The Democracy’s hangover is real– we might have sold our future for spectacle in a credibility crisis.

We reached a general agreement, long ago, that climate action, goodwill political action is a must, and research put forward what needed to be done. But boy or boy, girl or girl, haven’t politics done us some numbers? The levels of hypocrisy are unmatched. Never seen before. They now say that more research now points to the lack of meaningful climate action, but meaningful political action, with often confusing and counterproductive rhetoric filling the airwaves.[i] In recent times, social media is full of the talk; climate change action, and political action, to mean inaction really. Grand promises are made, ambitious targets set, and dire warnings are issued almost every second. In all of these, there is a vast gap between rhetoric and reality.

For instance, on cutting emissions, tree planting, and reduced consumption, we have filled the airwaves with more talk than action. Or is there concrete action? Do we see concrete action? Should I settle for; “the algorithm is hiding the action,” and hope that there is as much action as there is talk in solving this crisis? These aren’t strategic failure questions. I am questioning our character failure – one that creates a gulf between our ‘words’ and ‘deeds,’ and one which corrodes credibility within the climate movement.

Was it an illusion of choice? Did we vote ourselves into servitude?

Several climate summits in 2024 did great: – our democracy’s hangover cannot be overexplained. Countless speeches called for action, yet tangible progress was glaringly absent (of course, this is the politicians’ mandate). Delegates themselves embodied the dissonance between rhetoric and positive action. The hypocrisy only dilutes the urgency of the climate agenda, alienating a skeptical public now more attuned to such contradictions. Climate proponents must always lead by example, to show the rest of the population their honest and authentic climate action. Politicians do not need to do this to win. Stay with me!

The climate summits personified a far larger trend: the movement’s addiction to performative activism. For all the talk of transformational change, much was optics over substance.[ii] Funding and brand-building often dominated grassroot actions, opening up a worrying gap between rhetoric and reality.[iii] This discrepancy dramatically slowed progress and damaged the credibility of the movement’s persuasions.

Persuasion depends upon both central and peripheral processing. The former is critical evaluation of evidence, and the latter emotional cues and credibility.[iv] Persuasion is, therefore, a function of both central (critical evaluation of evidence) and peripheral (emotional cues and credibility) processing. If we are demanding reductions in emissions while flying frequently to parties, or asking for cuts in consumption while leading lavish lifestyles, then our credibility suffers.

Hypocrisy harms peripheral processing, which causes skepticism in the public, and this creates a message that is doomed to fail. When we lose credibility, this weakens peripheral processing, leading to public skepticism, which lowers the effectiveness of our message.[v] Politicians call us out on this, with no filters. They, politicians, are effective in their messaging, because they offer what they promise. Stay with me; a Taita oligarch promises Taitas’ employment and big public offices, and they do exactly this when they get to political power, of course to fellow Taita oligarchs. Who do you think wins? A Kalenjin?

Let’s think of a woman, a breadwinner, a dear mum to a ‘climate activist daughter’ who can’t find a job, and is always open to work on LinkedIn. She, daughter, of course, lives with her mum, a voter, in the driest areas of Taita. She, mum, from time to time, gets a glimpse of social media through her climate activist daughter. Mum always sees advocates flying to COPs’ posing in beaches, in airplanes with all sorts of burgers and drinks, and some two-three words, commonly ‘climate change action.’ Mum sees money spent here is 50% of total aid meant to help marginalized communities.

Tomorrow, a climate denier politician gives mum Kes 500/= for her vote, and they take it. The politician, during campaigns, employs the daughter as a ‘content creator.’ Think! Think! What else would mum have done? Climate-related aid has never reached her; she honestly doesn’t care about it. After all, floods and wildfires have always been there, they will always happen, it is nature (she heard this from the same politician who gave her the Kes 500/=).

The algorithm will always make sure that this woman only sees the apocalyptic world more often than paradise, more often than the greener cases in here and out there. To this woman, the meaning of our climate action message is dead on arrival, and this is only if the algorithm ever allows her to see the message anyway.

The most scientifically sound arguments are not persuasive without credibility-backing. Inaction, besides undermining moral authority, also erodes our positive messaging, and alienates potential allies. Our inconsistencies in messaging are self-betrayal of our common goal.

