Classifying climate change frames

This literature review results in a list of 11 frame sub-dimensions. In Table 1, the first column

“Frame from the discussed literature” records the frames the authors of the reviewed litera-ture (see third column) use in their research. The second column “Frame sub-dimensions from the discussed literature” contains the sub-dimensions the authors of the research iden-tified or defined for their analysis.

In the fourth column, all frames from the literature discussed (see first column) are set in the context of Entman’s (1993) definition. For example, “Climate change uncertainty”, “Frame of certainty”, and “climate change frame, scientific-uncertainty frame” refers – in Entman’s (1993) sense – to the frame element “problem definition” of the climate change issue. They define whether climate change is a problem or not. Identified manifestations such as those can be summarised in one or more sub-dimension of “problem definition”. Looking further at Entman’s (1993) “problem definition”, the literature examined provided the following elements: “Climate change is anthropogenic/is not anthropogenic”, “Ranges of projections, the presence of sceptical voices or duelling experts”, “Valid/uncertain/controversial science, ambitious cause or effects”, and “human-induced global warming is a direct cause of climate change, resulting in dramatic consequences”.

Coming from different authors, these elements of a climate change problem definition seem a bit inconsistent. To make them more uniform, they are redefined. The result is that Ent-man’s (1993) “problem definition” frame dimension included five frame sub-dimensions, i. e. “Climate change exists and is a problem” , “Climate change does not exist”, “Climate

2 Theory: Framing 45

change is a subject of controversial debate” , “Climate change exists, but is not a problem”,

“Climate change is not fully examined”.

This way, all the results from the literature are set in relation to Entman’s (1993) definition of framing including “problem definition”, “causal interpretation”, “moral evaluation”, and/or “treatment recommendation”. Because the results from the literature show that there are two different kinds of “causal interpretations” – one which prefers to refer to the causes, while the other refers to the effects of climate change – this aspect of Entman (1993) is divided into two: “causal interpretation (causes of climate change)” and “causal interpreta-tion (effects of climate change)”. This differentiainterpreta-tion is meaningful, because it differentiates between the origin of climate change and its consequences. The second meaningful change concerns Entman’s (1993) “moral evaluation”: The literature review shows that the moral aspect of climate change is connected with responsibility for the issue (see, for example, Arlt and Wolling 2012, Olausson 2009). Therefore, the term “responsibility” is more appropriate for the issue of climate change than Entman’s (1993) term “moral evaluation”.

Table 1: Clustering of frame sub-dimensions

Frame from warming is a direct cause of climate change, result-ing in dramatic conse-quences

the climate change frame is present, but there is room for climate-change

defini-tion Climate change exists and is a problem.

46 2 Theory: Framing

cli-mate change greenhouse gases, car/ve-hicle/automobile, fossil

Responsibility Industrial countries are responsible (historic such as the protection of coastlines as well as the conservation of forestry

rec-ommendation General reduction of greenhouse gases –

(2009) Something must be

done, in general.

2 Theory: Framing 47

Solutions energy conservation alternative energy renewable energy

Good (2008) Treatment

rec-ommendation Reduction of using fossil fuels

mitigation is framed as a transnational concern;

situations must be fought Olausson

(2009) Treatment

rec-ommendation Something must be done, in general.

Table 2 provides a summary of all the sub-dimensions which were deduced for this research on German and Australian climate change coverage. In the first column, it lists Entman’s (1993) defined frame elements, extended for this research on German and Australian climate change coverage as explained in the previous paragraphs. And, in the second column, it summarises all the frame sub-dimensions developed in Table 1/fifth column to provide a better overview.

Table 2: Results from the literature review – frame sub-dimensions for this research

Frame elements based

on Entman (1993) Frame sub-dimension for this research Problem definition - Climate change exists and is a problem.

- Climate change does not exist.

- Climate change is a subject of controversial debate.

- Climate change exists but is not a problem.

- Climate change is not fully examined.

Causal interpretation (causes of climate change)

- Natural causes - Destruction of forests - Emission of greenhouse gases

48 2 Theory: Framing

Frame elements based

on Entman (1993) Frame sub-dimension for this research Causal interpretations

(effects of climate change)

- Effects on nature: sea-level rise

- Effects on nature: results of warming, such as floods, drought etc.

- Effects on humans: water/food supply

- Effects on humans: climate change refugees/suffering of the poor - Effects on the economy: huge negative effects if we do nothing, less

neg-ative effects if we combat climate change

- Effects on the economy: economic problems including costs Responsibility - Everybody is responsible

- Developed countries are responsible Treatment

recommen-dation - Something must be done, in general

- General reduction of greenhouse gases – national focus - General reduction of greenhouse gases – international focus - Reduction of using fossil fuels

- Use of renewable energy

- Demand climate change policy – national - Demand climate change policy – international

- Take measures to mitigate the effects of climate change

What is more, Wolling and Arlt (2012), Good (2008) and Sheheta and Hopmann (2012), who analysed the social context of frames, provide a list of relevant senders of climate change frames: national government/politicians, scientists, economists and international ac-tors (for example, EU, IPCC).