Emerging Themes in Climate Obstruction: a PLOS Climate Mini Collection

PLOS Climate Academic Editor Marco Grasso has convened a Mini Collection of articles on “Emerging Themes in Climate Obstruction”. Here, Marco introduces the Mini Collection and sets the articles in context.

Climate obstruction operates through a network of strategies that go beyond outright denial, embedding itself in institutional, corporate, and discursive frameworks that sustain fossil fuel dependency. Dinan et al., Hendlin and Palazzo, and Kinol et al. – members of the Climate Social Science Network (CSSN), an international group of scholars working mostly on the understanding of the factors obstructing action around the world – converge on several key themes of climate obstruction that elucidate its mechanisms, particularly in the ways trade associations, corporate communication strategies, and compartmentalization tactics work to delay and dilute meaningful climate action.

Dinan et al. expose the role of European trade associations in shaping climate policy through advocacy and lobbying efforts that subtly undermine ambitious regulatory interventions. These associations act as conduits for fossil fuel interests, operating within the Brussels Bubble – a unique communicative space identified by the authors – to normalize mitigation delay under the guise of pragmatic policy recommendations. Their strategies focus on promoting unproven technological solutions and market-driven mechanisms that sustain the long-term viability of the fossil fuel industry. Rather than outright rejecting climate science, they engage in a form of mitigation denial that argues emissions reductions can be deferred while awaiting future innovations. This approach secures ongoing investment in fossil fuel infrastructure while marginalizing immediate, science-based policy solutions. The EU’s complex regulatory environment becomes fertile ground for these narratives, as decision-making processes are dominated by industry stakeholders with privileged access to policymakers. This privileged access ensures that trade associations influence regulatory language and framework design, creating an institutional inertia that favours incremental rather than transformative policy changes. In doing so, they shape the very contours of climate governance, embedding delay into the structure of EU climate policy. Dinan et al.’s work resonates with research on corporate lobbying and regulatory capture. Brulle (2018) and Supran and Oreskes (2021) have demonstrated how industry groups act as intermediaries between fossil fuel companies and policymakers, allowing corporations to influence climate governance while maintaining plausible deniability. The document’s discussion of the “Brussels Bubble” echoes broader critiques of institutional structures where business interests enjoy privileged access to regulators, a phenomenon observed not only in the EU but also in the United States and international climate negotiations. This contributes to what Falkner (2016) describes as the dilution of climate commitments, where industry actors push for market-driven mechanisms and unproven technological solutions that sustain fossil fuel investments under the guise of pragmatic policy.

Hendlin and Palazzo conceptualize compartmentalization as a further core tactic of climate obstruction. By segmenting sustainability efforts and isolating harmful activities from public scrutiny, corporations create the illusion of environmental responsibility while continuing business as usual. This tactic manifests in selective disclosures, philanthropy-driven reputational management, and a strategic separation of green initiatives from the broader impact of corporate operations. Such compartmentalization enables corporations to present themselves as climate-conscious entities without making substantive changes to their core activities. This strategy not only deflects regulatory pressure but also dilutes public demand for systemic transformation, as consumers and policymakers alike may be placated by visible yet superficial sustainability efforts. The success of this strategy lies in its ability to generate ambiguity by selectively reporting carbon offsets, net-zero commitments, or investment in renewable energy, corporations obscure the extent of their continued investment in fossil fuel expansion. By presenting green actions as isolated achievements rather than part of a systemic transformation, companies avoid the fundamental restructuring needed to achieve genuine climate goals. Hendlin and Palazzo’s analysis aligns with the extensive literature on greenwashing, where selective disclosures and corporate social responsibility campaigns are used to deflect regulatory and public pressure. Delmas and Burbano (2011) have shown that companies often highlight voluntary sustainability measures while continuing harmful practices, a tactic that the document identifies as central to contemporary climate obstruction. The emphasis on net-zero commitments and carbon offsets as a means of generating ambiguity is particularly relevant, as such pledges frequently lack transparency and allow companies to continue fossil fuel expansion under the cover of climate action.

Kinol et al. reveal another dimension of obstruction by analysing how fossil fuel, plastics, and agrichemical industries coordinate their messaging to reinforce climate delay discourses. Through social media platforms and industry networks, these industries construct narratives that emphasize economic stability, technological optimism, and incremental change over structural transformation. Their strategic communication efforts seek to align public perception with industry interests, framing climate policy as a potential threat to jobs, economic growth, and technological progress. This narrative alignment across sectors ensures that climate obstruction remains resilient, adapting to shifting political and social contexts while maintaining the overarching goal of delaying effective policy action. Such alignment extends beyond messaging—these industries often engage in collaborative lobbying, fund shared research institutions that validate their preferred narratives, and cultivate relationships with policymakers to ensure continued influence. This networked approach not only strengthens their position but also blurs the boundaries between industries, making regulation more challenging as policies that target one sector often fail to account for its interconnections with others. Kinol et al.’s work intersects with research by Farrell et al. (2019) and Dunlap and McCright (2015) on the ideological underpinnings of climate obstruction, where economic narratives are deployed to justify continued dependence on fossil fuels. The discussion of how industry messaging promotes technological optimism over structural transformation echoes Lamb et al.’s (2020) identification of “discourses of delay,” a set of rhetorical strategies designed to create the appearance of progress while postponing systemic change.

