How Authoritarianism Threatens Climate Action—and What We Can Do About It

Person holding a printed copy of The Anti-Autocracy Handbook: A Scholars’ Guide to Navigating Democratic Backsliding, placed on a modern desk beside a glass of water, glasses, and a book.
The Anti-Autocracy Handbook offers scholars and concerned citizens practical strategies to recognize and resist democratic backsliding worldwide.

Climate Crisis and Rising Authoritarianism

The fight against climate change is urgent. From stronger hurricanes to record-breaking wildfires, we’re seeing how environmental damage is affecting our lives, our health, and our future. We need governments that act boldly—supporting science, protecting ecosystems, and investing in sustainable energy.

But here’s the problem: around the world, democracy is weakening. As of 2025, 72% of the global population lives under authoritarian rule (Our World in Data, 2025). That means decisions about the environment are being made behind closed doors, without public debate, input from scientists, or the freedom to organize and protest.

When democracy erodes, climate action slows down—or even reverses.

3 Tactics Autocrats Use to Undermine Climate Truth

Authoritarian leaders often use a familiar playbook to shut down climate efforts. These tactics make it harder for us to work together, share facts, and push for change.

Populism

Autocrats often claim to represent “the real people” against so-called “elites.” Environmentalists, scientists, and activists are painted as out of touch or as enemies of economic growth. We’ve all heard messages like:

  • “They care more about trees than our jobs.”

  • “Climate rules are killing small businesses.”

Polarization

Instead of bringing us together to solve problems, these leaders divide us. They frame the climate debate as a fight between “pro-economy” and “pro-environment.” But that’s a false choice. In truth, we can have both—but only with honest leadership and a commitment to facts.

We’ve seen this kind of rhetoric used to create fear and distrust. For example:

  • During wildfires in the western U.S., climate regulations were blamed for preventing forest management, despite scientific evidence that climate change was the real driver of more intense fires.

  • In Brazil, environmental protections in the Amazon were rolled back under the argument that indigenous land rights and conservation efforts were standing in the way of economic growth and agriculture.

  • In Australia, leaders have claimed that transitioning away from coal would destroy communities—ignoring opportunities for renewable energy jobs and cleaner air.

  • In the U.S., efforts to ban gas stoves or regulate methane emissions have been painted as “attacks on personal freedom” or “government overreach,” rather than smart policy to protect health and reduce climate risk.

These arguments aren’t just political talking points—they’re tactics to delay action, confuse the public, and weaken support for urgent climate solutions.

By turning climate change into a culture war, autocratic-leaning leaders make it harder to build the broad coalitions we need. The more we’re divided, the less power we have to demand meaningful change.

Instead of bringing us together to solve problems, these leaders divide us. They frame the climate debate as a fight between “pro-economy” and “pro-environment.” In truth, we can have both—but only with honest leadership.

Post-truth

This is when facts are buried under lies and confusion. Misinformation spreads through social media and partisan news outlets. People are left unsure of what’s real. When that happens, public trust in science—and in one another—breaks down.

What Happens to Science in Autocratic Systems

Science depends on freedom—freedom to ask questions, publish findings, and share data across borders. But under authoritarian rule, science often becomes one of the first victims.

In early 2025, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) canceled nearly 800 research projects. This included many studies focused on climate change, vaccine hesitancy, and LGBTQ+ issues (The Anti-Autocracy Handbook, 2025).

At the same time:

  • The U.S. withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement

  • Clean energy programs were dismantled

  • Scientists were banned from collaborating with global health agencies like the WHO

When governments silence science, our communities are left vulnerable. We lose access to life-saving information. And the climate crisis continues unchecked.

Why Silence and Self-Censorship Make Things Worse

We may wonder: why don’t more people speak out? The truth is, many are scared. Scientists have faced online harassment, legal threats, or even job loss just for sharing their findings.

Some researchers have stopped speaking publicly about climate to avoid becoming targets. This self-censorship, while understandable, allows misinformation to spread even more.

And it’s not just about facts—it’s about people. The pressure to stay quiet can take a toll. Many scientists and activists report anxiety, burnout, and a feeling of isolation. They’re not just defending their work—they’re trying to protect their families and livelihoods, too.

We don’t need to be scientists or politicians to make a difference. What we do—and how we show up—matters.

