Introduction

Ninety-seven percent of scientists believe that climate change is happening and that it’s caused by human activities. The majority of scientific organizations and governments around the world agree. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international organization that assesses the science of climate change, says that “Scientific evidence for the warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”¹

Well, that settles that debate, right? Not so fast. While there’s a powerful scientific consensus that greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels are warming our planet, to truly understand the problem of climate change, we must look beyond the science. That’s because climate change as we know it is as much a political, social, and economic problem as it is a problem of science. Climate change has profound impacts on human systems, and people are affected by and view these impacts in different ways. There is no simple definition for climate change. Yes, the phrase describes the measurable, observed effects on physical systems, but it also affects human systems and affects them in ways that are complex, debatable, and highly individual.

When viewed through the lens of human systems—and thinking about the wide range of values, beliefs, and attitudes that exist worldwide—maybe it’s not all that surprising that there’s disagreement about climate change. But this disagreement has serious consequences for everyone when it slows real progress on finding solutions for climate change. Let’s look at how political, economic, and social dynamics influence disagreement on climate change so we can better understand how to find common ground.

The political problem

Despite the abundance of scientific evidence, there are small but vocal groups who remain unconvinced that climate change is real—or at least unconvinced that it’s something we need to act on fast. These groups often have significant political power and influence, making it seem like there’s more legitimate support to debate the science behind climate change than there actually is. As a result, climate change has become a very partisan issue. That means that some people adopt positions solely because they are the beliefs of the political party they associate with, whether or not they are backed by evidence. Another political divide is reflected on the international level. Countries often find it hard to act together, especially when it means taking on new costs. Some countries prioritize domestic interests over international ones. Others take the position that since some countries are much more responsible for carbon emissions leading to climate change than others, not all countries should have the same responsibility to fix the problem. No country wants to be the first to act unless it’s clear that everyone else will, too. What’s more, many international climate agreements are voluntary, meaning there are no consequences for not meeting goals.

The economic problem

Solving the problem of climate change will be expensive. Trillions of dollars every year will be needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the impacts of a warming world. Not solving the problem of climate change will also be expensive. Economies will shrink, health problems will increase, and extreme weather will damage infrastructure. Some people don’t think it’s worth spending huge amounts of money right now to try to stop climate change and think we should instead invest in health care or education, which will have a bigger, immediate impact on human lives. Others believe that we should be spending money right now to combat climate change but disagree on where to invest our limited resources. Which technologies should we invest in? Is everyone equally responsible for footing the bill of climate change? These are tough questions that don’t have simple answers. There are also businesses and sectors for which a switch from fossil fuels means a huge loss of revenue. Some organizations work to influence public opinion and policy to spread messages of doubt about climate change. There are also individuals and communities that are dependent on current fossil-fuel-based systems for their livelihoods—coal mining communities and power-plant workers are two examples. It’s understandable that these groups are skeptical of changes that seem to threaten their way of life.

The social problem

To understand the social side of climate change, let’s start by looking at how people think. Many people believe that climate change is happening, but they don’t think it’s a big problem. One reason is that people don’t like to hear bad news. We try to protect ourselves from problems by denying them or pretending they aren’t that bad—by minimizing the problems. Plus, people are good at identifying immediate threats. Run into a bear while you’re hiking, and it’ll get all your attention. Something that might happen in a decade or more just doesn’t command the same attention, even if you really need to start acting now to avoid the big problems you’ll be facing down the road.

When individuals get together, they share ideas and ways of acting. This is what we refer to as culture. The culture of our social systems sometimes makes it easy to ignore evidence and hard to act on issues like climate change. Some studies of Americans show that they tend to distrust experts such as scientists and the media.² This hasn’t always been the case. Before the 1960s, Americans had more trust in their leaders, thinkers, and institutions. These levels of trust have eroded over time and people are now more wary of messages coming from these groups.

Misinformation also plays a role in the disagreement surrounding climate change. Sometimes, this can take the form of flat-out denial from politicians or leaders. Or, organizations might misrepresent information to underplay the seriousness of climate change or exaggerate certain risks. Another example of misinformation is greenwashing, which is the term used to describe what happens when a company falsely claims its products or services to be more sustainable than they actually are. Still, other times, misinformation—information not based on facts—is spread by individuals or groups via social media, sometimes accidentally, sometimes on purpose. Misinformation has made it difficult for people to know what to believe on the internet, and it can be a barrier to meaningful climate action.

Bringing it together

There are lots of understandable reasons why disagreement happens when it comes to climate change. However, we see that individuals and groups start to change their opinions as they begin to experience its impact firsthand. The public also becomes more supportive of an action when it’s clear that the economic opportunities outweigh the costs. Most importantly, people trust messages from their local communities and families. That’s why we need to make climate action a “big tent”—open to everyone from every community—if we are going to find consensus, we need to take action against climate change.

1 NASA. “How Do We Know Climate Change is Real?” https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
2 Giancarlo Pasquini, Alison Spencer, Alec Tyson, and Cary Funk. “Why Some Americans Do Not See Urgency in Climate Change.” Aug. 9, 2023. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/08/09/why-some-americans-do-not-see-urgency-on-climate-change/