Politicians now talk of climate ‘pragmatism’ to delay action—new study

Conservative chief Kemi Badenoch described his plan to “maximize the extraction” of oil and gas from the United Kingdom of the North Sea as an “common sense” energy policy.

Politicians use a language like this more and more often – calming themselves “pragmatic” on climate change and invoking “common sense”. This seems reasonable, reassuring and adult – the opposite of “hysterical” activists or “unrealistic” targets.

But new research that my colleagues and I conducted, calling a decade of interviews with British deputies, shows that political “pragmatism” quickly becomes a dangerous form of climate delay. By supervising urgent action as “extreme” and stable policies as “pragmatic”, leaders through the political spectrum protect the status quo of fossil fuels at the very moment when scientists warn that we need a rapid and transformer change.

Badenoch’s last intervention is a perfect example. She said that “common sense” dictates that each drop of oil must be extracted from the North Sea and that the net zero by 2050 was a policy pushed by “intimidators”. It came a day after the United Kingdom office said in the summer of 2025 as the warmest ever recorded.

We have found that the members of the Parliament deploy the same language of pragmatism to defend societies of fossil fuel and insist for their constituents that nothing should change too quickly. The paradox, of course, is that the more urgent social and economic change is precisely what the climatologists of the world say they are necessary to avoid the breakdown of the climate.

In our recent interviews with politicians, deputies from the whole political spectrum tended to progressive changes in order to maintain political and public support. One said,

“First of all and above all to be pragmatic. Accept an incremental change, because the incremental change accelerates often, but you take people with you. If you have not taken people with you, you will start to get resistance.”

Another deputy contrasts a pragmatic approach with the calls of certain campaign groups for faster action:

“There are campaigns that say that we must be clear Zero by 2025 or 2030. [laughing incredulously] … Do you realize what will be the consequences of this … You would have a revolution in Britain if you try to do so, in terms of destroying the quality of life of people. “”

Interestingly, despite the rejection of more ambitious targets, later in the interview, the same deputy recognized that a faster change was necessary:

“We have to do more, we could do more, we are, you know, I am sure that the government will do more. I certainly push it to do more. But fundamentally, we have halved our programs since 1990.”

Here we see the nuance and the danger, of the language of pragmatism. It allows politicians to occupy two positions at the same time. They can recognize the need for rapid change, while promoting a “pragmatic” position against it.

Calls to pragmatism seemed to come from the desire of deputies to present a reasoned and rational case for climate action which does not impose on the life of the constituents. They also used pragmatism to distance themselves from the arguments they described as “extreme” or “strident”.

The erroneous hypothesis underlying these calls to pragmatism is that the public will not support ambitious and transformative climate policies. We concluded that, while a few years ago, the deputies promoted climatic policies “by stealth”, which means that they have done so on calm, they now turn to ideas of pragmatism in order to maintain a fragile political consensus in favor of the net zero – a consensus which is already fracturing.

Descending pragmatism

This turn to pragmatism can now be seen at the top of British policy, threatening the regular rattle of the United Kingdom of the Ambition of the Climate to date.

The former Prime Minister of Labor, Tony Blair, recently wrote in the Blair Institute report on climate change: “People know that the current state of debate on climate change is torn apart by irrationality.”

Blair then said: “Any strategy based on fossil fuels” in the short -term screening phase “or to limit consumption is a strategy dedicated to failure.” This despite the generalized consensus among scientists according to which the prerogative of fossil fuels and the reduction in consumption of at least certain products are essential.

The report continues by saying: “A realistic voice in the climate debate is necessary, neither ideological nor alarmist but pragmatic.” This language is intended to seem rational, reasonable and even scientific. The problem is that it can be used to justify actions that seem to ignore what science tells us.

Former Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak warned against the treatment of climate change as an “ideology”. In particular, Sunak has referred to the “pragmatic, proportionate and realistic” climate action shortly after its government announced hundreds of new licenses for oil and gas fields in the North Sea.

Its message coincided with current road construction programs, airport expansion plans and insufficient measures to isolate the United Kingdom housing stock, which could all compromise the United Kingdom’s climatic objectives. Again, we see the language of pragmatism working against the necessary rapid societal changes.

The pragmatic road to come

In general, the deputies to whom we spoke did not use pragmatism in bad faith. It was rather a way to navigate the complexities of climate policy where the enormous changes required by climate attenuation are considered too difficult to sell to voters. But this political strategy is very risky and underestimates the public’s appetite for strong and clear “climate leadership” of the government.

The current government is already struggling to reconcile Net Zero commitments with its economic growth program, which includes a new track at Heathrow airport. Not only is Prime Minister Keir Starmer faced with divisions within the Labor Party in power on zero net ambitions, but he is also dealing with an increasing net skepticism of leaders of conservative parties and reforms.

The political language of “pragmatism” therefore risks spreading from Badenoch to Starmer, becoming a delay discourse which promotes non -transformative solutions.

This article is republished from the conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.