The Wicked Problem of Climate Change Goes Beyond Denial
Why even climate believers need a reality check
Climate change is real but deniable. It’s attributable to human actions but a natural phenomenon. It costs everyone, yet nobody wants to pay to do anything about it. It is inevitable, yet we think it's fixable.
It perfectly fits the "wicked problems" concept, first introduced by design theorists Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber in 1973 to describe particularly complex social and policy challenges. Wicked problems are distinguished by no clear definition, no stopping rule, solutions that are not true or false but better or worse, no immediate or ultimate test, no opportunity for trial and error, and no definitive set of solutions.
In short, problems that are hard to define, measure, test or solve. And when they are tackled there is no clear point at which the problem is ‘solved’.
Climate change is wicked.
In this edition of Mindful Sceptic, we turn mindful scepticism towards the climate crisis, not to deny its existence but to question the conventional approach to solving it.
A mindful sceptic looks beyond the typical climate change narrative, encouraging a broader, more nuanced understanding of our challenges. It's a perfect example of how mindful scepticism can lead to new insights and potentially more effective solutions.
As you read, I invite you to engage with the ideas presented, challenge your assumptions, and consider how this perspective might reshape the approach to climate action. After all, through this process of thoughtful inquiry, a mindful sceptic can contribute to a more resilient and sustainable future.
Don’t give climate change denial any air
Suppose a book is written about climate change. The author claims that it is false assumption; there is no climate change.
The book contains a handful of truths woven through contrary rhetoric. Knowledgeable reviewers said there was ‘cherry-picking', 'misleading statements', and 'outright falsehoods,' but that doesn't matter.
After clever marketing, the book is one of the top ten nonfiction titles on Amazon's best-seller list for environmental science. It sounds like a successful book, even if it has an odd mistake or two.
There is no such thing as bad publicity.
Brendan Bien.
Of course, all publicity is good publicity, and in the modern age, all you need to do is put yourself out there, and some success can be yours. The quality of information seems to be irrelevant. How sensational it is and how good you are at promotion seems to determine whether or not you make it to the bestseller list.
When the issue is as scary as climate change with its genuine risks to life, livelihoods and well-being, there is no shortage of takers if your message is that there is no risk. Denial can be comforting.
Denial readily finds traction among the disadvantaged and the scared which means that both sides of politics can provide adherents. Those without power cannot cope with another challenge, and those with power and wealth to lose prefer dissonance to the admission of risk to their privilege.
Meanwhile, believers that the Earth is warming and the weather is becoming more extreme are basking in the steadily accumulating evidence. The greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are rising, and the temperature records for the land and the ocean are tracking them.
Who cares if it's an untestable correlation? Just look at the heat waves, the storms, the droughts, and the floods. Good god, just see the fires.
The facts are in, and it's time to do something about the climate change problem. All our efforts should be towards finding solutions rather than giving air to the handful of deniers.
All those who denied the reality or danger of the climate emergency should be ignored.
Damian Carrington.
This is the environmental editor of the Guardian, who goes on to talk about deniers falling into four different categories
the shield
the grifter
the egomaniac
the ideological fool
The shield is the one paid by vested interests to confuse the matter about the science or the economics of climate action. This kind of denier interferes in the situation to allow polluters to lobby against measures that cut their profits.
Carrington says the grifters are a sadder case than the shields. Grifters found themselves earning a living by writing contrarian articles for right-wing media outlets. Imagine having to do that every day of your life, writing material that you know to be a lie, and yet it's the only way you have found to pay the mortgage.
We know many scientists who find themselves in a similar position. It can be hard to tell the truth when your employer doesn’t want to hear it. A recent example in Australia where a government department blocked the publication of research by independent scientists on threatened species management that the same department had funded.
Ego maniacs are also rather tragic. They are frustrated and disappointed people whose careers have stalled and who can't understand why. Surely, the world should give full reverence to their brilliance.
I must say I can concur with the notion of being left behind in a career. My own choice in this case, but if you perceive yourself to be better than falling by the wayside, then any train is worth hopping onto.
Carrington's fourth denier is the ideological fool. Intelligent but utterly blinded by an inane, no-limits pursuit of the free market. These deniers claim that any consolidated effort to fix the climate problem is communism in disguise. These are neoliberals incarnate and I have to say that there are more of them than you think. For example, I identify as a progressive lefty but I wallow in the trappings of the market.