What We Can Do—Even if We’re Just Individuals

If our personal risk is low:

  • Speak out: Write letters to the editor or post on social media about why climate truth matters

  • Join a local group: Support environmental or science-based organizations

  • Share voices: Amplify scientists, students, and communities speaking up

If our risk is higher (e.g., we’re public figures, immigrants, or part of a marginalized group):

  • Help protect vulnerable research: Backup and archive climate data

  • Build circles of solidarity: Create support systems within our communities or workplaces

  • Document censorship: If safe to do so, record and report efforts to silence truth

Even small acts—like refusing to repeat false claims—can help keep truth alive.

The Power of 3.5%: Hope in Collective Action

Here’s something encouraging: nonviolent movements that mobilize just 3.5% of the population almost always succeed (Chenoweth & Stephan, 2011). That’s about 12 million people in the U.S.

We don’t need a majority to protect democracy or fight for climate justice—we just need enough people who are committed, informed, and connected.

Together, we can slow democratic backsliding, protect science, and keep pushing for a healthy, just, and sustainable future.

Protecting Democracy Is Climate Action

If we care about clean air, safe water, healthy forests, and a livable planet—then we care about democracy, too.

We can’t tackle climate change in a world where scientists are silenced, facts are twisted, and decisions are made in secret. By protecting the right to speak, research, protest, and vote, we’re also protecting our planet.

Let’s keep asking questions. Let’s keep telling the truth. And let’s keep building the future we all deserve—together.


Overview of the Source: The Anti-Autocracy Handbook

This article is based on The Anti-Autocracy Handbook: A Scholars’ Guide to Navigating Democratic Backsliding (2025). Written by more than 20 scholars around the world, the handbook explains how authoritarian regimes gain and maintain power—and what we can do to resist.

Key features of the handbook include:

  • A clear breakdown of authoritarian tactics like populism, polarization, and misinformation

  • Real-life examples of how science—including climate research—is being attacked

  • Strategies for protecting truth, data, and fellow researchers
  • Practical steps we can take, based on our level of personal risk


Sources:

Lewandowsky, S., Kempe, V., Armaos, K., Hahn, U., Abels, C. M., Wibisono, S., Louis, W., Sah, S., Pagel, C., Jankowicz, N., DiResta, R., Markolin, P., Schoenemann, H., Hertwig, R., Crull, H., Mauer, B., Holford, D., Lopez-Lopez, E., & Cook, J. (2025, June 19). The Anti-Autocracy Handbook: A Scholars’ Guide to Navigating Democratic Backsliding. https://zenodo.org/records/15696097

Our World in Data. (2025). Less Democratic: Share of Population Living in Autocratic Regimes. https://ourworldindata.org/less-democratic

Chenoweth, E., & Stephan, M. J. (2011). Why civil resistance works: The strategic logic of nonviolent conflict. Columbia University Press.

Climate Litigation: A Growing Force in the Fight Against Climate Change



As the world faces increasingly severe climate impacts, governments and corporations are being held accountable through a surge of climate-related lawsuits. A recent study, Research Areas for Climate Litigation, conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) in September 2024, highlights the critical role of climate litigation in driving action where traditional policy-making has often fallen short.

The Rise of Climate Litigation

Since 2015, more than 1,800 climate-related lawsuits have been filed worldwide, with at least 230 new cases in 2023 alone. The United States, United Kingdom, and Australia have become the primary hubs for this legal activity, while other regions, especially parts of Africa, have seen limited litigation.

The UCS study emphasizes that this growing body of legal action requires strong scientific evidence to be effective. To that end, scientists and researchers are increasingly collaborating with legal teams to provide the necessary data, helping courts make informed decisions on climate cases. The study aims to bridge gaps between science and law by identifying key research priorities that can strengthen future litigation efforts.

Key Research Areas for Climate Litigation

The study highlights three priority research areas that are essential for advancing climate lawsuits:

  1. Attribution Science: This field connects specific climate impacts to particular sources of emissions. Courts need this science to establish a clear causal link between climate change and its effects, such as extreme weather events. The study calls for more geographically diverse research, particularly in regions like the Global South, where climate data is scarce.

  2. Climate Change and Human Health: Legal arguments are increasingly focusing on the health impacts of climate change. Vulnerable groups, including older adults, infants, people with disabilities, and those in poverty, are especially at risk from worsening air quality, heatwaves, and water scarcity. The study points to a need for more research linking climate change to health outcomes like asthma, cardiovascular diseases, and heat-related illnesses.

  3. Economic Modeling: Courts rely on economic data to assess the costs of climate change. This includes not only the direct damages caused by extreme weather events but also the costs of adapting to a changing climate and the economic opportunities lost due to inaction. The study calls for robust economic modeling that can predict future costs and benefits under different climate scenarios.

