Climate Change Denial in the 118th U.S. Congress

•

Alexander Ferrigno

The Persistence of Climate Change Denial in U.S. Congress: Global Implications

Climate change, recognised as one of the most significant existential threats of our time, has been the subject of extensive scientific research and international concern. However, much like many of the public, a significant percentage of the current U.S. Congress contains its own collection of climate change deniers. This faction continues to challenge the overwhelming scientific consensus, influencing policy decisions with far-reaching consequences.

The important point to make here is that this phenomenon is not just an American political issue; it has global implications that affect international climate agreements, environmental policy, and the global fight against climate change.

Climate Change Denial in Congress

Despite overwhelming evidence, some members of the U.S. Congress continue to deny or downplay the reality of climate change. These lawmakers often argue that the science is not settled, dismissing climate models and projections as unreliable. In some cases, they assert that human activities are not the primary drivers of climate change, contradicting the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and numerous other scientific bodies.1

Americanprogress.org has a wonderfully laid out table containing each current member of Congress who are a part of the climate denial faction, including a financial view of their fossil fuel contributions.2 Some examples of their quotes include:

“I don’t know about you guys, but I think climate change is – as Lord Monckton said – bullshit“ – Sen. Ron Johnson

“Sen. Inhofe was the first to stand up and say this global warming is the greatest hoax that has been perpetrated. The evidence just keeps supporting his views, and more and more people’s view, of what’s going on.“ – Sen. Ken Buck

I think though the most important quote I could find from these senator’s is likely the overall reasoning for many of them:

“…we take climate change seriously, but not hysterically. We will not adopt nutty policies that harm our economy or our jobs.“ – Sen. Rick Scott

The reasons for this denial are multifaceted. Political ideology, economic interests, and the influence of powerful lobbying groups, particularly from the fossil fuel industry.3 The desire to deny the overwhelming evidence and reduce it to a conspiracy theory is also very likely a financial ploy.

Though, the fossil fuel industry, which has historically been a major source of campaign funding for many politicians, has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. By promoting climate change skepticism, these groups can cause some form of delay in regulatory actions that would reduce carbon emissions and thus potentially harm their profits.4

Per Basseches,5 there are three primary narratives driven by these political conservatives about climate change: 1) that it does not exist; 2) that if it does not exist, it is not anthropogenic and is possibly even desirable; and 3) efforts to mitigate climate change would harm the economy.

The Global Impact

The persistence of climate change denial within the U.S. Congress has broader implications that extend beyond American borders. Though the driving force of their actions are likely profit based, the United States is still one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases. This means they play a critical role in global climate policy and their emissions has larger consequences than occurrences within their own lands.

When key members of Congress deny climate change or undermine efforts to combat it, the international community faces challenges in achieving cohesive and effective global climate action.6

One of the most significant consequences of climate denial in Congress recently was the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under the Trump administration.7 This decision was likely influenced by climate change skeptics in Congress, which undermined the agreement’s goals, as well as disrupts global confidence in climate cooperation.8 Making it harder on a broader scale to achieve a global goal, when the biggest player refused to play. Although the U.S. rejoined the agreement under President Biden, the damage to international trust and cooperation was significant and may take years to repair. This is not to mention anything about future international climate agreements that the US may not be willing to partake in either.

Moreover, U.S. climate policy has a large influence on global markets and innovations in green technologies. If the U.S. is failing to take aggressive action on climate change, it’s going to slow down global progress in reducing emissions and developing sustainable energy solutions. This is massively detrimental for developing countries, which are often the most vulnerable and struggle to adapt to climate change, therefore relying on global leadership and financial assistance to mitigate its impacts.9

The Path Forward and Opinion

Public awareness and education are crucial in countering misinformation and promoting a better understanding of climate science. Additionally, finding a way to reduce fossil fuel lobbying, perhaps through campaign finance reform is an essential step, hopefully allowing for more objective policy decisions.

Internationally it is important for the U.S. to rebuild trust with its global partners and recommit to leading on climate action. This includes not only re-engaging in international agreements but also setting ambitious NDCs that align with the global effort. The world cannot afford further delays in addressing the climate change issue, and the U.S. has a critical role to play in shaping a sustainable future.

But overcoming this challenge requires a concerted effort at both national and international levels to ensure that science, not denial, drives policy decisions. In today’s climate of skepticism, many resist change, particularly when it requires altering lifestyles or accepting accountability. While individual actions are essential, they alone cannot address the scale of the issue. Civil disobedience, like blocking traffic or damaging cultural artifacts, often provokes controversy and can distract from the critical need for systemic changes. What is necessary is a thoughtful adjustment of infrastructure and industry, aiming to balance the need for climate action with maintaining the quality of life to which we have become accustomed.

As discussed throughout this article, the stance of some members of Congress who reject or downplay the scientific consensus on climate change is concerning. Their arguments often hinge on the idea that climate change is a natural, cyclical phenomenon. While it’s true, as Sen. Ted Cruz asserts, that ‘the climate is changing… and will continue to change as long as we have a planet Earth,’ this statement only tells part of the story. The real issue lies not in the fact of change itself, but in the unprecedented rate at which it is occurring today. Unlike historical climate cycles, our current situation is driven primarily by human activities and is accelerating in ways that pose significant risks to ecosystems, economies, and societies worldwide. Ignoring this reality is not just shortsighted—it is perilous.

Footnotes

  1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ‘Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis‘ (2021) https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/ ↩︎
  2. Kat So, ‘Climate Deniers of the 118th Congress‘ American Progress (2024) https://www.americanprogress.org/article/climate-deniers-of-the-118th-congress/ ↩︎
  3. A M McCright, & R E Dunlap, The Politicization of Climate Change and Polarization in the American Public’s Views of Global Warming. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(2) (2011) 155-194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x ↩︎
  4. R J Brulle, ‘Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations’ Climatic Change, 122, (2014) 681-694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7 ↩︎
  5. J A Basseches et al, ‘Climate policy conflict in the U.S. states: a critical review and way forward’ Climate Change 170 (32) (2022) https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10584-022-03319-w ↩︎
  6. ibid ↩︎
  7. M. R. Pompeo, Secretary of State ‘On the U.S. Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement’ U.S. Department of State, Press Statement (2019) https://2017-2021.state.gov/on-the-u-s-withdrawal-from-the-paris-agreement/ ↩︎
  8. Zhang, Dai, Lai, & Wang, ‘U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement: Reasons, impacts, and China’s response’ Advances in Climate Change Research 8(4) (2017) 220-225 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2017.09.002 ↩︎
  9. K Georgieva et al, ‘Poor and Vulnerable Countries Need Support to Adapt to Climate Change’ International Monetary Fund (IMF Blog) (2022) https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2022/03/23/blog032322-poor-and-vulnerable-countris-need-support-to-adapt-to-climate-change ↩︎
,

•

, , ,