Climate change is a reality. Denial is foolishness. I am less comfortable with what is being done about the current warming event
Concerted climate change denial
In President Trump, these denial types had the perfect channel. As president in an announcement from the White House Rose Garden on June 1, 2017, Trump said, "In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect the United States and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord," adding "The bottom line is that the Paris accord is very unfair at the highest level to the United States."He went on to put coal up as a job creator. Playing to his base and doubling down as he always does to benefit himself.
Every day that we continue to deny, continue to mess around and waste energy chasing down the deniers to give them notoriety is another day that we're not figuring out how to resolve the challenge.
Damian Carrington
And so it goes.
Denial and chastisement, falsehoods on equal footing with the truth. The constant chatter makes it hard for an average person to make an informed choice about their actions.
Instead of an adult conversation, there is more denial and louder demands for climate action. It is a constant tug of war using time, energy and whatever goodwill people have left. This happens even when the proportion of deniers has declined.
Then a wierd thing happened. Climate change denial fell away and became a debate about what to do about such a serious problem.
While there are some regional and partisan differences, most people in both the US and Europe recognise climate change as a serious issue, even though the degree of concern and the perceived urgency of action varies.
In 2023 the Pew Research Center reported that 37% of Americans say addressing climate change should be a top priority for the president and Congress, and another 34% say it should be an important but lower priority.
In Europe, climate change denial is considered a marginal phenomenon, with a majority of Europeans acknowledging the reality of climate change. However, there is uncertainty concerning its anthropogenic cause, and the level of denial and uncertainty varies between countries and regions within countries. For instance, Lithuania had the highest level of climate denial, with about 26% of respondents denying the reality of anthropogenic climate change, while other countries had much lower levels of denial. The European Commission's Eurobarometer survey indicates that 93% of EU citizens see climate change as a serious problem, and there is strong support for action to tackle the climate crisis.
All those who denied the reality or danger of the climate emergency were ignored, more or less. Dissonance gave way to the assumption that if we broke it then surely we can fix it. All that has to happen is action.
Climate change is a reality. Denial is foolishness.
I am less comfortable with what is being done about the current warming event. Specifically the assumption that actions to reduce emission will somehow turn it all around and the climate will stop changing and return to the benign conditions of some past date—perhaps 1990.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is sensible, not least as a precaution. All the various emission reduction options for energy, agriculture, and land use need to be implemented, along with whatever sequestration we can effect.
The transition to alternative fuels is smart on many levels and one that would happen soon enough anyway, given peak oil, and eventually peak coal and peak gas, are not far away at our current use rates. Making agriculture more emission-efficient is usually consistent with the broader requirement for sustainability, so I agree with that, too.
Only the mindful sceptic doesn’t stop at emissions.
The issue with climate action is that should we achieve zero-emission targets, we cannot just assume that the climate will be fine. It is foolish to believe that somehow all that accumulated energy will just dissipate away, and it will be like 1990 all over again, nice and stable and less extreme.
Given the jolt it's received over the last 200 years, it will take many generations for the climate to stabilize, if it will at all. Indeed, the hit may leave the climate on the canvas.
Given the scientific evidence, its sources, and Earth's climate history, a mindful sceptic is unlikely to deny climate change.
But there is more to it.
The Real Challenges of Climate Change
As a mindful sceptic, I offer no contention over the current climate warming event and that human actions are the cause. The combination of land clearing for agriculture and the consequences of fossil fuel use is a planet-sized change to greenhouse gas emissions and the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at levels and rates of change consistent with what we know from the Earth's history to deliver a warming event.
The exact way the climate is altered, and the consequences for humanity are still somewhat conjectural. Still, the evidence mounts yearly, especially with extreme events resulting from more energy being trapped in the atmosphere.
A mindful sceptic is likely to believe that emission reduction is essential not just because it will reduce the increase in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere but because it might also promote lower energy use before it is forced upon us.
Emission reduction and sequestration may or may not dampen the climate, but they are nowhere near enough to ensure future food security.
How do we continue to grow food and maintain environments and ecosystem services when the climate and weather patterns are changing? How do we keep landscapes resilient when we know that the climate will shift?
