impacting the environment negatively. And in the long run, electric cars might even help people save money. That’s how we tackle the climate issue- not by telling hardworking families they can’t take well-deserved holidays.

Paragraph 7

As a matter of fact, the most important thing governments can do is support the development of new technologies. By advancing the right technologies, we allow people to make green choices whenever they buy something. This is how we solve the problem: by creating appealing green alternatives that consumers want. With attractive options, people can make green choices daily- in supermarkets, at the petrol station, and when they shop online. But it has to be their choice. No one wants to live in a society dominated by a big green state dictating every purchase. People need the freedom to choose sustainable options that fit their lives.

Paragraph 8

And let’s remember that people can only choose what they can afford. It sounds great to think we could all install top-quality insulation in our homes, but who’s going to pay for that? The taxpayers? Families who are already struggling to make ends meet? These improvements cost a fortune, and most people simply can’t afford them. The government can’t foot the bill either because, unfortunately, there’s no magic money tree. We can only do what we can realistically afford. 

Paragraph 9

We must be realistic, reasonable, and responsible. We can’t rush into things. We can’t disrupt entire sectors of the economy overnight. We can’t simply halt all fossil fuel production, as some would suggest. Think about what would happen to the people working in those industries- they’d lose their jobs, their livelihoods! That wouldn’t be fair. We cannot solve one problem by creating another.

Paragraph 10

So, I’m not saying we should ignore the climate issue or not take any action. What I’m saying is that we should avoid actions that are more damaging than the problem we’re trying to solve. 

Have your say 

Now that you’ve read through the piece, consider your responses to the following questions: 

• How does this opinion piece make you feel? 
• What issues do you notice in this piece? 
• Are there specific arguments that stand out as particularly misleading? 

Think about the statements that might seem reasonable at first but could actually delay or derail meaningful and just climate action.  

Share and discuss your responses with other learners in the Comments section. As you read other learners’ responses, consider the different ways you might counter or question these claims in real-world conversations.