Responsibility towards climate-change denial and other forms of obstruction
Diana Latova, UAM
2025
We have all heard or read about people who deny climate change, but not everyone is aware of the many forms this denial can take. We tend to homogenize it, often reducing it to the discourse of individuals who appear to live in some sort of parallel world, seemingly disconnected from scientific evidence and even from common sense. As a result, such individuals are frequently perceived as “stupid”, “ignorant” or “insane”. However, if we examine the various ways in which denial—or obstruction, as I will argue —can manifest, we may come to realize that a large portion of the population, including ourselves, may have internalized ideas that align with certain aspects of denialist discourse.
Denial, like many narratives, has undergone different phases. It is important to clarify that, although we can in some sense speak of an “evolution” of climate denial, these nonidentical forms have overlapped over time. Broadly speaking, the concept of “denial” has come to encompass not only the outright rejection of climate change, its anthropogenic origin, or the severity of its consequences, but also attitudes that question or resist the need for profound transformations in our social, political, and legal systems to address the eco-social crisis. This latter form of discourse is often referred to as “climate obstruction”. However, it has been argued that all forms of denial are, indeed, forms of obstruction, as they hinder both action and collective decision-making aimed at effectively confronting the crisis. For further discussion on this, see the work of our colleague Teresa Moreno Olmeda, including her entry in the Speak4Nature dictionary.
I would like to emphasize that it is a mistake to conceive denial as a way of thinking entirely detached from reality. Assuming it is limited to extreme or shocking ideas can foster a false perception—namely, that those who endorse such views are simply “crazy”, while the rest of us are sufficiently informed about the eco-social crisis and are therefore already doing what is necessary to address it.
I haven’t mentioned the origins or factors that contribute to the spread of denialist or obstructionist ideas. These narratives are often driven by diverse interests that serve to benefit powerful individuals or groups, whether politically or economically. One key reason that explains why these ideas circulate and gain traction in our societies is that, in the absence of accessible and trustworthy information, misinformation fills the void. That’s why it is essential to support, strengthen and expand the information campaigns and ecological literacy initiatives, which are already being carried out by various actors and organizations (e.g., “Guía para la alfabetización ecosocial”).
But obstruction cannot be tackled through information alone. Given the range and diversity of factors and actors involved in shaping and spreading these discourses, it is essential that each member of society takes responsibility. By assuming this responsibility, individuals can guide their actions in ways that block—or at least slow down—the dissemination of obstructionist narratives. The problem is not that information about the crisis is lacking, but rather that something seems to be in how that knowledge is being communicated.
Let’s leave aside, for a moment, those who actively produce ignorance. If each of them has been pursuing their own particular interests at the expense of eco-social justice and life on Earth itself, we can hardly expect them to change course based on any sense of responsibility other than legal or financial. To ground what was said in the previous paragraph, I would like to mention some key actors that play a central role in the dynamics of generation and reproduction of information and misinformation surrounding the eco-social crisis.
First, as other colleagues have argued—for example, in the article by Carina Cortassa referenced below—, scientists should devote greater attention to their role as communicators of knowledge, rather than focusing exclusively on the production of science itself. While this is influenced by the broader system in which they operate, I believe that they should assume responsibility—as many already do—to ensure, to the extent possible, that their knowledge reaches, or at least remains accessible to, the wider public. At the same time, we must not overlook the crucial role of the media in the effective transmission of information. Their responsibility extends beyond merely avoiding the spread of fake news, disinformation and misinformation; they should actively contribute to public understanding of an issue as urgent—and indeed as vital—as the ecological crisis. The same holds true for politicians, who must place eco-social justice at the heart of their public agendas, and for legal professionals, who carry the significant responsibility of designing and implementing regulations that are aligned with scientific evidence.
I’d like to elaborate further on environmental movements. These social movements face not only the challenges and responsibilities inherent to their role as members of society-much like media professionals and scientist do within their respective fields, many of whom are also part of these movements-but they must also confront the significant obstacle of getting their message across under various forms of repression, which, regrettably, appear to be on the rise in many regions. In this context, I would like to highlight a specific form of repression: the criminalization of ecological movements. This strategy is particularly effective due to what we might call its “subtlety—it does not directly attack the message itself but rather aims to undermine the credibility of those who voice it.
The criminalization of protest seeks to foster a shared image that social movements are, indiscriminately, dangerous groups of criminals operating outside the law (I had the opportunity to speak about this in the Speak4Nature First Network School). There are various mechanisms used to convey this message to society, such as the imposition of unjustified fines, the inclusion of these movements on lists of criminal or terrorist organizations, or the infiltration of police and other state security forces–as if they were genuine criminal networks. The effectiveness of these portrayals largely depends on how they are represented in the media and the type of messages that circulate about them on social media.
Through these tactics, the criminalization of protest represents activists as untrustworthy individuals, leading at least part of the public to believe that their demands are not worth listening to. Moreover, the perception that those involved in such movements are vandals, criminals, or even terrorists, causes their message to be overshadowed by the fear provoked by this false threat.
Ph. Trevis Simon
What is particularly concerning about this—among other serious consequences of repression—is that environmental movements can act as channels for disseminating information about the ecological crisis. However, this role can be obstructed or severely undermined through their criminalization. As a result, key issues that these movements aim to raise awareness about may be overlooked in our collective decisions.
And it is this last issue that I consider most relevant. The lack of information in the collective imagination regarding the eco-social crisis is less about its causes and consequences, and more about its solutions. If we believe that we can address this crisis without rapid and profound changes to our systems, we are, unknowingly, aligning ourselves with obstructionist discourses. In doing so, we contribute to their objective: hindering effective collective decision-making and delaying the necessary actions to confront the crisis. In the fight against the eco-social crisis, collective action is the only way to confront it.
If we consider that ensuring most of the population has accurate and necessary information is crucial both for encouraging changes in individual behaviour and for enabling this decision-making, we must pay close attention to how knowledge about the crisis is effectively communicated. Therefore, we should take responsibility not only for the information we have, but for also for the information we share, in the various roles we may assume as both recipients and transmitters of knowledge. Contributing to the exchange of information in a critical manner is perhaps another aspect of the ecological responsibility we can all assume—one way or another—, even as part of our duties of ecological citizenship.
Further readings and resources:
Cortassa, C. (2019). Producir conocimientos, compartir conocimientos. «Las comunidades científicas frente a los desafíos de la Comunicación de las Ciencias», Ciencia e Investigación, Vol. 69 (Issue 2), pp. 7-14.
Medina Ferreras, M. L., (2018). «La deriva punitiva del estado español: la criminalización de la protesta», Oxímora revista internacional de ética y política, Nº12, pp. 224-241, https://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/oximora/article/view/20646
Selmini, R. and Di Ronco, A. (2023). «The Criminalization of Dissent and Protest», Crime and Justice, Vol. 52, pp. 197-231, https://hdl.handle.net/11585/958859
