Obstruction
Liz Rejane Issberner
Related terms: climate obstruction, climate change, science denialism, extractivism, neo-extractivism, tipping point, unsustainable system
The notion of ‘climate obstruction’ has crystallised in recent years as a comprehensive framework for understanding how powerful interests systematically impede the policy and behavioural shifts required to address global warming. Initially articulated by Ekberg, Forchtner, Hultman and Jylhä (2023), climate obstruction encompasses a spectrum of tactics – from outright denial of scientific evidence to more insidious delay strategies and ingrained cultural practices – that collectively sustain the fossil-fuel status quo despite clear warnings from scientists. These authors propose a tripartite typology: primary obstruction, which involves the active spread of misinformation and outright rejection of climate science; secondary obstruction, embodied in institutional, political and bureaucratic hurdles that slow or block legislation; and tertiary obstruction, the routine commercial and cultural behaviors that, even when not intentionally malicious, maintain existing emission-intensive systems (Ekberg, Forchtner, Hultman and Jylhä 2023).
As early as over half a century ago, experts began to sound the alarm about the dangers of climate change. However, despite these warnings, insufficient progress has been made in combating global warming. The fossil fuel sector, which is chiefly responsible for the increase in global emissions, is currently winning the war. Considering this, some researchers have established the Climate Social Science Network (CSSN) to address the perceived lack of action and the strategies of those responsible for climate obstruction. Since its establishment in September 2020, the CSSN has undergone rapid expansion, reaching a membership of nearly 500 academics from 35 countries. The primary objective of the CSSN is to furnish civil society organisations, researchers, litigants, and policymakers with detailed, systematic, and reliable information regarding the entities hindering climate action (Timmons; Brulle; Jacquet 2024)
According to Edwards et al. (2023), the notion of ‘climate obstruction’ is distinguished by its geopolitical specificity when the Global South is taken into account. It is argued that a shared but diverse responsibility should proactively influence the understanding and examination of climate obstruction in the nations of the Global South. Furthermore, the analysis should prioritise examining the contradictions between climate justice and obstruction.
Although the substantive issue shifts, the logic of obstruction proved equally illuminating when transposed to the challenge of protecting the Amazon’s socio-biodiversity. Here, ‘obstruction to the protection of the Amazon’ can be defined as the ensemble of organized practices, campaigns, and political measures – deployed by corporations, governments, agribusiness interests, criminal networks, and allied actors – that, whether directly or indirectly, delay, dilute, or derail laws and initiatives designed to conserve the Amazon’s unique social and ecological fabric whenever these measures conflict with narrow economic agendas (Issberner; Léna 2017). This definition mirrors the three tiers of climate obstruction, as outlined below.
Primary Amazon obstruction manifests in the dissemination of misinformation or doubt about ecological harm, whether by casting deforestation as a natural cycle or questioning Indigenous land rights, thereby undermining the legitimacy of conservation science itself.
Secondary Amazon obstruction operates through procedural and legal manoeuvres: for instance, Mato Grosso’s 2024 law revoking tax incentives for soy-moratorium participants was fast-tracked through state legislation, only to be upheld by Brazil’s Supreme Court in April 2025 – dealing a blow to one of the Amazon’s most successful voluntary conservation mechanisms (WWF 2024). Similarly, efforts by multinational soy traders to weaken the mid-2000s “Amazon Soy Moratorium” agreement illustrate how corporate lobbying can erode enforcement and reshape regulatory landscapes (WWF 2024).
Tertiary Amazon obstruction appears in everyday infrastructure and land-use decisions – such as large-scale mining concessions, hydroelectric dam projects, agribusiness expansion into soybean and cattle ranching, and road or port construction – that, while often framed as ‘development,’ institutionalize forest destruction and marginalize local communities over time (Berenguer et al., 2024).
Concrete examples underscore how deeply these obstructive logics are embedded. In late 2017, President Michel Temer abolished the 46,000 km² Renca ecological reserve – an area the size of Denmark. To appeal to the mining industry, this course of action has been met with significant criticism, with many deeming it to be the most substantial threat to the Amazon rainforest for half a century (Raftopoulos, 2024). More recently, Indigenous protesters have intermittently blocked key transport routes, such as the Transamazonian Highway, to oppose laws limiting land rights, leading to violent clashes and further disruptions of ecological defence mechanisms (Conafer 2025). At the same time, illicit gold mining networks, often backed by organised crime, continue to operate with impunity in remote areas, intimidating enforcement agents and accelerating mercury contamination of waterways (Castro et al. 2025).
