From the highest spheres of politics, the discourses questioning scientific theories on climate action and the impact of human activities on the planet have strengthened. Conspiratorial theories were built around Covid-19 vaccines and the 2030 agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are disputed. The world has become prone to the promotion of misinformation that frequently denies the scientific evidence on climate change and the environmental crisis. Many of these discourses often gain more prominence when they are built from spaces of political leadership and go viral through media and social networks, confusing the citizenship.
Conspiratorial theories and distrust in science not only are part of the narratives but are increasingly influencing the formulation of public policies, decision-making, the reordering of priorities and agendas, both nationally and internationally. Therefore, they reconfigure the financing structures aimed at generating scientific evidence to support decision-making.
The trend towards skepticism and denialism of science takes a particularly impactful dimension when the discourse comes from political sectors. The return of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States has driven disruptive policies with negative impacts globally, such as announcing the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, declaring a “energy emergency” and “Drill baby Drill,” to the dismantling and financial cuts to research agencies and programs as seen in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). This has raised concerns about the continuity of research on sensitive issues at the intersection of climate, environment, and health.
Beyond Donald Trump
The case of the United States is not isolated, conservatism takes renewed forms and builds alliances with emerging political actors. The government of Javier Milei in Argentina is also dismantling the State structure in the same line as Trump. In fact, neoliberal policies, the decrease or elimination of budgets for environmental, human rights, and gender public policies, and the promotion of programs such as the Incentive Regime for Large Investments (RIGI) for extractive activities go against policies for environmental care and protection.
Regarding climate change, Milei has shown skepticism towards scientific evidence, with speeches denying human impact on ecosystems and climate. An example of this was the instruction from the National Chancellery to withdraw the official delegation from the Conference of the Parties (CoP29) in Baku, Azerbaijan, with the political and international implications this entails. Likewise, following Trump’s steps, in early February, the government announced its withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO), stating that WHO guidelines are politically influenced and not based on science.
This process was also observed in Brazil during Jair Bolsonaro’s term (2019-2023), particularly regarding the environmental agenda. His policies, very dynamic, were marked by a strong setback. Indeed, under his government, there was an openly skeptical stance towards climate change and a significant reduction in environmental policies in Brazil. His administration was marked by the reduction of Amazon protection, where deforestation reached record levels, and the withdrawal from international climate commitments.
In these cases, scientific diplomacy as an official tool for adequate articulation between science and politics at the international level was not taken into account. Scientific diplomacy is a practice aimed at overcoming ideological gaps, unequal technological development imbalances, and political barriers in environmental protection and management.
What lies behind denialism?
Despite warnings from various scientific disciplines, climate denialism and environmental misinformation present a worldview that prioritizes and sustains the economy of fossil fuels and the “business as usual.” It rejects climate change policies considering them a threat to the free market model, economic development, and extractivist policies that mostly impact countries in the Global South.
So, what place does scientific knowledge occupy within the framework of these governments? Decisions of this magnitude have significant impacts on international politics and can strengthen or weaken cooperation between countries. Especially in these moments of uncertainty, it is crucial to strengthen scientific diplomacy to find solutions to intersectoral, inter/transdisciplinary, and transboundary issues.
No country or social sector can in isolation address the complexity of problems at the intersection of climate, environment, and health. Nevertheless, denialist discourses and political agendas that disregard science are deepening socio-environmental issues, weakening international cooperation and diplomacy, thus affecting the most vulnerable populations.
The climate action agenda is facing significant challenges in countries like the United States and Argentina where ideologies prevail over scientific results. This shows that the climate action agenda is caught between efforts to move towards a sustainable model and conservative resistances, especially in sectors associated with natural resource extraction and fossil fuel use.
In this context, it is essential to consider the role of scientific diplomacy, through international cooperation and evidence-based communication, as an effective political-social mechanism to address climate denialism. Scientific diplomacy can be the bridge to facilitate international agreements and promote constructive dialogues among various actors, counteracting misinformation and fake news. Additionally, it contributes to improving access to information, both for political sectors and for the general public.
It is urgent to facilitate alliances between science, politics, and society to generate a science with social impact that strengthens responsible decision-making and promotes more effective climate governance.
Source: María Inés Carabajal/Latinoamérica21
