Constructing the Problem of Climate Change

The problem of climate change ‘first emerged as an issue of public concern within the context of the environmental movements of the 1970s and 1980s’ (Jamison 2010, p.811). Over the past 40 years the issue has become increasingly prominent in scientific, political and academic debates. In the first instance, ‘the perception of climate change as something dangerous that must be avoided is established in the scientific discourse’ (Weingart et al 2000, p.267; emphasis in original). The problem of climate change originated in scientific disciplines and is presented in scientific language. Moreover, science has played a dominant role in the establishment of climate change as a political problem:

The speed with which scientific knowledge of climate change has been translated into an international diplomatic consensus is remarkable, if not unprecedented. It is testimony to the authority of science to provide legitimacy for political action (Demeritt 2001, p.307).

The scientific findings of the IPCC are acknowledged as an important part of the foundations for political consensus on climate change (UNFCCC 2012).

As an issue in today’s society, climate change can be located in a number of different discourses and the problem of climate change is constructed in a number of different ways. Science still plays a dominant role in this construction. In its most recent assessment report the IPCC stated that, ‘warming of the planet is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations in increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global sea level’ (IPCC 2007, p.30). Furthermore, this warming of the planet and the consequent changes in

61

climate are ‘very likely due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases’ (IPCC 2007, p.39; emphasis in original). Hence, there is a strong consensus that climate change is occurring and that it can be attributed to human activity (King 2004; McMichael 2006; Pittock 2009; Dessler and Parson 2010).

However, this is not the only position on climate change. In fact, in many ways, the issue is surrounded by controversy. Debate continues over whether or not there actually is a problem and, if there is, who should deal with it and how? The following sections will outline the construction of climate change as a problem. I will consider discourses of scepticism, pessimism, reform and revolution.

3.4.1 Scepticism: Not a problem

A frequent response to the problem of climate change is that there is no problem at all. This reaction can be categorised into two separate discourses: denial that climate change is happening and the construction of climate change as a good thing. Ereaut and Segnit (2006) analyse media in the UK, including newspapers, radio news clips and websites and note the presence of these discourses in modern society.

They distinguish between two types of scepticism: ‘Rhetorical scepticism’ which is a

‘non-expert discourse, but one that attacks the expert discourse as “bad science”’

(p.16) and ‘expert denial’, ‘characterised by a tendency to construct climate change as being predominantly caused by ‘natural’ (in other words, not man-made) factors’

(p.17). They also refer to the position that ‘proposes seriously that climate change brings benefits’ (p.18) – the ‘warming is good’ discourse. These discourses are variously acknowledged by other academics. Jamison (2010) reviews literature on

‘discourse’ and refers to an ‘oppositional position’ which is associated with ‘self-proclaimed sceptics’ and denial of the problem (p.811), while Doulton and Brown (2009) analyse broadsheet newspapers and describe a discourse of ‘optimism’:

‘viewing climate change as no problem for development, in fact, if anything, it is seen to be beneficial’ (p.194).

These discourses dispute the construction of climate change as a problem.

They have been drawn upon in many different contexts. Among the most prominent cases of climate change denial have been those associated with industry and ‘big business’. Historically, businesses have played a major role in efforts to prevent government regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. Hale (2010) claims that, ‘for

62

over a decade, the Global Climate Coalition opposed governmental action on climate change, and claimed to represent six million companies’ (p.260). This opposition was frequently based on denial of climate change as a problem. For example, van den Hove et al (2002) outline the role that the oil industry played in fighting against emission regulation, primarily through denial of the science (p.5). Similarly, governments (the US as a case in point) have rejected calls for a strong response to climate change on the basis of uncertain scientific knowledge (Grundmann 2007, p.422). Many commentators draw links between the reluctance to regulate emissions and ‘powerful carbon polluters’ short-term interest in squeezing out their profits and continuing to burn fossil fuels’ (Charman 2008, p.31). The features of neoliberalism are evident in the values and goals outlined in this account of the problem.

The denial of climate change has also been prominent in the media (Antilla 2005; Gavin and Marshall 2011) and is evident in surveys of the general public.

Bulkeley (2000) notes that participants in her research ‘expressed doubt and scepticism about the climate change knowledge that they received’ (p.329).

Scepticism about climate science amongst the general populous is variously attributed to factors such as a decrease in the ‘authority of science’ (Berkhout 2010, p.568) and a lack of trust in government and science (Hale 2010, p.256). Whatever the reasons for this construction of climate change it remains a discourse that is present in

society. Mckie and Galloway (2007) argue that discourses of scepticism have ‘fading salience’ and seem ‘increasingly futile’ (p.368). Despite this, the discourse remains and is an important discourse in the construction of climate change as a (non-) problem.

3.4.2 Pessimism: Too Big a Problem

A less prominent discourse is the pessimistic construction of climate change.

Climate change is constructed as a problem, but it is too big a problem for us to handle. This leads to discourses of ‘alarmism’ (Erenaut and Signit 2006), ‘alarmist defeatism’ (Hobson and Niemeyer 2011), ‘disaster strikes’ (Doulton and Brown 2009), ‘catastrophe’ (Lovelock 2006) and ‘looming tragedy’ (Dryzek 1997). Hulme (2008) claims that discourses of fear are the ‘increasingly dominant portrayal of anthropogenic global climate change’ (p.10). Links are being drawn between extreme weather events and changes in the global climate (Epstein 2005; Kafatos et al 2006).

