Table 3 Types of response skepticism.
From: Climate delay discourses present in global mainstream television coverage of the IPCC’s 2021 report
Response skepticism in general questioning the need for strong regulatory policies or interventions |
The impracticality of taking (urgent) action (in general, without specifying any details) |
Questioning the economic costs of taking (urgent) action (in general) |
Action to tackle climate change is already costing job losses or will do so in the future |
Taking action would or could involve a lot of /too much personal sacrifice (e.g., reducing or not flying, not eating/reducing meat) |
Solutions will hit lower-income groups the hardest |
Solutions will outsource jobs, or hurt national competitiveness |
Solutions will give too much power to governments (to impose new regulations and taxes) |
Questioning the need to take action when other countries (e.g., China) are not doing enough (“whataboutism”) |
Enough is already being done |
Technology (including Carbon Capture and Storage) should be the main element of the solution (and not so much emphasis on moving away from fossil fuels) |
Preferring adaptation to inevitable impacts rather than mitigation |
Directed response skepticism, where a specific policy, often country-based, is seen as being insufficient in scope and scale to address the climate problem, or unrealistic due to political and other obstacles |
