Discursive Work on Climate Change

A discursive approach to climate change has been used in a number of

different areas. One area that has proven particularly popular for this kind of analysis is the media. For example, Olaussen (2009) considers media framing of responsibility and collective action in the context of climate change. Among other points, he notes the ‘numerous similarities between media and international policy discourse on the issue of climate change’ (p.432). Doulton and Brown (2009), on the other hand, identify discourses of climate change and international development. They categorise eight different discourses in this area and compare their basic components. Both of

34

these studies use discourse analysis to investigate how climate change is constructed in the media.

Using the media for discursive research on climate change is useful for several reasons. In the modern world, it cannot be denied that the media exerts a great deal of influence on many political issues. For example, Herkman (2010) states: ‘there is a broad consensus about the inherent connection between today’s parliamentary politics and the media’ (p.701). This kind of influence is particularly important in the case of an issue like climate change. Doulton and Brown (2009) claim that the media is a

‘critical arena’ for climate change debate and that ‘what is written in the media influences public perceptions and thence policy: it matters’ (p.191). Similarly, Boykoff (2008) investigates climate discourse in the context of the media and argues that the media ‘significantly influence on-going public understanding of climate science and policy’ (p.550). A discursive approach is useful in this context because the discourses that are used in the media are influential in the establishment of dominant societal discourses. This is the material that people are exposed to on a daily basis. It is often where they find the ‘truth’ about the world. The media is also useful because the data is so readily available. It is a convenient context that offers an important perspective.

However, there are also some important weaknesses associated with analysis of the media. McCombs and Reynolds (2002) investigate the selection process for the publication of newspaper articles. They contend that the stories that are chosen are frequently the ones which will grab the attention of a reader. They claim that the

‘result is a limited view of the larger environment, something like the highly limited view of the outside world available through a small window’ (p.6). The selection of discourses is not only based on the reproduction and challenge of dominance; it is influenced by the need to sell newspapers. It could, of course, be argued that this in itself is an important consideration for discursive analysis. However, it introduces methodological problems for any project that carries out discursive climate research in this area.

Discursive research on climate change has also focused on politics and policy at a number of different levels. Lindseth (2004) researches the Cities for Climate

35

Protection Campaign (CCPC)⁵ and takes a constructivist approach to investigate ‘how CCPC has constructed the local level as a relevant geographical space for climate protection’ (p.326). Slocum (2004a) conducts a similar analysis of the CCPC campaign, which focuses on the discursive construction of citizens in local climate policy. At the international level, Methmann (2010) investigates the mainstreaming of climate change in world politics. He argues that global institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF employ particular climate discourses in order to implement

‘business as usual’ policy (p.369). Fletcher (2009) offers a similar discursive analysis at the national level, addressing the role of competing climate discourses in the construction of US climate policy.

These political contexts all offer important perspectives on the climate change problem. Hajer and Versteeg (2005) argue that discourses ‘delimit the range of policy options and thereby serve as precursors to policy outcomes’ (p.178). Given the importance of discourse in the construction of policy, it is vitally important to apply a discursive approach to the policy context. This is the context in which decisions about climate change are debated and agreed. In sum, media and politics are important areas for analysis and have both been researched quite extensively.

In addition to looking at the areas that have been researched it is also

important to note the kind of material that is being analysed. Studies have looked at

‘talk’ through methods such as interviews and participant observation and ‘text’ in published documents. For example, Lindseth (2004) and Slocum (2004a) both

analyse the construction of climate discourse in local policy but they analyse different types of material. Lindseth (2004) analyses ‘strategic documents’ that have been published by the CCPC campaign (p.326). Slocum (2004a) interviews ‘heads of city departments and NGOs that would have some connection with climate change’

(p.768). Although, the approach and the area for analysis is the same, these two studies can provide different perspectives based on the actual material they are analysing. Weingart et al (2000) combines the two approaches because he analyses scientific publications, but also carries out ‘extensive interviews with leading German climate researchers’ (p.263). His research provides an analysis of climate discourse in both ‘text’ and ‘talk’.

5 The CCPC campaign was a project born out of the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) which was set up in the 1990s. This global programme invited local councils to join together in tackling environmental issues at the local level.

36