The climate crisis has shifted from scientific discourse to lived experience, affecting millions of people worldwide and the environment we all share. Yet, political responses remain fragmented and often simply rhetorical, hot air, if you will! This is perhaps no more obvious than with recent summits, where leaders fail to agree on a unified plan despite members representing the bulk of global emissions. The systemic and international complacency threatens fundamental human rights, including the right to life, safety, and dignity.
However, a new approach has emerged, apocalyptic environmentalism. This narrative frames climate change as an existential threat, using alarmist rhetoric to provoke urgency and disrupt political stagnation. Activists and their activities are highlighted frequently in the news and receive a lot of attention on social media. The younger activists see political inaction as a betrayal of future generations.
This kind of activism has been somewhat effective in mobilizing grassroots movements, but such apocalyptic storytelling carries risks. Research in the International Journal of Human Rights and Constitutional Studies alludes to the fatalism it can foster. This leaves the public overwhelmed and disempowered by the message rather than motivated to act. Moreover, at the extremes, this type of activism lacks a clear roadmap for tangible change, offering fear without direction.
By contrast, the politicians persist with their rhetorical narrative. They acknowledge climate urgency but emphasise the preservation of current economic structures, the very structures that are causing environmental degradation in the first place, such as continued fossil fuel subsidies. The politicians attempt to maintain the illusion of progress without demanding systemic change, thus delaying meaningful climate action.
Between the despair and the denial, climate change discourse finds itself at an impasse. Scholars, seeing the faults in both perspectives, increasingly advocate for a balanced narrative, one that combines the emotional force of apocalyptic urgency with pragmatic solutions. This alternative approach emphasizes human agency, collective resilience, and adaptive strategies. It reframes climate change not as an impending apocalypse but as a challenge we can address, given the political and public will.
Kumar, M., Sharan, N. and Pandey, S. (2025) ‘‘Why aren’t people terrified?!’ Analysing the efficacy of the apocalyptic narrative of climate change’, Int. J. Human Rights and Constitutional Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.129–141.