Intent in climate delay discourses

Non-technical summaryClimate policy discussions often veer into questioning whether actions are worthwhile, if technological fixes are the solution, or if others should take responsibility instead. Interest groups can use these discussions – also known as ‘discourses of climate delay’ – to downplay the need for ambitious climate action. But in other contexts, such discussions can reflect the legitimate concerns of citizens. Here we examine possible ways to make such a distinction and judge when someone intends to delay climate policy.Technical summaryWe conduct a review of the climate policy discourse literature with a focus on how studies evaluate intent. We find that they usually refer to one of three actor-based categories: interest, behaviour, or track record. That is, actors are considered more likely to have intent when they have material or ideological connections to fossil interest groups, behave in ways that undermine climate policy (e.g. through voting or funding oppositional science), or have a track record of rhetorical opposition to climate policy (e.g. having previously articulated climate denial). We further suggest that argument density (e.g. the number of claims they make against climate policy), ambiguity (e.g. whether they leave room for an interpretation of delay), and professional context (e.g. whether they are professional communicators) matters. We summarise these categories to provide a companion to ‘discourses of climate delay’ that focuses on intent. We further consider how the evaluation of intent can support traditional fact and logic-based misinformation identification strategies.Social media summaryExamine interests, behaviour and track record to evaluate intent in climate delay discourses.