When viewed together, these studies paint a comprehensive picture of how climate obstruction operates through institutional lobbying, strategic communication, and compartmentalization. Trade associations ensure that industry voices dominate policy discussions, compartmentalization tactics obscure accountability, and coordinated messaging across sectors solidifies obstructionist narratives in public discourse. This triad of obstruction strategies ensures that climate policy remains reactive rather than proactive, shaped by industry-driven frameworks that prioritize economic continuity over climate urgency. Additionally, the overall effect of these tactics is not just delay but the active shaping of climate governance in ways that institutionalize industry-friendly policies, perpetuating fossil fuel reliance while maintaining a facade of progress.

These obstructionist tactics are not confined to isolated corporate strategies but are embedded within global governance structures. The EU, despite its reputation for progressive climate policies, remains susceptible to business coalitions that shape regulations to align with industry interests. This dynamic mirrors trends observed in the United States, where corporate influence over policy design perpetuates climate inaction. The interplay between industry lobbying, fragmented regulatory oversight, and strategic public relations campaigns creates a policy environment where meaningful climate action is continually deferred. The influence of these obstruction networks extends into multilateral climate negotiations, shaping the international landscape of climate commitments in ways that prioritize voluntary measures over enforceable regulations.

Ultimately, the works of Dinan et al., Hendlin and Palazzo, and Kinol et al. underscore the adaptability and resilience of climate obstruction. As outright denial loses credibility, obstruction forces refine their approaches, embedding delay tactics within institutional, corporate, and discursive frameworks. The challenge for climate advocates is not merely countering misinformation but dismantling the systemic structures that allow obstruction to persist. Addressing these issues requires a shift in regulatory approaches, reducing corporate influence over policymaking and ensuring transparency in climate commitments. Without such measures, the obstruction strategies outlined in these studies will continue to shape the trajectory of climate action, prolonging the dominance of fossil fuel interests and delaying the transition to a sustainable future. In this light, the struggle against climate obstruction is not just a battle against misinformation or lobbying but a deeper struggle against an entrenched political-economic system that continues to privilege fossil fuel interests over planetary health.

PLOS Climate Mini Collection articles

Dinan, W., Esteves, V., Harkins, S., and Hills, S. (2025). Climate dissociations: Trade associations, energy policy and climate communications in Europe. PLOS Climate, 4(1), e0000467. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000467

Hendlin, Y. H., and Palazzo, F. P. (2025). Compartmentalization by industry and government inhibits addressing climate denial. PLOS Climate, 4(1), e0000552. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000552

Kinol, A., Si, Y., Kinol, J., & Stephens, J. C. (2025). Networks of climate obstruction: Discourses of denial and delay in US fossil energy, plastic, and agrichemical industries. PLOS Climate, 4(1), e0000370. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000370

Additional references

Brulle, R. J. (2018). The climate change counter-movement. Environmental Politics, 27(4), 681-705. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2018.1447305

Delmas, M. A., and Burbano, V. C. (2011). The drivers of greenwashing. California Management Review, 54(1), 64-87. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2011.54.1.64

Dunlap, R. E., and McCright, A. M. (2015). Challenging climate Change: The denial countermovement. In R. E. Dunlap and R. J. Brulle (Eds.), Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives (pp. 300-332). Oxford University Press.

Falkner, R. (2016). The Paris Agreement and the new logic of international climate politics. International Affairs, 92(5), 1107-1125. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12708

Farrell, J., McConnell, K., and Brulle, R. (2019). Evidence-based strategies to combat scientific misinformation. Nature Climate Change, 9(3), 191-195. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0368-6

Gupta, J., and van Asselt, H. (2019). Transparency in Multilateral Climate Politics: Furthering (or Distracting from) Accountability? Regulation & Governance, 13(1), 18-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12218

Lamb, W. F., Mattioli, G., Levi, S., Roberts, J. T., Capstick, S., Creutzig, F., Minx, J. C., Müller-Hansen, F., Culhane, T., and Steinberger, J. K. (2020). Discourses of Climate Delay. Global Sustainability, 3, e17. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.13

Supran, G., and Oreskes, N. (2021). Rhetoric and Frame Analysis of ExxonMobil’s Climate Change Communications. One Earth, 4(5), 696-719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.04.014