Strategic Research Areas for the Future

Beyond the priority areas, the study identifies five strategic research areas where further scientific evidence is needed to support climate litigation:

  1. Legal and Financial Accountability: Holding corporations accountable for their emissions, particularly in industries like fashion and cement, requires more detailed research on how financial institutions contribute to climate change by funding fossil fuel projects.

  2. Disinformation and Greenwashing: The study stresses the importance of exposing and countering misleading claims made by corporations about their environmental practices, which can mislead consumers and delay meaningful climate action.

  3. Fair Share Analysis and Compliance: Understanding whether corporations and nations are meeting their climate goals is critical. The study highlights the need for standardized emissions metrics and tracking, especially for corporations with complex supply chains.

  4. Environmental and Social Impacts: Research on how climate change affects ecosystems, biodiversity, and human communities—especially in remote regions with limited data—is vital for comprehensive environmental impact assessments.

  5. Emissions Accounting and Reductions: Courts need better methods for tracking and reducing emissions, particularly those related to the indirect effects of products, known as Scope 3 emissions. The study also calls for research into the effectiveness of renewable energy credits and other mitigation strategies.

Losses and Damages: A Cross-Cutting Theme

One of the study’s most important cross-cutting themes is losses and damagesthe economic and non-economic harms caused by climate change that can’t be prevented through adaptation or mitigation. The study calls for more research to quantify these losses, especially in terms of intangible cultural heritage, social structures, and ways of life. Understanding these losses is critical for communities seeking reparations for the damage caused by climate change.

Why This Study Matters

As climate litigation accelerates globally, the need for solid scientific research to support these cases becomes more urgent. The UCS study provides a roadmap for scientists looking to contribute to the legal battle against climate change by focusing on areas where their work can have the greatest impact. This research will not only improve the effectiveness of climate lawsuits but also push governments and corporations to take more meaningful climate action.

Summing Up

Climate litigation is emerging as a powerful tool in the fight against climate change. With over 1,800 lawsuits filed since 2015, the legal community is increasingly relying on science to prove the connections between climate change, its impacts, and the entities responsible. The Union of Concerned Scientists’ 2024 study highlights the critical research areas—such as attribution science, health impacts, and economic modeling—that will strengthen these legal efforts.

For those interested in how climate change is being addressed through legal channels, this study underscores the vital role that science plays in holding governments and corporations accountable. As the impacts of climate change worsen, the importance of this intersection between science and law will only grow.


Source: Merner, L. D., Phillips, C. A., & Mulvey, K. (2024). Research areas for climate litigation: 2024 report. Union of Concerned Scientists.

It is 100 seconds to midnight!

It is 100 seconds to midnight
Suzet McKinney, member of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists‘ Science and Security Board (SASB), and Daniel Holz, 2022 co-chair of the Bulletin’s SASB, reveal the 2022 time on the Doomsday Clock. Photo by Thomas Gaulkin/Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

Lack of actionable climate policies, continuing and dangerous threats posed by nuclear weapons, disruptive technologies, insufficient global COVID-19 response, and disinformation lead to a “mixed threat environment.”

On Thursday, January 20, 2022, the 75th anniversary of its Doomsday Clock (“Clock”), the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (“Bulletin”) announced that the Clock is set at 100 seconds to midnight, closer to midnight than ever in its history. This marks our second consecutive year with the Clock at 100 seconds to midnight.

The Doomsday Clock is a metaphor for how dangerous this moment is in human history. Since 1947, the Clock has symbolized how close humanity is to destroying itself with nuclear weapons, climate change, and disruptive technologies. The Clock’s time is set by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Science and Security Board with the support of the Bulletin’s Board of Sponsors, which includes 11 Nobel Laureates. Designed by painter Martyl Langsdorf, the Clock has become an international symbol of the world’s vulnerability to catastrophe. The Clock symbolizes danger, caution, hope, and our responsibility to one another.

[T]he Clock is not set by signs of good intentions but by evidence of action or, in this case, inaction. Signs of new arms races are clear.

—Scott D. Sagan, Ph.D., Caroline S.G. Munro Professor of Political Science, the Mimi and Peter Haas University Fellow in Undergraduate Education, and Senior Fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) and the Freeman Spogli Institute (FSI) at Stanford University, and member, Science and Security Board (SASB), Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Stuck in a perilous moment

The Doomsday Clock statement explains that the Clock remains the closest it has ever been to the civilization-ending apocalypse because the world remains stuck in an extremely dangerous moment.”

