In recent years, there has been a fundamental shift in the manifestations of climate denial. While outright denial of global warming is losing credibility, more sophisticated strategies are emerging, which acknowledge the need for solutions but question their urgency or feasibility. UNDP research distinguishes, for example, the so-called “soft denial”, where the impact of the climate crisis is acknowledged, but other problems (such as the economic crisis or military conflicts) are emphasized as an excuse to postpone measures. Another prominent phenomenon is "postponement of action" (delayism) – a narrative that does not deny climate change, but advocates a slower transition to clean technologies or the increasing use of fossil fuels.

• Delayism: Rather than denying the facts, some industry and political figures have tried to pretend that environmental goals are unrealistic. For example, Saudi Aramco CEO Amin Nasser has called ending oil production a “fantasy,” reinforcing the sense that a rapid transition to fossil-free sources is not possible. Similarly, ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods has blamed the public for the “unsustainable” transition to clean energy without increased costs. Such statements shift responsibility away from industry: if consumers “aren’t willing to pay,” the solution is out of reach, they say.
• Greenhushing (silence about commitments): Against the trend greenwashing – publicly emphasizing environmental goals – the opposite tactic has developed. Some corporations have avoided communicating their climate plans in recent years to avoid political or legal attacks. As the non-profit media outlet Grist points out, companies are “simply remaining silent” about sustainability initiatives (so-called greenhushing), especially in an atmosphere of resistance to ESG (environmental, social and governance). The consulting agency South Pole found that in 2023, about a quarter of large companies did not publicly present their progress in achieving climate goals precisely because of the threat of legal consequences and pressure from skeptics.
• Shifting blame to individuals: Another new narrative is to question collective responsibility and place the focus on individual choices. Instead of criticizing industry, it is emphasized that the solution to the climate crisis is mainly a matter of “consumer choice.” The aforementioned Exxon CEO said that people “don’t want to pay” for more expensive clean energy and that consumers must “pay the price” for emissions. Critics compare this approach to a situation where producers of hazardous substances blame the end consumer, thereby avoiding their own responsibilities. Such a shift of blame supports the narrative that “climate is a problem for each/everyone of us” and not systemic corporate emissions.
• Climate cynicism: The concept is also increasingly appearing in the discourse "climate cynicism". According to experts, it is no longer a matter of rejecting scientific facts, but of a skeptical attitude that any action is futile or corrupted by corruption. Studies note that some people stop questioning whether climate change is real; instead, they worry that solutions are futile or that their implementation will go wrong. This cynicism leads to apathy and passivity: people stop getting involved because they believe that “no one can save the situation yet” (a popular sentiment associated with the media).

Narrative Spreaders and Mechanisms of Influence

This “new denial” is being spread by a variety of actors, including politicians, industry leaders, the media and think tanks. Conservative think tanks (e.g. the US Heartland Institute) funded by oil companies are actively lobbying for the abolition of environmental regulations. A recent Guardian investigation revealed that Heartland (funded by ExxonMobil and those close to the Trump administration) has set up a European branch and is working with far-right MEPs from Austria, Poland and Hungary to circumvent climate legislation. Far-right politicians are thus being instructed by the US to question the science and block proposals (as was seen in the votes on the Nature Restoration Directive).

Fossil fuel companies (Exxon, Aramco, Shell, Gazprom and others) continue to lobby, promote and financially support groups that spread doubts. Internal documents have shown that energy companies have invested decades in funding conflicting studies and media campaigns to “question and confuse the public” about climate change. Meanwhile, disinformation is spreading enormously on technological and social platforms: algorithms favor confrontational and emotional content. Experts warn that specialized online influencers and political bloggers are transferring these narratives into comments, videos and social networks, thereby reinforcing the “echoes” and fragmentation of information. This creates an environment where populist slogans about freedom, economic sacrifice or the failure of the West find a strong response among the population.

Implications for public opinion and measures

These shifts in tone of denial have direct consequences. According to CIGI analyses, disinformation campaigns are actively trying to “Confuse and divide” public opinion to delay climate actionThe traditional “pro-climate” or “anti-climate” divide is being pushed into a gray area where many people stop responding. Economists and political scientists note that climate cynicism and delayed arguments are leading to a decline in support for ambitious goals: consumers are frustrated by the conflict, which weakens the pressure on politicians.

We can see this in the data. Climate Action Tracker monitoring confirms that global progress is stagnating as disinformation continues: almost no major country has signed up to a new commitment to reduce emissions in 2024, and fossil fuel emissions have continued to grow. Public opinion is also divided: despite alarming reports from international organizations, polls show a decline in support among some of the population, partly attributed to the interplay of economic uncertainty and climate doubts.

In short, climate denial is shifting from hardline denial to a form of passive skepticism and cynicism. Such shifts can delay decisions on climate action: instead of rapid investment in renewables or energy savings, policy remains in a stalemate. At a time when the latest IPCC and world experts emphasize the urgency of action, we are wary of how misinformation and “climate cynicism” can undermine the public’s will and trust in a common solution to the crisis.

Drawing on the latest analyses and reports, such as the UNDP Climate Promise, Climate Action Tracker, reports by non-profit media outlets The Guardian, Grist, and studies by think tanks and experts, the author aims to highlight the diversity of denial tactics and their impact on society. Spring