Scientists refer to ‘tipping points’ (Pittock 2009, p.94) and ‘dangerous interference

63

with the climate system’ (Schneider 2004, p.256) while the media use ‘a quasi-religious register of doom, death, judgement’ (Erenaut and Signit 2006, p.13). This discourse acknowledges the problem of anthropogenic climate change but dismisses any action as futile. However, the response from the general public is often not consistent with the main messages of this discourse. While surveys report high levels of concern about the problem of climate change (Norton and Leaman 2004;

Lorenzoni and Pigeon 2006; World Bank 2010) this is seldom constructed as urgent, or even as the most important problem¹². Furthermore, according to survey data, concern about climate change is rarely constructed as a futile endeavour; most people believe that something can be done about it. Patchen (2010) collates a number of surveys to report on the efficacy of individuals in dealing with climate change. He states that in a 2006 survey of Americans, only 22% felt that it was not possible to reduce the effects of global warming at all (p.53).

A discourse of alarmism is interesting as a way to construct the problem of climate change. If we focus on the media then it does appear that the discourse is becoming increasingly dominant (Doulton and Brown 2009). However, the increase in media alarmism does not directly correlate to concern and resignation in other areas of society.

3.4.3 Reform: A ‘Glitch’ in the System

The constructions of climate change discussed in the previous two sections are consistent with the absence of any action to tackle the problem. These discourses deny that there is a problem, promote the benefits of climate change or reject the possibility that we can do anything about it. In any case, the result is that we do nothing differently. The opposite approach is that we do attempt to tackle climate change. However, the ways in which we attempt to deal with climate change are based on the construction of what the problem is. Starting from the assumption that some form of action is necessary and possibly efficacious, there are two fundamental ways in which the problem of climate change is constructed.

12 Norton and Leaman (2004) report that whilst the majority of Britons see climate change as the most important environmental issue, it is not considered the most important issue overall: ‘When asked which global issue –terrorism, global warming, population growth or HIV/Aids – poses the most serious threat, terrorism comes top by some margin. By a factor of almost 2:1, the public see terrorism as more important than global warming (48% vs 25%)’ (p.5).

64

The first construction in this context is that there is no fundamental problem with the current neoliberal system. There are simply some minor issues that must be addressed. In a purely neoliberal discourse, the relationship between the environment and the economy is one of conflict. However, discourses of reform contend that conflict exists only because there are some issues that have not been taken into account. For example, previously, the use of natural resources and carbon sinks was not considered as part of any standard economic calculations. Reformist discourses acknowledge that this is an important oversight in neoliberal economics. Climate change therefore becomes an ‘externality’, a cost that must be incorporated into the economic system so that the market can deal with it effectively. Janicke et al (2000) argue that, ‘every economic practice causes structural environmental stress in so far as without additional cleaning technology, it would cause actual environmental damage’ (p.133). If we can employ cleaning technology, we can avoid environmental damage and problems such as climate change.

Jamison (2010) acknowledges this construction of climate change as the

‘dominant position’. It is associated with belief in climate change and the promotion of ‘a substantial lowering of the emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and a transition to what has been termed a “low-carbon society”’ (p.811). We have not considered the damage we have done. Neoliberalism is not the problem. The problem is our failure to recognise the need for cleaner technology and market mechanisms that facilitate climate protecting products and behaviour. Once we recognise climate change as a problem we can address it within the context of neoliberalism.

3.4.4 Revolution: A Fundamental Problem

The alternative construction of climate change as a problem is what Jamison (2010) refers to as the ‘emergent position’. This construction accepts the problem of climate change, but stresses ‘the importance of dealing with climate change in ways that take issues of justice and fairness seriously into account’ (p.812). More

fundamentally, this construction challenges the entire system of neoliberalism and encourages completely different ways to tackle the problem.

The problem of climate change is not about market failures and ‘tweaking’ the neoliberal system. Rather, neoliberalism itself is constructed as the fundamental cause of the problem. The root causes of climate change are the pursuit of profit, limitless

65

growth and the self-interested orientation of individuals. Neoliberalism cannot be expected to solve the problem of climate change when these fundamental principles have not changed:

An abundance of eco-political measures are being considered and implemented. Yet the key principles governing western practices of production, circulation, exchange and consumption remain immutable.

The key principles of consumer capitalism, i.e. infinite economic growth and wealth accumulation, which ecologists have always branded as fundamentally unsustainable, remain fully in place (Bluhdorn and Welsh2007, p.187).

Lorenzoni et al (2007) support this position arguing that, ‘as an issue linked fundamentally to energy consumption, climate change challenges virtually every aspect of modern lifestyles and the prevailing paradigm to consume freely’ (p.454).

The problem of climate change is associated with energy consumption, accumulation and waste. Discourses of revolution argue that this construction of the problem is fundamental to the ways in which we must deal with it. Any viable solution to the problem of climate change must challenge the underlying assumptions of the system that created it.

The rest of the chapter will provide a systematic analysis of seven climate discourses that represent different ways of dealing with the problem of climate change. The analysis will be based on the six analytical categories outlined at the beginning of the chapter. The discourses will be situated in the context of

neoliberalism and categorised into discourses of reform and discourses of revolution.

This will reflect the two fundamental ways of constructing the problem.