Politicians Adopt 'Pragmatism' to Justify Climate Action Delays: New Study

The term 'pragmatism' is being increasingly used by politicians to defend minimal or gradual climate action. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch recently labeled her strategy to maximize oil and gas extraction from the North Sea as a 'common sense' energy policy. Such language positions pragmatic approaches as rational and mature, in contrast to what are portrayed as 'hysterical' or 'unrealistic' demands from climate campaigners. However, a new study suggests that this rhetoric is becoming a sophisticated form of climate delay, maintaining the status quo at the expense of the urgent, transformative changes needed to combat climate change.

Interviews with UK Members of Parliament revealed a consistent narrative: framing urgent climate action as 'extreme' while presenting incremental changes as pragmatic. Politicians argue that gradual transitions are necessary to maintain political and public support, suggesting that rapid shifts could lead to societal upheaval. Despite acknowledging the need for faster change, many MPs find themselves stuck between advocating for immediate action and adhering to political pragmatism. This duality allows them to appear supportive of climate initiatives while simultaneously resisting substantial policy shifts.

The discourse of pragmatism has found its way to the upper echelons of British politics. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair and current Conservative leader Rishi Sunak have both emphasized the need for 'pragmatic, proportionate, and realistic' climate action. This rhetoric often accompanies policy decisions that favor fossil fuel interests, such as new licenses for oil extraction and infrastructure projects that conflict with climate targets. Such language is designed to sound rational and scientific, but critics argue that it undermines the urgency highlighted by climate science.

The research indicates that politicians' preference for pragmatism is not necessarily in bad faith. Instead, it reflects an attempt to balance the complexities of climate politics with public sentiment. However, this strategy may underestimate the public's appetite for decisive climate leadership. As the government grapples with reconciling net-zero commitments with economic ambitions, the language of pragmatism risks becoming a tool for delay, potentially stalling necessary progress towards achieving climate targets.

In conclusion, while pragmatism in politics can be a valuable tool for achieving consensus, its application in climate policy risks perpetuating delay and inaction. The study underscores the importance of moving beyond rhetoric to embrace genuine, transformative change. As climate challenges intensify, the call for clear and decisive leadership grows louder, urging politicians to listen to scientific consensus and act with the urgency the situation demands.