From tame to contentious climate politics?

Until now, climate action has largely been treated as an issue of ‘tame’ politics involving careful calibration, consensus and calculation, and a focus on technical solutions and cost-effective investment. However, in recent years there are indications of a new contentious form of climate politics arising that spills beyond institutionalized channels of policy formulation. On the one hand, proponents of radical climate action highlight climate emergency and the recalcitrance of particular actors, and position climate change as an existential issue through new social movements and civil disobedience. On the other hand, powerful incumbents and their supporters continue to show strong resistance to action, promote denialism and disinformation, and even show hostile disinterest in the face of major climate impacts (e.g. dismissal and downplaying of climate change by political leaders during the unprecedented Australian bushfires of 2019-20). At the same time, the introduction of climate action can sometimes trigger strong pushbacks and even backlash. Altogether, these clashes seem bound to intensify as climate impacts escalate, climate action becomes more demanding, and society slowly internalizes the existential implications of climate change. While contestation over climate action is not new (e.g. skepticism, denial, controversies over wind energy), the question is whether climate politics is entering a new domain of contentious politics, and what this might mean for climate action looking forward.