And now I ask, are we now stuck in Leviathan’s lament?

I mean, did we choose our chains? The year 2024 served as a tutorial on how authenticity trumps in the age of identity politics. Increasingly, people find common cause with others whose actions mirror their rhetoric.

How many times have we heard the statements: A Taita will vote for a fellow Taita. A drunkard will vote for a fellow drunkard. A racist will vote for a fellow racist. A white supremacist will vote for a white supremacist. A narcissist will vote for a narcissist. A Nazi will vote for a Nazi. These statements always keep stoking us everywhere we go, be it social media or social outside digital media. Do we reflect on these? Or, we just ignore, and move on?

I’m not mad, and certainly I am not making this up, just look at the trends. This is where politicians have outplayed us, no filters, exploiting deep-seated social norms that speak loudly within us but remain unspoken. They’ve mastered identity-targeting while we debate climate change ideologies.

It’s heartbreaking. With these divisive tactics, they seize power, undoing decades of progress with a single word. Did you see how Kenya’s deputy president practically retired within a month of interrogation between October and November 2024? Can societal problems really be solved that fast? Too sad, we’ll never know. And let’s not even start on what’s happening in the U.S., Europe, and beyond.

But here’s the real question: Are oligarchs stealing power, or are we handing it to them? Maybe they know us better than we know ourselves. So skilled at identity-targeting that we don’t even realize we’re the ones keeping them in control (It’s the same old tribalism story, ethnic politics). If that’s the case, then yes, we are indeed trapped in Leviathan’s lament (In Kenya, we call this handshake, even better, hand-check, cheque).

Funny how the loudest climate warriors fly business class to panel discussions on degrowth (Africa should go green, we fund you from coal-proceeds).[1] They chant about tipping points, systemic collapse, and evil capitalists, right before submitting their next funding proposal. Somewhere along the way, saving the planet became a branding opportunity, not a personal transformation.[2]

Meanwhile, those who quietly live within limits, whom aren’t even in social media, try to fix what they have, and believe in change from within, are asked to reduce consumption. Do you remember the Taita woman? The voter? The mother to the unemployed ‘climate activist daughter? They’re mocked as skeptics or out of touch, especially when they burn trees and sale charcoal, because the politician never created honest opportunities for their well-being. Maybe the real climate revolution won’t be televised because it doesn’t pay. Or hashtag well.[vi]

All the same, we should agree on this. That climate advocates often lose potential allies unnecessarily by they themselves seeming out of touch with the kinds of sacrifices they are demanding from others.

Calls to reduce the use of fossil fuels, for example, ring hollow if the advocates for such practices couldn’t show how, themselves, are practicing what they are preaching. That is the authenticity gap; one which places an enormous impediment on trust and realization of broad-based support. Research highlights trust to be central in fostering broad-based engagement with climate initiatives.[vii] Either listen, change, or perish. It is what it is…. Let’s try to blame the social media in the next section.

Because, truly, the double-edged sword of the media so-called “Social” implies that Oligarchs could have stolen our power

Social media platforms are both a powerful tool in the spread of climate messages and a medium that exposes the inconsistencies of the movement as we saw in 2024. On one side, it enabled fast dissemination of information. On the other side, social media amplified contradictions, exposing advocates to increased scrutiny.[viii] Algorithms prioritizing polarizing content further deepened divisions and eroded cohesive messaging. Some examples of this fragmentation involved influencers that encouraged climate conscious living but practiced the opposite; they did it for the money.[ix]

In storytelling, Noske-Turner and others (2024) argue that the audiences should be engaged, through crafting a single narrative, to make sense of a story across distinct media platforms, and not just one. Even so, the climate movement’s message in 2024 was dispersed across the various media platforms, leaving the audience disappointed.[x] The lack of unified storytelling further weakened the ability of the movement to rally widespread support.

Did we mobilize alienation? Did social-media amplify it by suppressing our actual message?

The repetitive use of apocalyptic rhetoric (for instance burning forests, drowning cities) mobilized existing believers, I believe, and alienated skeptics, and fatigued undecided audiences.[xi] It drowned our stories of progressive, grassroot actions and community-level initiatives. Research shows that humans are drawn to balanced narratives, recognizing the presence of challenges but spotlighting solutions.[xii] In promoting overwhelmingly a sense of despair, then, the climate movement, in 2024, inadvertently created a feeling of helplessness, consequently, making collective action much less likely.

