Why is there no ambitious climate action, even though there is scientific consensus on the seriousness of climate change and the importance of mitigation and adaptation? Although several scientists have stated that a rapidly changing climate is a threat to human civilization and modern societies? The cause may lie in the prevailing structures. Guided by LAB University of Applied Sciences, the ClimateGO project is on a mission to expose unsustainable structures and drive climate-smart decision-making in local governments.

Authors: Marjut Villanen & Hanna Suutari

There are several political and societal structures and practices that slow down the sustainability transition and climate action. One identified practice is climate obstruction. Climate obstruction is about questioning, delaying or downplaying climate action (Pietiläinen 2025). Several of the municipal actors in Päijät-Häme met by the ClimateGO project have encountered the phenomenon in their daily work. If climate obstruction takes over public debate and decision-making, there is a risk that the social acceptability of climate action will decrease and due to this action will slow down or stop altogether. (Pietiläinen 2025)

Climate denialism is perhaps the best-known form of obstruction, but climate realism is gaining momentum in Finland. Climate realism is a phenomenon where the prevailing conditions are defended, and the importance of large-scale climate action is questioned. (Pietiläinen 2025) To overcome climate obstruction, the prevailing economic and political power relations must be questioned, and societal structures must be reshaped on a sustainable basis.

Eight people—four women and four men—are seated in a semicircle engaged in conversation. Flags of Spain, Germany, and the European Union are visible on the right side

Image 1. Many regions in southern and central Europe have already experienced the severe impacts of climate change. Policymakers are committed to advancing climate-smart decisions. (Picture: Marjut Villanen)

Economic and political actors are at the heart of change

Current decision-making processes often give disproportionate influence to business interests and lobbyists, allowing economic concerns from a narrow group to overshadow broader societal and environmental priorities. Such groups include, e.g., business associations, firms, and trade unions. Although their activities are not based on climate denial, their lobbying nevertheless has the effect of either postponing or diluting climate-positive decisions. (Vesa et. al. 2020) Regulatory initiatives are frequently delayed or weakened due to claims that stricter obligations would harm industry competitiveness, lead to job losses, or drive companies abroad. This dynamic discourages policymakers from implementing essential measures—such as mandatory requirements to prevent and compensate for environmental damage—even when these actions serve long-term public and ecological interests. Continued inaction undermines sustainability goals and increases the risk of irreversible environmental degradation, which ultimately carries significant economic and social costs.

Another barrier to effective climate action is the persistence of environmentally harmful government subsidies. Recent discussions have highlighted support for fur farming, regional airports, and fossil fuel subsidies. Despite widespread public opposition to practices such as fur farming – both in Finland and across Europe – governing parties find it politically challenging to eliminate these subsidies (Siirilä 2024; Fur Free Europe 2025).

Conversely, government efforts to introduce corrective measures, such as reclassifying electricity tax categories for data centers or increasing mining taxes, have triggered strong resistance and lobbying from affected industries (Passoja 2025). This opposition further complicates the implementation of policies necessary for a sustainable transition.

The economic interest groups often operate out of the public eye, avoiding media exposure in favor of direct, behind-the-scenes lobbying. Their influence on climate-related decisions can be significant, which in turn reduces transparency and limits citizens’ ability to understand or scrutinize these decisions. (Vesa et.al 2020)

In public discussion companies often try to control what gets attention. Greenwashing is common especially in companies whose operations are particularly problematic from an environmental perspective (Hulkkonen 2023, 173). While most Finnish companies strive to act responsibly and in support of climate action, sometimes there is a fundamental contradiction between goals and actions. For example, in autumn 2024, forestry machinery caused extensive damage to river mussel populations, resulting in significant ecological harm to freshwater ecosystems (Polo 2025). Another environmental incident that recently gained public attention occurred in winter 2025, when a forestry machine destroyed a stream bed during clear-cutting operations (Talasterä & Kokko 2025).  After both incidents received significant public attention, the companies committed to participating in corrective measures and pledged to implement safeguards to prevent similar occurrences in the future. But the damage had already been done, the natural site in question had already suffered destruction.

