By Katie Bowden 

In the complex landscape of climate change governance, governments’ positions have come under scrutiny for their hypocrisy. Several factors contribute to this stance, including their financial investments in fossil fuel industries, lack of transparency in decision-making processes, insufficient action to combat climate change, and the presence of systemic racism influencing environmental policies. These key aspects shed a light on the intricate web of contradictions in government approaches to climate change and the urgent need for greater accountability, equitable action and the distribution of accurate climate change information. Governments are often perceived as hypocritical due to this lack of transparency in their decision-making processes or failure to provide relevant information to the public. This lack of transparency can create the impression that actions and policies are influenced by hidden agendas or undisclosed interests, eroding public trust.

Fossil fuels, responsible for over 75 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 90 percent of carbon dioxide emissions (Nations, 2023), present a stark paradox. Despite this undeniable impact on climate change, governments persist in funnelling substantial investments into fossil fuel extraction. Take the oil drilling operation in Alaska called the Willow project for instance, which anticipates releasing an additional 9.2 million metric tons of carbon pollution into the atmosphere (Turrentine, 2023). In light of these contradictions, one must question the authenticity of governments’ environmental commitments. How can they claim to align with sustainable environmental solutions and combat climate change while actively participating in the profitable extraction of fossil fuels? The time has come for governments to reprioritize, shifting their focus away from fossil fuel exploitation and instead fund financial resources into sustainable and renewable energy alternatives.

The formidable challenge governments encounter arises when influential industries, such as fossil fuel companies, wield their power to downplay or undermine climate change science, primarily driven by their economic interests. This exertion of influence often takes the form of financially supporting political campaigns, aiming to obstruct the dissemination of accurate information on climate change. Consequently, this can lead to governmental hypocrisy and hinder the acknowledgment of the grim reality concerning the future of life on Earth.

Inside Climate News revealed a staggering fact: Exxon and various other oil companies have actively spent over $5 billion to undermine climate science and oppose clean energy policies. This reveals a blatant hypocrisy, as these companies are the primary contributors to climate change, yet they invest vast sums in preventing effective climate action. However, the hypocrisy extends beyond the oil companies themselves. Democratic politicians, including former US President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have also accepted significant financial backing from the fossil fuel industry. Obama received campaign donations totalling over $2 million. Similarly, Clinton received $1.5 million in campaign donations from the oil and gas industry (Kirk, 2020). This raises questions about the conflicting interests at play, where politicians who claim to advocate for climate action and clean energy solutions have also benefited from the financial support of the very industries responsible for exacerbating climate change. The acceptance of such substantial donations from fossil fuel companies could be seen as compromising their ability to take decisive action against the main source of the climate crisis, calling into question the authenticity of their commitment to tackling climate change.

The Paris Global Climate Agreement is the main argument that governments’ use to display their interest for more sustainable world. The Paris Global Climate Agreement was established during the UN Climate Conference in 2015 with the objective of mitigating the impacts of climate change by preventing global temperatures from rising above 2 degrees Celsius. While the agreement is legally binding, it does not impose fines or penalties on countries that fail to meet their emission reduction targets (Denchak, 2021). However, as we approach the seven-year mark since the conference, only the European Union, the UK, and South Africa are currently on track to achieve their carbon emission goals. This starkly reveals the hypocrisy within government systems, as the majority of the 194 countries that signed the agreement have not made sufficient efforts to come close to their emission targets. This is a clear illustration that government words are not aligned with their actions.

Developed countries lack accountability for historical colonization damage, now impacting third-world nations with climate change effects despite lower carbon emissions. The hypocrisy of governments addressing racial justice in the context of climate change is striking. Despite acknowledging the disproportionate impact on marginalized communities, their actions perpetuate environmental racism. Industries contributing to climate change operate unchecked in marginalized neighbourhoods, increasing pollution and health risks for these communities. International climate agreements may not consider historical and current contributions to climate change, intensifying global racial and economic inequalities. This lack of meaningful action reveals a troubling hypocrisy in government approaches to climate change and racial justice. This clearly illustrates the contradictions between government rhetoric regarding climate change and racial justice and the actual policies and decisions that perpetuate environmental racism and fail to address the systemic inequalities in climate change impacts. This lack of meaningful action exposes a troubling hypocrisy in the way governments approach the intersection of climate change and racial justice (Williams and Mos-Shogbamimu, 2021).

In the context of climate change, governments are often criticised for their overall inaction in implementing sustainable solutions and for a lack of accountability and honesty regarding the deteriorating state of our planet. This gap between their rhetoric and actual efforts further contributes to the perception of government hypocrisy on climate-related matters.