The movement’s emphasis on performative activism brought forth other structural problems. Conferences, campaigns, and think tanks often privileged elite participation over inclusivity at the expense of the most vulnerable communities, often marginalized and the most in need due to climate change.[xiii] This exclusion perpetuated systemic inequalities and weakened the moral and practical legitimacy of the movement.

We might have indeed crowned our masters, and now they have taken us from a Republic to a Circus– What is the way forward?

The lessons of 2024 are clear: the climate movement must undergo a paradigm shift from rhetoric to action. Persuasion requires not only sharing information but also crafting and living the desired change. Advocates must embody the principles they call for and lead by example in their own lives, along with amplifying grassroots initiatives.

A cohesive transmedia narrative, balancing urgency with achievable solutions, could help rebuild trust. Inclusivity could also be a cornerstone of climate advocacy, ensuring that all of us are represented, and empowered to lead. Let’s open up our minds, join our heads, aspire to lead by example, and amplify a transformative potential of the climate movement. Let us remain steadfast and resilient in messaging, bearing in mind that the climate movement will gain real, broad-based engagement when it starts matching words with deeds. We don’t have to do all of these at once. We can start by taking baby steps, one by one, hopefully overcoming the credibility crisis, and finally realize the lasting change that we seek.

---

[1] Mac Donald, H. (2024, November 12). Green Grifters: Another elite-laden conference demonstrates the staggering hypocrisy of climate-change activism. City Journal. https://www.city-journal.org/article/green-grifters

[2] Posner, N. (2024, January 29). Environmental Activism: Eco or Ego? – Berkeley Political Review. Berkeley Political Review – UC Berkeley’s Only Nonpartisan Political Magazine. https://bpr.studentorg.berkeley.edu/2024/01/29/environmental-activism-eco-or-ego/

---

[i] King, T. A. (2024). Performing Transformative Climate Justice. In The Routledge Handbook of Grassroots Climate Activism (pp. 155-172). Routledge

[ii] Gill, M. (2024). Hypocrisy, authenticity, and the rhetorical dynamics of populism. The Pragmatics of Hypocrisy, 343, 98

[iii] Farias, G., Landrum, N. E., Farias, C., & Krysa, I. (2024). Explorations in organized hypocrisy and a proposed direction for a sustainable future. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 15(1), 1-22

[iv] Lazard, A., & Atkinson, L. (2015). Putting environmental infographics center stage: The role of visuals at the elaboration likelihood model’s critical point of persuasion. Science Communication, 37(1), 6-33

[v] Bolsen, T., Palm, R., & Kingsland, J. T. (2019). The impact of message source on the effectiveness of communications about climate change. Science Communication, 41(4), 464-487

[vi] Mac Donald, H. (2024, November 12). Green Grifters: Another elite-laden conference demonstrates the staggering hypocrisy of climate-change activism. City Journal. https://www.city-journal.org/article/green-grifters

[vii] Lteif, L., Nardini, G., Rank‐Christman, T., Block, L., Bublitz, M. G., Catlin, J. R., & Peracchio, L. A. (2024). Climate action now: How to fuel a social movement. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 34(1), 119-139

[viii] Doo, F. X., Vosshenrich, J., Cook, T. S., Moy, L., Almeida, E. P., Woolen, S. A., … & Hanneman, K. (2024). Environmental sustainability and AI in radiology: a double-edged sword. Radiology, 310(2), e232030

[ix] Noske-Turner, J., Sivaram, N., Kalley, A., & Hiremath, S. (2024). Subversive Recipes for Communication for Development and Social Change in Times of Digital Capitalism. Social Sciences, 13(8), 393

[x] Gounaridis, D., & Newell, J. P. (2024). The social anatomy of climate change denial in the United States. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 2097

[xi] Paur, S. (2024). Grammars of Nature: Rhetoric, Climate Change, and Ecological Class Consciousness

[xii] Powell, R. C. (2024). Environmentalism Without Foundations: Climate Change, Mystical Experience, and the Challenge of Environmental Justice. Ethics & the Environment, 29(2), 57-88

[xiii] Paur, S. (2024)