Based on these examples, it is reasonable to ask whether sanctions and reputational damage are sufficient means of controlling companies’ climate action?  Now, it seems that the key incentives for companies to transform towards sustainability lie elsewhere. One potential policy measure could involve requiring companies to compensate for the environmental harm they cause, in line with the ‘polluter pays’ principle. Nature value markets binding on companies might support this kind of initiative. (Männynväli 2025)

In the end, everything rests on a cultural transformation

Successful climate adaptation and mitigation require cultural change. While it may sound naive, climate-smart decision-making gains momentum when leaders witness change unfolding around them. (Kaskeala 2025) Most people believe they are in the minority, although in fact there is a broad social acceptance for climate action. This is also the case in Finland. According to Finnish Nature Barometer 81% of citizens hope that municipalities will prepare more actively for the risks of climate change while 80% think that companies should be required to take action to reduce their climate emissions. (Valtioneuvosto 2025). To foster this public support and encourage climate-smart decision-making, it is crucial to recognize and openly discuss the drawbacks of climate obstruction and demand greater pluralism and transparency in lobbying practices.

Finally, there is no silver bullet for climate change, but the transformation lies in bigger and smaller changes in structures, thoughts and actions (Hulkkonen 2023, 174). Economic and political actors are at the heart of change, but the role of citizens must not be underestimated.

References

Fur Free Europe. 2025. European Citizen’s initiative Fur Free Europe. Cited 20th Nov. Available at https://www.eurogroupforanimals.org/fur-free-europe

Hulkkonen, M. 2023. Ilmasto-oivalluksia. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.

Kaskeala, N. 2025. LinkedIn. Cited 20th Nov 2025. Available at https://www.linkedin.com/posts/niklaskaskeala_jos-j%C3%A4%C3%A4mme-odottamaan-ett%C3%A4-rakenteelliset-activity-7393909716877348865-7B4y?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAASIctYBD7ImVLcGfheqPhoknKcylzVNCoM

Männynväli, E. 2025. Päättäjät toimivat kuin aikamme suurinta uhkaa ei olisikaan – mikä neuvoksi? Kansan uutiset. Cited 20th Nov. Available at https://www.ku.fi/artikkeli/5236248-paattajat-toimivat-kuin-aikamme-suurinta-uhkaa-ei-olisikaan-mika-neuvoksi

Passoja, A. 2025. Kaivosteollisuuden lobbaus ei tuottanut tulosta: kaivosvero nousee nelinkertaiseksi. Yle. Cited 20th Nov. Available at https://yle.fi/a/74-20184376

Pietiläinen, S. 2025. Ilmastoestäminen. Presentation in the meeting of the Päijät-Häme Climate Working Group on 28th Oct 2025.

Polo, A. 2025. Hukkajoen raakut olivat yksi viime kesän suurimmista puheenaiheista Suomessa – näin ne voivat nyt. Yle. Cited 20th Nov. Available at https://yle.fi/a/74-20177523

Siirilä, M. 2024. Turkistarhauksen lopettamista ajavan kansalaisaloitteen käsittely alkoi. Yle. Cited 20th Nov. Available at https://yle.fi/a/74-20124818

Talasterä, J. & Kokko, T. 2025. Avohakkuu tuhosi noron uoman Nastolassa – Versowood myöntää: ”Tämä on paha virhe”. Yle. Cited 20th Nov. Available at https://yle.fi/a/74-20188831

Valtioneuvosto. 2025. Tietoisuus luontokadon etenemisestä lisääntynyt, ilmastoratkaisut nähdään Suomelle mahdollisuutena. Cited 20th Nov 2025. Available at https://valtioneuvosto.fi/-/1410903/tietoisuus-luontokadon-etenemisesta-lisaantynyt-ilmastoratkaisut-nahdaan-suomelle-mahdollisuutena

Vesa, J., Gronow, A. & Ylä-Anttila, T. 2020. The Quiet Opposition: How the Pro-Economy Lobby Influences Climate Policy. Global Environmental Change. Vol. 63, 102-117. Cited 20th Nov. Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102117

Authors

Marjut Villanen works as an RDI Specialist at LAB University of Applied Sciences and as the Project Manager for ClimateGO, an Interreg Europe-funded project that promotes climate-smart decision-making.

Hanna Suutari works as an RDI Specialist at LAB University of Applied Sciences and as the Communications Manager for ClimateGO, an Interreg Europe-funded project that promotes climate-smart decision-making.

Illustration: Time is running out—climate decisions can’t wait. (Picture: Marjut Villanen)

Reference to this article

Villanen, M. & Suutari, H. 2025. What hinders climate action in Finland? LAB Pro. Cited and date of citation. Available at https://www.labopen.fi/lab-pro/what-hinders-climate-action-in-finland/