By deploying the climate obstruction lens in the Amazon context, researchers can trace how disinformation campaigns, legislative capture and normalised extractivism form an integrated obstruction machine. Just as denial-and-delay tactics in climate politics have been meticulously charted by the CSSN, so too can mapping Amazon-focused networks reveal choke points in governance, highlight under-resourced guardians of protected areas, and expose the procedural vulnerabilities exploited by obstructionist coalitions. Such analysis not only enhances theoretical coherence across environmental domains but also informs targeted counter-strategies: strengthening procedural safeguards, empowering Indigenous and local governance, enforcing supply-chain transparency, and mobilising global finance to reward genuine conservation efforts.
Ultimately, defining ‘obstruction to the protection of the Amazon’ as a coherent phenomenon rooted in the established theory of climate obstruction allows for a holistic diagnosis of the barriers to both regional and planetary sustainability. By identifying primary, secondary, and tertiary obstruction tactics – and by uncovering the actor networks that perpetuate them – scholars, activists, and policymakers can develop integrated, participatory alliances capable of outflanking obstructionist forces and securing a more just and resilient future for the Amazon and the world.
References
Berenguer, E. et al. 2024. "Drivers and Ecological Impacts of Deforestation and Forest Degradation in the Amazon." Acta Amazonica 54 (spe1).
Castro, Aramis, Jonathan Hurtado, María Belén Arroyo, Julio Caicedo, María José Chitiva, Plínio Lopes, Bruno Abbud, and Alejandro Pérez 2025. "Amazon Under Siege: Drug Traffickers Control 72% of Border Areas." Sumaúma, April 10, 2025.
Conafer. 2025. "Ancestral Landmark: After Protests in Pará, STF Holds Meeting with Munduruku People About Land Demarcation." Conafer, April 3, 2025.
Edwards, G., P. K. Gellert, O. Faruque, K. Hochstetler, P. D. McElwee, P. Kashwan, et al. 2023. "Climate Obstruction in the Global South: Future Research Trajectories." PLOS Climate 2 (7): e0000241.
Ekberg, Kristoffer, Bernhard Forchtner, Martin Hultman, and Kristi M. Jylhä. 2023. Climate Obstruction: How Denial, Delay and Inaction Are Heating the Planet. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
Issberner, L-R, and Léna, P. eds. 2017. Brazil in the Anthropocene: Conflicts between Predatory Development and Environmental Policies. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
Lamb, William F., Giulio Mattioli, Sebastian Levi, J. Timmons Roberts, Stuart Capstick, Felix Creutzig, Jan C. Minx, Finn Müller-Hansen, Trevor Culhane, and Julia K. Steinberger. 2020. “Discourses of Climate Delay.” Global Sustainability 3: e17.
Plehwe, Dieter, Max Goldenbaum, Archana Ramanujam, Ruth McKie, Jose Moreno, Kristoffer Ekberg, Galen Hall, Lucas Araldi, Jeremy Walker, Robert Brulle, Moritz Neujeffski, Nick Graham, and Milan Hrubes. 2021. “The Mises Network and Climate Policy.” Policy Briefing, The Climate Social Science Network. July 2021.
Milani, Carlos R. S., and Mahrukh Doctor. 2023. “The Politics and Policies of Climate Change in Brazil: Mapping out the Field.” Brazilian Political Science Review 17 (3): -.
Roberts, J. Timmons, Robert Brulle, and Jennifer Jacquet. 2024. "Informing Strategic Climate Action: The Climate Social Science Network." Critical Policy Studies 18 (1): 150–59.
WWF Brasil. 2024. "In Brazil, Soy Producers Seek License to Deforest the Amazon." WWF Brasil, December 12, 2024.
Raftopoulos, M., & Morley, J. 2024. "Problematising Environmental Governance and the Politics of Natural Resource Sovereignty in Brazil". Globalizations, 1–20.