Some caution against declaring a climate emergency because it's purely a symbolic action that could provide cover for political inaction and, at worst, make climate change an even more partisan issue. Instead of fighting for a climate emergency, that effort would be better spent fighting for specific policies we can take right now, and finding bipartisan support for it. Making climate change into even more a political issue would make things worse.

It's not about climate change denialism—there absolutely is a climate emergency. Instead, it's about the most effective strategy to stop climate change and how you communicate that to the public.

Here's how Climate Change Communication Research Hub Director David Holmes made the argument against declaring a climate emergency:

1) Without bipartisan support, which is likely to be the case, it will further entrench the politicisation of climate change in Australia. Australians are already divided on anthropogenic climate change, and are increasingly afflicted by issue fatigue. This is precisely because climate change is thrashed about as a political issue (which turns on opinion) rather than a matter of physics (which turns on facts).

2) If such a conscience vote fails in parliament, it will marginalise any well-intentioned instigators as a partisan minority.

...

6) By far the most overwhelming problem with such a declaration is that politicians are the least trusted sources of information on climate change.

Is it okay to microwave fish? | The Tylt