English
 
Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

Inconvenience versus rationality: Reflections on different faces of climate contrarianism in Poland and Norway

Authors
/persons/resource/Ceglarz.Andrzej

Ceglarz,  Andrzej
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research;

Benestad,  R. E.
External Organizations;

/persons/resource/zbyszek

Kundzewicz,  Zbigniew W.
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research;

External Ressource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts stored in PIKpublic
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Ceglarz, A., Benestad, R. E., Kundzewicz, Z. W. (2018): Inconvenience versus rationality: Reflections on different faces of climate contrarianism in Poland and Norway. - Weather, Climate, and Society, 10, 4, 821-836.
https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-17-0120.1


Cite as: https://publications.pik-potsdam.de/pubman/item/item_22454
Abstract
There has been increasing scientific evidence related to climate change and its attribution, impacts, and possibilities of mitigation. Yet, climate contrarianism still persists. This paper concentrates on Poland and Norway—two fossil fuel giants that represent essential differences on climate contrarianism. In Norway there is a broad social and political consensus about the attribution and importance of climate change and a motivation to undertake climate change mitigation measures, whereas in Poland the inconvenient truth on anthropogenic climate change remains particularly inconvenient. By taking a qualitative approach, this paper discusses different drivers of climate contrarianism in both countries; provides examples of contrarian attitudes present in society, media, politics, and research; and compares their role in Polish and Norwegian contexts. The findings show the difficulties in defining universal factors determining contrarian attitudes, because their understanding and weight can be different among countries and a more nuanced analysis is needed to scrutinize different national contexts. The conclusion calls for more comparative research, which would combine quantitative and qualitative approaches investigating climate contrarianism.