Regardless of our efforts to reduce emissions, some degree of climate change is already locked in and will continue to impact our world. By focusing on adaptation—actions and adjustments in natural or human systems that help reduce harm from actual or expected climate changes and their effects—we can develop strategies to thrive in these changing conditions rather than merely trying to prevent them.
The key actions are adaptive.
Adaptation to new weather and climate conditions for food production and ecosystem services is the solution to climate change. At the moment, it is not even in the frame.
Whilst there is a high risk that emission reduction will not deliver the climate stabilisation we seek, climate change adaptation is achievable. In fact, it is much easier to think through technological, behavioural, and social changes that will deliver adaptation to a changing climate than actions that will deliver a stable one.
For example, farmers might begin cultivating drought-resistant crop varieties that withstand longer dry spells. Agricultural calendars may shift, with planting and harvesting times adjusting to new seasonal patterns. We might see the widespread implementation of water-efficient irrigation systems to conserve this increasingly precious resource. Additionally, diversifying crop selections could help reduce the risks associated with climate-sensitive monocultures.
Ecosystem services—the benefits nature provides to humans—also require adaptive strategies such as restoring wetlands to act as natural flood barriers in coastal areas experiencing sea-level rise. Cities might invest in creating more green spaces to combat the urban heat island effect, which is expected to intensify with global warming. Forest management practices could evolve to reduce the risk of devastating wildfires in drought-prone regions. We may need to rewild a third of the planet.
Adaptation is often overlooked partly because of the political and ideological landscape surrounding the climate debate. Advocating for adaptation strategies implicitly acknowledges that significant climate change is occurring and will continue—a stance that contradicts the position of climate change deniers and the business-as-usual but with emission reduction politicians. As a result, adaptation is often sidelined in favour of debates about whether climate change is happening at all or policies focused solely on emission reduction.
Along with that shift away from denial has come calls for action and the target setting that goes with it. Climate policies tend to emphasise emission reduction targets instead of legislating for adaptation to the inevitable climate dynamic. Public discourse frequently revolves around the reality of climate change rather than how to cope with its effects. Funding often favours mitigation efforts, like renewable energy development, over adaptive measures, such as climate-resilient infrastructure. Even in sectors directly impacted by climate change, like agriculture, there's often more focus on reducing emissions than helping stakeholders adapt to new conditions.
This is a bigger mistake than letting the deniers hog the debate for decades.
We're missing out on crucial solutions to climate change challenges by neglecting adaptation strategies. A more balanced approach that acknowledges both the need for emission reduction and adaptation would be more effective in addressing the complex issues posed by climate change.
A mindful sceptic follows curiosty beyond the rhetoric and uses critical thinking to see adaptation as the opportunity and the focal point of climate action. Adaptation is also fertile ground for ideas, solutions, and opportunities.
Denialists might get a book into the top ten non-fiction titles on Amazon's best-seller list and obfuscate with the best of them. But what if it's not emissions? What if climate change is not the true challenge for human survival?
These questions are worth thinking critically about.
A mindful sceptic sees adaptation as the opportunity and the focal point of climate action. Adaptation is also fertile ground for ideas, solutions, and opportunities.
Climate change is wicked. When tackled, there is no clear point at which the problem is ‘solved’. In other words, we can’t fix it.
We should stop making it worse, even if that means making some precautionary assumptions. Ignore adaptation, though, and we all become one of the shield, the grifter, the egomaniac, or the ideological fool.
Key points
Climate change denial persists, fueled by misinformation and diverse motivations, categorizing deniers into shields, grifters, egomaniacs, and ideological fools.
Its beyond time to shift focus from debating deniers to implementing actionable climate measures, including emission reduction, alternative fuels, and sustainable agriculture.
Mindful sceptics extend their concerns beyond emissions, questioning assumptions about immediate climate stabilization post-zero emissions.
The need for proactive climate change adaptation is essential, acknowledging the lasting impact of past emissions and presenting opportunities for innovation.
A mindful sceptic challenges prevailing narratives and encourages critical contemplation of the genuine challenges for human survival in the face of climate change.
In the next issue…
Next week in Mindful Sceptic, we'll explore why some sharks don't reach puberty until they're 100 and what this tells us about our short-sighted approach to environmental challenges. From mayflies that live for minutes to trees that remember the Roman Empire, we'll discover how thinking in ecological time could transform our approach to sustainability. Get ready to question everything you thought you knew about nature's timetable.