One hundred seconds to midnight reflects the Board’s judgment that we are stuck in a perilous moment—one that brings neither stability nor security. Positive developments in 2021 failed to counteract negative, long-term trends.

—Sharon Squassoni, co-chair of the Science and Security Board (SASB), Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and a research professor at the Institute for International Science and Technology Policy at George Washington University

We have an obligation and opportunity to fix these problems

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded in 1945 by Albert Einstein, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Eugene Rabinowitch, and University of Chicago scientists who helped develop the first atomic weapons in the Manhattan Project. The scientists felt that they “could not remain aloof to the consequences of their work” and worked to inform the public and policymakers about manufactured threats to human existence. The Bulletin was founded on the belief that because humans created these problems, we have the obligation and opportunity to fix them.

The Doomsday Clock continues to hover dangerously, reminding us about how much work is needed to be done to ensure a safer and healthier planet. We must continue to push the hands of the Clock away from midnight.

—Rachel Bronson, PhD, president and CEO, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Key recommendations to reverse the hands of the Clock

The 2022 Doomsday Clock statement lists steps to address the current threats. Below are key recommendations to reverse the hands of the Clock:

Climate change

  • The United States and other countries should accelerate their decarbonization, matching policies to commitments. China should set an example by pursuing sustainable development pathways – not fossil fuel-intensive projects – in the One Belt One Road initiative.
  • Private and public investors need to redirect funds away from fossil fuel projects to climate-friendly investments.
  • The world’s wealthier countries need to provide more financial support and technology cooperation to developing countries to undertake strong climate action. COVID-recovery investments must favor climate mitigation and adaptation objectives across all economic sectors and address the full range of potential greenhouse gas emission reductions, including capital investments in urban development, agriculture, transport, heavy industry, buildings and appliances, and electric power.
  • At every reasonable opportunity, citizens of all countries must hold their local, regional, and national political officials and business and religious leaders accountable by asking “What are you doing to address climate change?”

Biological risks

  • US and other leaders should work through the WHO and other international institutions to reduce biological risks of all kinds through better monitoring of animal-human interactions, improvements in international disease surveillance and reporting, increased production and distribution of medical supplies, and expanded hospital capacity.
  • National leaders and international organizations must devise more effective regimes for monitoring biological research and development efforts.

Nuclear weapons

  • The Russian and US presidents should identify more ambitious and comprehensive limits on nuclear weapons and delivery systems by the end of 2022. They should both agree to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons by limiting their roles, missions, and platforms, and decrease budgets accordingly.
  • The United States should persuade allies and rivals that no-first-use of nuclear weapons is a step toward security and stability and then declare such a policy in concert with Russia (and China).
  • President Biden should eliminate the US presidents’ sole authority to launch nuclear weapons and work to persuade other countries with nuclear weapons to put in place similar barriers.
  • North Korea should codify its moratorium on nuclear tests and long-range missile tests and help other countries verify a moratorium on enriched uranium and plutonium production.

Disinformation

  • Governments, technology firms, academic experts, and media organizations need to cooperate to identify and implement practical and ethical ways to combat internet-enabled misinformation and disinformation.

Other global threats

  • Russia should rejoin the NATO-Russia Council and collaborate on risk-reduction and escalation-avoidance measures.
  • Iran and the United States must jointly return to full compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and initiate new, broader talks on Middle East security, and missile constraints.

No one changes the world alone. We’re not all going to agree, but we have to work together. And together, we will get it done.

—Hank Green, New York Times best-selling author and science communicator

#TurnBackTheClock

The Bulletin is asking people to take the #TurnBackTheClock Challenge. The challenge encourages people to share their ideas to Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, or TikTok using the hashtag #TurnBackTheClock. Share stories and ideas about:

  • Positive actions that inspire
  • People or groups who are making a difference
  • Ways to help make the world safer

The format for submissions can include art, writing, videos, or song.

“We can no longer afford to focus all of our efforts on other perils to the exclusion of the biological threat. If we do, diseases and the lives they take will push the second hand on the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight.”

—Asha M. George, DrPH, executive director, Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense, and member, Science and Security Board (SASB), Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Since its inception, the Bulletin’s Doomsday Clock has been set closer and farther away from midnight. In 2020, Bulletin set the Clock the closest it has ever been to midnight 100 seconds. The Clock has been set as far away as 17 minutes to midnight at the end of the Cold War.


In conjunction with the Doomsday Clock’s 75th anniversary, the Bulletin published a new book, The Doomsday Clock at 75, about the history of the Clock and its massive influence on science, politics, pop culture, entertainment, comics, and art.